tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38923752558446264652024-03-05T19:36:42.508-08:00The Unexpected SocialistThe unexpected socialisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09268267206158594574noreply@blogger.comBlogger35125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3892375255844626465.post-8583503393884653132020-05-03T14:56:00.003-07:002020-05-07T15:07:15.286-07:00Coronavirus - how has the UK done? (Part 2)<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , sans-serif; line-height: 107%;"> </span><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; line-height: 107%;"> This is part two of a blog on the result, the outcomes as
best we can measure at the moment of how our government has responded to the
developing Coronavirus pandemic. If you haven’t read the first part, this may
make little sense. By way of an introduction, I’m considering the outcome of
the decisions made against a very singular metric – how many people died in the
first 5 weeks of the crisis. More information on why has already been covered.
But before you go any further, there should be some warnings around limitations
of data. I have compared the UK as broadly comparable to 4 other countries on
this metric. But no two countries are identical, although they are all
developed European economies with similar social structures and demographics.
Additionally, I am using the best statistics available to me. These are not
perfect and in the future better understanding will come of the comparisons.
But that won’t be reported in the news. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; line-height: 107%;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>Now I have
got that out of the way, what does the metric show us?<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="MsoNormalTable" style="border-collapse: collapse; mso-padding-alt: 0cm 0cm 0cm 0cm; mso-yfti-tbllook: 1184;">
<tbody>
<tr style="mso-yfti-firstrow: yes; mso-yfti-irow: 0;">
<td style="border: solid windowtext 1.0pt; padding: 0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt; width: 261.4pt;" valign="top" width="349"><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , sans-serif;">Country</span><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
</td>
<td style="border-left: none; border: solid windowtext 1.0pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid windowtext 1.0pt; padding: 0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt; width: 261.4pt;" valign="top" width="349"><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , sans-serif;">Deaths
per 1,000 population in first 5 weeks</span><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
</td>
</tr>
<tr style="mso-yfti-irow: 1;">
<td style="border-top: none; border: solid windowtext 1.0pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext 1.0pt; padding: 0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt; width: 261.4pt;" valign="top" width="349"><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , sans-serif;">UK</span><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
</td>
<td style="border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-left: none; border-right: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-top: none; padding: 0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt; width: 261.4pt;" valign="top" width="349"><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , sans-serif;">0.38</span><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
</td>
</tr>
<tr style="mso-yfti-irow: 2;">
<td style="border-top: none; border: solid windowtext 1.0pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext 1.0pt; padding: 0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt; width: 261.4pt;" valign="top" width="349"><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , sans-serif;">Spain</span><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
</td>
<td style="border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-left: none; border-right: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-top: none; padding: 0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt; width: 261.4pt;" valign="top" width="349"><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , sans-serif;">0.37</span><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
</td>
</tr>
<tr style="mso-yfti-irow: 3;">
<td style="border-top: none; border: solid windowtext 1.0pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext 1.0pt; padding: 0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt; width: 261.4pt;" valign="top" width="349"><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , sans-serif;">France</span><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
</td>
<td style="border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-left: none; border-right: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-top: none; padding: 0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt; width: 261.4pt;" valign="top" width="349"><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , sans-serif;">0.29</span><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
</td>
</tr>
<tr style="mso-yfti-irow: 4;">
<td style="border-top: none; border: solid windowtext 1.0pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext 1.0pt; padding: 0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt; width: 261.4pt;" valign="top" width="349"><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , sans-serif;">Italy</span><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
</td>
<td style="border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-left: none; border-right: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-top: none; padding: 0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt; width: 261.4pt;" valign="top" width="349"><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , sans-serif;">0.26</span><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
</td>
</tr>
<tr style="mso-yfti-irow: 5; mso-yfti-lastrow: yes;">
<td style="border-top: none; border: solid windowtext 1.0pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext 1.0pt; padding: 0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt; width: 261.4pt;" valign="top" width="349"><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , sans-serif;">Germany</span><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
</td>
<td style="border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-left: none; border-right: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-top: none; padding: 0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt; width: 261.4pt;" valign="top" width="349"><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , sans-serif;">0.05</span><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody></table>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; line-height: 107%;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>On this
basis, the UK has had worse results than other European neighbours in dealing
with the virus. I have already looked at two areas that governments could
impact: Health service capacity and resilience; and speed and scope of social
distancing measures. In both cases, mistakes were made. Those mistakes have
almost certainly cost lives. But the other things I want to consider in this
blog were provision or Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) and testing
strategies for Coronavirus.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; line-height: 107%;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span><u>Provision
of Personal Protective Equipment<o:p></o:p></u></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; line-height: 107%;"><u><br /></u></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; line-height: 107%;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>As
previously mentioned the UK had planned for an epidemic such as Coronavirus and
how our healthcare system would cope. It was called Exercise Cygnus and took
place in 2016. The results of the exercise have remained classified. However,
at the time some information did come out, via we must assume approved news,
from the Chief Medical Officer. They were stark warnings. In the event of a flu
pandemic the UK would be short of three things: ventilators, PPE and capacity
to dispose of bodies. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; line-height: 107%;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>This led
to a lot of planning by NHS England. Top of that list was that NHS Trusts
needed to be better prepared. We needed more PPE. We needed more ventilators.
We needed a better way to properly look after those who died. In order to put
this in place the NHS needed something that was becoming increasingly short. It
needed the money to buy these things. No extra funding came from the
government. NHS chief executives were left with an obvious choice really. As
budgets became more and more restricted due to austerity and government set
targets were missed and services and trusts started to fail financially. Use the
budget you already have to try to keep services running now to the best of your
ability OR spend that budget on the possibility of a future pandemic. Which
would you do? <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; line-height: 107%;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>Coming
into this crisis we did not have enough PPE. This was because the Conservative
government of the day chose not to provide any more funding. Interestingly a
lot of media outlets sympathetic to the conservatives have tried to blame this
on NHS executives. I find this hard to swallow and incredibly low. What were
they meant to but it with? Hope and charm?<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; line-height: 107%;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>PPE is
incredibly important because, as Italy found out very swiftly, without doctors
and nurses you can have a surplus of ventilators but no-one to run them if they
too have caught Coronavirus. In this country we are rightly proud and
protective of our NHS. It is truly a shining example of socialism working. In
fact since the start of UK lockdown measures we have had a weekly round of
applause for our NHS workers. Everybody feels and knows it implicitly in this
country. We rely on and owe the NHS and its staff so much. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: left; text-indent: 36pt;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; line-height: 107%;">But this must include that we
owe keeping them safe where possible. Even for those who don’t believe in the
NHS it is a simple equation in a time of pandemic – fewer healthcare
professionals mean each of us is at greater risk. Therefore PPE to keep them
safe must be paramount. What did the government do when they knew more money
was needed to pay for PPE a WHOLE 3 YEARS AGO? Provided no additional funding.
Who have media outlets tried to blame? NHS executives. In June of last year a
governmental body again warned the government that there was no stockpile of
PPE and this left us open to the threat. The government again did nothing. We
should be rioting in the streets over this betrayal. Once it is safe to do so,
obviously. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: left; text-indent: 36pt;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: left; text-indent: 36pt;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; line-height: 107%;">What is just as heinous is the
handling of this shortage by the government of today. It may be the same party,
but you can possibly see the argument of “it was different ministers then”. As
soon as this happened our government should have done everything, and I mean
everything, in its power to source additional PPE. Surely at least they have
done that? <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: left; text-indent: 36pt;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: left; text-indent: 36pt;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; line-height: 107%;">On March 25<sup>th</sup>, when
the howls of outrage were starting to really wing out and hit the politicians
in Westminster, Boris Johnson said this:<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: left; text-indent: 36pt;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; line-height: 107%;">“On the personal protective equipment
the answer is by the end of this week.”<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: left; text-indent: 36pt;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: left; text-indent: 36pt;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; line-height: 107%;">That is the sort of bold,
definitive promise that we all want to hear from our politicians. Measurable,
reassuring, no nonsense. More media coverage followed to reinforce this determination.
And by the way, this promise was not JUST that the NHS would have the PPE it
needed. This was a promise that care homes as well as the NHS would have all
the PPE needed to keep staff safe. In fact Matt Hancock was able to trumpet that
997 MILLION items of PPE had been handed out. Outstanding delivery. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: left; text-indent: 36pt;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: left; text-indent: 36pt;">
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 36.0pt;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; line-height: 107%;">Except, of course, that the
target wasn’t met. The truth is that a survey by the British Medical
Association (who know a thing or two about healthcare and PPE) on the 18<sup>th</sup>
April – 3 weeks later found that half of doctors working in high risk of
infection areas reported a shortage of PPE. The situation is far, far worse in
the overwhelmingly privatised care sector. The Royal College of Nurses has told
members that as a last resort if there is insufficient PPE they can refuse to
treat a patient. Just pause and think about that scenario. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: left; text-indent: 36pt;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: left; text-indent: 36pt;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; line-height: 107%;">And it is not as if getting
PPE right now is an easy thing. There is a worldwide shortage. Every country is
trying to source PPE of the right type. Well, every country except those who
planned in advance and built a stockpile when told to by medical experts,
obviously. We, along with other countries need billions of items of PPE. And
PPE covers a wide variety of items. It must be the right PPE for the right use.
<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: left; text-indent: 36pt;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: left; text-indent: 36pt;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; line-height: 107%;">What about the almost 1
billion items distributed? Well, it turns out that of those 1 billion items,
50% of them were surgical gloves. So that leaves 500 million items to cover
masks, gowns, eye protection etc. Oh, and the gloves were not pairs. They were
individual gloves. Now, unless Doctor Richard Kimble was on to something and
there are a fuck-load of one-armed men running around the NHS individual gloves
are a mis-counting by any standard. Still, ignoring that the Secretary of State
for Health tried to pull the wool over the eyes of the public on that particular
topic, there must be a reason we are doing so badly.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: left; text-indent: 36pt;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: left; text-indent: 36pt;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; line-height: 107%;">For many of us, we would
possibly focus on supply chain problems. 36 individual companies, many of whom
are specialist manufacturers of PPE, have complained that they have approached
the government but been ignored. This is not that surprising for people who
have had involvement with government procurement. The government didn’t sign up
to a European-wide initiative to buy PPE because, using the official language,
of a “communications error”. How much communication is involved? “Would you
like to join?”, “Yes please”. But as it turns out, if you believe the
government’s own line there is another culprit. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: left; text-indent: 36pt;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: left; text-indent: 36pt;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; line-height: 107%;">The focus for the Secretary of
State’s commentary on the shortage? That doctors and nurses are using too much
of it. Yes, that is right. It is not the fault of a government that failed to
stockpile despite being told twice to do so. It is not the fault of a supply
chain that everyone knows is failing in lots of places. It is the fault of the
same doctors and nurses who Conservative politicians are out on their doorsteps
applauding every Thursday night. The same NHS staff who have lost over 100
colleagues to Coronavirus. How many of those would still be alive with the
correct PPE?<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: left; text-indent: 36pt;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: left; text-indent: 36pt;">
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 36.0pt;">
<u><span style="line-height: 107%;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Testing for Coronavirus<o:p></o:p></span></span></u></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 36.0pt;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 36.0pt;">
<span style="line-height: 107%;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">At a press conference in front
of the world’s press on the 16<sup>th</sup> March – 5 days before the UK went
in to lockdown – the Director General of the WHO made it clear. The most
important tool, in their view, to arrest the spread of the disease was: <o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 36.0pt;">
<span style="line-height: 107%;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 36.0pt;">
<span style="line-height: 107%;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">“Our key message is: test,
test, test”.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 36.0pt;">
<span style="line-height: 107%;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 36.0pt;">
<span style="line-height: 107%;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Now, that is easier said than
done. For a start, that means that you have to have the capacity and capability
– including the right resources – to actually perform testing. Quite simply,
the UK had never needed to have that capacity before and was unprepared. It
would be easy to accept this as an obvious rationale for why we didn’t test more.
I am not a scientist or healthcare professional. I can’t tell you what
chemicals, equipment and laboratory space is needed to perform these tests. Not
many people are. Of course, this explanation falls down when you look at a very
close comparison. <o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 36.0pt;">
<span style="line-height: 107%;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 36.0pt;">
<span style="line-height: 107%;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Germany, who had cases around
the same time as the UK, were able to implement track and trace testing and
target community transmission. They were able to ramp up their testing from
none to 500,000 tests a week in the first two months. Not only that, but they
used a system of track and trace. Anybody who tested positive was isolated,
their contacts ascertained and isolated and tested. Any who were found positive
- their contacts ascertained and isolated and tested etc. etc. By focussing on
positive tests and then targeting outbreaks in this way Germany has managed to
have, based on the measure I have used, had far and away the best outcomes.
Similar results have been seen in other countries who have taken this approach.
South Korea is a good example – but they had suffered because of the MERS
outbreak a number of years ago. They had experience and new what to do. Germany
copied their approach. For some reason, we didn’t.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 36.0pt;">
<span style="line-height: 107%;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 36.0pt;">
<span style="line-height: 107%;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">To put into context the
differences, by the time Germany had capacity for 70,000 tests a week, the UK
had increased capacity at the same time to 5,000 a day. Hardly comparable. Not only that, but on March 13<sup>th</sup>
the government made the decision to stop testing for Coronavirus outside of
hospitals. Consider that for a moment. At a crucial point in the battle, when
we had evidence to compare from different countries on which strategies worked
best, we chose to stop following the most effective one. In fact even the Chief
Scientific Officer, Deputy Chief Medical Officer and the Security Minister have
all accepted that this was a mistake and we could have had better outcomes if
we had ramped up testing much more quickly. The question that must be answered
then is why? Why didn’t we increase testing capacity when other European
countries were able to? Why did we stop track and trace when we did? Even Italy
– who were held out as an example of what not to do – had managed 2.2 million
tests by the end of April – 1.5 times what the UK had managed.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 36.0pt;">
<span style="line-height: 107%;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 36.0pt;">
<span style="line-height: 107%;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">The Prime Minister himself
appeared to understand how important testing and testing capacity was when he
promised in early March (when testing was around 5,000 per day) that this would
be ramped up to 25,000 and then 250,000. Of course, he never gave a timeline
for this but this shows clear intent. Does this mean it was ineptitude rather
than ignorance that led to our woeful testing regime? I would hope that any
inquiry would look at that – but I wouldn’t hold your breath for an inquiry to
hold a Conservative government to account. If you are still able to hold your
breath that is. <o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 36.0pt;">
<span style="line-height: 107%;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 36.0pt;">
<span style="line-height: 107%;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Obviously, the government
would need to explain this. On March 31<sup>st</sup> the daily government press
briefing made it clear what the problem with increasing testing was. There was
a global lack of the chemical reagents needed to perform the tests. This was
hampering the UK effort. Which makes me wonder – why didn’t Germany have the
same problem? What had they done that we hadn’t? After all, they are only a
short hop over the North Sea (or Nordsee coming the other way). What did we
fail to do or what did they succeed in that we didn’t. <o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 36.0pt;">
<span style="line-height: 107%;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 36.0pt;">
<span style="line-height: 107%;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">As the clamour and cry got
louder, and the original target from the Prime Minister was forgotten, a truly
unusual and remarkable thing happened. The government set a target for the
number of tests to be performed, with a deadline attached. The target was that
100,000 tests per day would be delivered by the end of April. This sort of
thing – a government giving a way to be held to account – seems like a novelty.
The politicians we have had for 30 years or more have been far too clever and
sneaky to do this. Was this finally some honest politics?<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 36.0pt;">
<span style="line-height: 107%;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 36.0pt;">
<span style="line-height: 107%;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">It would be refreshing to
think so. Unfortunately, I think this has been the very opposite. And at the
time, it must have seemed a very astute thing to do. Matt Hancock gave himself
28 days from the 2<sup>nd</sup> April to get the number of Covid19 tests up to
100,000 a day from 10,000 a day at the time. Increasing our testing ten-fold
over the space of a month. A definite and gargantuan effort that would be
admired when it was achieved, surely? Or does it raise more questions and hide
a multitude of sins? Firstly, why 100,000 tests a day? There is no scientific
basis for this, no magic limit we must pass as a country to get back in
control. Even that capacity would be only 20% of the testing capacity Germany
had mustered to get in control of the disease. <o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 36.0pt;">
<span style="line-height: 107%;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 36.0pt;">
<span style="line-height: 107%;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Why then? 100,000 a day from
10,000 a day. Amazing. Of course one of the other things that a statistic like
this and a target like this does is focus your mind. But to focus you on one
thing means that you are no longer focussed on other things. Even if they are
more important. This target meant that people no longer focussed on the number
of people tested IN TOTAL. Or on which groups got priority testing. That means
that the news isn’t reporting on the fact that by the 28<sup>th</sup> April the
UK had still only tested 763k people IN TOTAL compared to Germany’s 2,547k – or
one third as many. Or that we had carried out less tests than Italy, Spain and around
the same as France on 724k. So whilst we were focussing on tests per day, we
were still falling behind in total. One problem with this measure you might
argue is obvious – that those countries have different populations. Actually,
if anything, that makes it worse. If we rank order countries by number of tests
performed compared to population and add it to the table above:<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 36.0pt;">
<span style="line-height: 107%;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></span></div>
<table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="MsoNormalTable" style="border-collapse: collapse; mso-padding-alt: 0cm 0cm 0cm 0cm; mso-yfti-tbllook: 1184;">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td style="border: solid windowtext 1.0pt; padding: 0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt; width: 181.15pt;" valign="top" width="242">
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Country<o:p></o:p></span></div>
</td>
<td style="border-left: none; border: solid windowtext 1.0pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid windowtext 1.0pt; padding: 0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt; width: 183.5pt;" valign="top" width="245">
<div align="right" class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: right;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Deaths per 1,000 population in first 5 weeks<o:p></o:p></span></div>
</td>
<td style="border-left: none; border: solid windowtext 1.0pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid windowtext 1.0pt; padding: 0cm 0cm 0cm 0cm; width: 157.65pt;" valign="top" width="210">
<div align="right" class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: right;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Tests per 1,000 population by 28<sup>th</sup>
April<o:p></o:p></span></div>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="border-top: none; border: solid windowtext 1.0pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext 1.0pt; padding: 0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt; width: 181.15pt;" valign="top" width="242">
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Italy<o:p></o:p></span></div>
</td>
<td style="border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-left: none; border-right: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-top: none; padding: 0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt; width: 183.5pt;" valign="top" width="245">
<div align="right" class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: right;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">0.26<o:p></o:p></span></div>
</td>
<td style="border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-left: none; border-right: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-top: none; padding: 0cm 0cm 0cm 0cm; width: 157.65pt;" valign="top" width="210">
<div align="right" class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: right;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">30.6<o:p></o:p></span></div>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="border-top: none; border: solid windowtext 1.0pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext 1.0pt; padding: 0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt; width: 181.15pt;" valign="top" width="242">
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Germany<o:p></o:p></span></div>
</td>
<td style="border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-left: none; border-right: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-top: none; padding: 0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt; width: 183.5pt;" valign="top" width="245">
<div align="right" class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: right;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">0.05<o:p></o:p></span></div>
</td>
<td style="border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-left: none; border-right: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-top: none; padding: 0cm 0cm 0cm 0cm; width: 157.65pt;" valign="top" width="210">
<div align="right" class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: right;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">29.1<o:p></o:p></span></div>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="border-top: none; border: solid windowtext 1.0pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext 1.0pt; padding: 0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt; width: 181.15pt;" valign="top" width="242">
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Spain<o:p></o:p></span></div>
</td>
<td style="border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-left: none; border-right: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-top: none; padding: 0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt; width: 183.5pt;" valign="top" width="245">
<div align="right" class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: right;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">0.37<o:p></o:p></span></div>
</td>
<td style="border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-left: none; border-right: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-top: none; padding: 0cm 0cm 0cm 0cm; width: 157.65pt;" valign="top" width="210">
<div align="right" class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: right;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">28.9<o:p></o:p></span></div>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="border-top: none; border: solid windowtext 1.0pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext 1.0pt; padding: 0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt; width: 181.15pt;" valign="top" width="242">
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">UK<o:p></o:p></span></div>
</td>
<td style="border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-left: none; border-right: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-top: none; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext 1.0pt; padding: 0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt; width: 183.5pt;" valign="top" width="245">
<div align="right" class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: right;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">0.38<o:p></o:p></span></div>
</td>
<td style="border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-left: none; border-right: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-top: none; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext 1.0pt; padding: 0cm 0cm 0cm 0cm; width: 157.65pt;" valign="top" width="210">
<div align="right" class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: right;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">11.2<o:p></o:p></span></div>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="border-top: none; border: solid windowtext 1.0pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext 1.0pt; padding: 0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt; width: 181.15pt;" valign="top" width="242">
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">France<o:p></o:p></span></div>
</td>
<td style="border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-left: none; border-right: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-top: none; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext 1.0pt; padding: 0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt; width: 183.5pt;" valign="top" width="245">
<div align="right" class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: right;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">0.29<o:p></o:p></span></div>
</td>
<td style="border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-left: none; border-right: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-top: none; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext 1.0pt; padding: 0cm 0cm 0cm 0cm; width: 157.65pt;" valign="top" width="210">
<div align="right" class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: right;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">11.1<o:p></o:p></span></div>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody></table>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 36.0pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 36.0pt;">
<span style="line-height: 107%;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">100,000 tests per day. It may
feel like a bold target. But just perhaps it was a clever distraction tool. Of
course the reason that politicians very rarely give such targets is simple – if
you miss it you might be held to account. But with 28 days surely we would
achieve it. According to the government we did. On the 30<sup>th</sup> April
and the 1<sup>st</sup> May the government proudly announced that we had
performed over 100,000 tests on each of those days. Well, kind of met it.
Because what the Department of Health and Social Care had to do, in order to
even meet the target for those two days was not only count tests actually
performed, but include tests sent out in the post to people. <o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 36.0pt;">
<span style="line-height: 107%;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 36.0pt;">
<span style="line-height: 107%;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Some might argue that this was
a reasonable measure. Certainly government ministers were willing to stand
behind these figures as evidence of meeting their target. I don’t believe the
vast majority of people see it that way. For most of us a test for a disease
does exactly that. It isn’t that you have received a test kit in the post. It
is that something has been carried out that will tell the person taking the
test whether they are infected or not. We don’t give qualifications to people
because they are in the exam hall. They must be tested. Once that target had
been set, there was no way that the government could miss it. No matter what,
they would find some way to be able to say they had. I expected to see queues
of military personnel that day lined up to be tested. Nice to know that the
government found a cheaper and easier way to lift the tests performed figure of
80,000 above their magical threshold.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 36.0pt;">
<span style="line-height: 107%;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 36.0pt;">
<span style="line-height: 107%;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Even if you are convinced that
the government met that target – it was for two days only. Since that point it
has failed for 5 consecutive days to repeat it. Quite simply, anyone who would
believe they hit that target and it had an impact has been conned. The language
of the latest announcements is all about the targets for testing “capacity”.
But having capacity and actually testing are not the same. I have the capacity
to reach a million readers. The fact that it is more like 300 is a much more telling
statistic. This is another broken target. <o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 36.0pt;">
<span style="line-height: 107%;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 36.0pt;">
<span style="line-height: 107%;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Looking at the metrics on
number of deaths, where does that leave the assessment of how we have done? It
isn’t great. We now have the highest death toll in Europe as of the 7<sup>th</sup>
May – even though other countries have tested more so should have higher
confirmed deaths than us. In fact we have the second highest death toll in the
world – behind the USA. Of course, that is if you accept that China is
reporting the correct figures. Even if they aren’t – that still makes us the 3<sup>rd</sup>
highest. With 1 & 2 having many multiple times our population. When you
look at the levers and controls our government had, and how they were deployed,
it isn’t hard to see why. Looking at this crisis it appears that at every step
the government have been more focussed on looking good rather than doing good.
We can only hope that they pay for that at the next election. <o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 36.0pt;">
<br /></div>
</div>
<br /></div>
The unexpected socialisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09268267206158594574noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3892375255844626465.post-39572190224424931372020-05-01T16:40:00.000-07:002020-05-07T15:03:01.222-07:00Coronavirus - how has the UK done? (Part 1)<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , sans-serif; line-height: 107%;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;"> </span> </span>If you are a
conservative politician, particularly PM or a cabinet member, then today must
feel like a victory. Finally, managed to hit a target in relation to
Coronavirus. One set only a month ago. Surely this shows that this government
means what it says and now Boris Johnson PM is back in charge everything will
turn out alright? As a voter who wanted them in power, who thinks that a Labour
government would have been far worse, this must feel like vindication. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , sans-serif; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , sans-serif; line-height: 107%;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>Well, if you
believe that, then I have a genuine Picasso to sell you, guvnor. Honest. Boner
Fidey it is. What we have seen during this crisis is some masterful propaganda.
Genuinely a masterclass in managing the public perception. Because, based on what information we have at the moment, we have fared worse than almost any other
country in terms of our response to the challenges of Coronavirus. This is not
just based on opinion or preference or political leanings. We, as a country and
as a society, have lost far more people, suffered more death than we ever
should have done according to the latest death tolls. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , sans-serif; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , sans-serif; line-height: 107%;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>That may seem
like a bold statement, but it is based on the available statistics. Ultimately if
we are going to compare countries, then this needs to be based on the outcomes –
how fatal or damaging this virus has been. That is a really difficult thing to
measure, but the consensus appears to be to use fatalities from Coronavirus
(whilst we wait for the data to be considered in more detail over a longer
period). The obvious comparisons against the UK are other European states.
Proximity, similar socialist outlooks (i.e. healthcare, schools, sick pay etc.),
access to world travel, genetically, social / ethnic mix, etc.It is worth saying up front - the data is not complete yet. Nor is it all directly comparable. In fact no two countries are the same in their demography or how they collect and report statistics. In time, there will be long statistical and research studies performed that will produce that information. But by then it will be ignored. The only limited defence that I can use is this - if we compare against 4 other countries that the OECD (and others) regularly compare us against as being similar, this should mitigate some bias. The changes of all 4 being incorrectly reported IN THE SAME DIRECTION are vanishingly small. </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , sans-serif; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , sans-serif; line-height: 107%;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>What do the available statistics tell us? Well in the UK in the first 5 weeks of Coronavirus impacting us
(i.e. since we started recording 10+ deaths per day) there have been 26,097
reported deaths. From a population of 68 million. That means we have seen 0.38
fatalities from Coronavirus per 1,000 population. In Italy, over the equivalent
first 5 weeks, that was 15,887 deaths against 60m (gives 0.26 per 1,000 population).
In fact, if we look at number of deaths for similar size European countries,
they are easily to tabulate. Simply put, we have seen a greater number of deaths
than any country in Europe on that basis.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<table border="1" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="MsoTableGrid" style="border-collapse: collapse; border: none; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-padding-alt: 0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt; mso-yfti-tbllook: 1184;">
<tbody>
<tr style="mso-yfti-firstrow: yes; mso-yfti-irow: 0;">
<td style="border: solid windowtext 1.0pt; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt; width: 261.4pt;" valign="top" width="349"><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , sans-serif;">Country<o:p></o:p></span></div>
</td>
<td style="border-left: none; border: solid windowtext 1.0pt; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt; width: 261.4pt;" valign="top" width="349"><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , sans-serif;">Deaths per 1,000 population in first 5 weeks<o:p></o:p></span></div>
</td>
</tr>
<tr style="mso-yfti-irow: 1;">
<td style="border-top: none; border: solid windowtext 1.0pt; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt; width: 261.4pt;" valign="top" width="349"><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , sans-serif;">UK<o:p></o:p></span></div>
</td>
<td style="border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-left: none; border-right: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-top: none; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt; width: 261.4pt;" valign="top" width="349"><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , sans-serif;">0.38<o:p></o:p></span></div>
</td>
</tr>
<tr style="mso-yfti-irow: 2;">
<td style="border-top: none; border: solid windowtext 1.0pt; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt; width: 261.4pt;" valign="top" width="349"><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , sans-serif;">Spain<o:p></o:p></span></div>
</td>
<td style="border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-left: none; border-right: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-top: none; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt; width: 261.4pt;" valign="top" width="349"><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , sans-serif;">0.37<o:p></o:p></span></div>
</td>
</tr>
<tr style="mso-yfti-irow: 3;">
<td style="border-top: none; border: solid windowtext 1.0pt; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt; width: 261.4pt;" valign="top" width="349"><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , sans-serif;">France<o:p></o:p></span></div>
</td>
<td style="border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-left: none; border-right: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-top: none; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt; width: 261.4pt;" valign="top" width="349"><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , sans-serif;">0.29<o:p></o:p></span></div>
</td>
</tr>
<tr style="mso-yfti-irow: 4;">
<td style="border-top: none; border: solid windowtext 1.0pt; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt; width: 261.4pt;" valign="top" width="349"><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , sans-serif;">Italy <o:p></o:p></span></div>
</td>
<td style="border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-left: none; border-right: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-top: none; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt; width: 261.4pt;" valign="top" width="349"><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , sans-serif;">0.26<o:p></o:p></span></div>
</td>
</tr>
<tr style="mso-yfti-irow: 5; mso-yfti-lastrow: yes;">
<td style="border-top: none; border: solid windowtext 1.0pt; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt; width: 261.4pt;" valign="top" width="349"><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , sans-serif;">Germany<o:p></o:p></span></div>
</td>
<td style="border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-left: none; border-right: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-top: none; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt; width: 261.4pt;" valign="top" width="349"><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , sans-serif;">0.05<o:p></o:p></span></div>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody></table>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: left;">
<span style="color: white; font-family: "arial" , sans-serif; line-height: 107%;">Based on information
collated by Statista.com</span><span style="font-family: "arial" , sans-serif; line-height: 107%;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , sans-serif; line-height: 107%;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "arial" , sans-serif; line-height: 107%;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"></span> So, we can’t
argue otherwise – we have the worst outcomes in the early stages of any
comparable European country. Yes, statistics are tricky, and there may be
under-reporting or other issues. But there is no reason to believe that these
issues would unfairly treat us compared to 4 other countries all with the same
challenges. Why? Why have we done so badly compared to other countries?
Particularly given when we have, according to international comparisons one of
the best healthcare systems in the world?<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , sans-serif; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , sans-serif; line-height: 107%;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>There are
lots of news articles calling out specific activities that did or didn’t happen
that, frankly, I am going to dismiss. Whether your feeling is that Dominic Cummings
should not have sat in on meetings of the Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies (SAGE),
or that Boris Johnson should have been present for the 5 Cobra meetings that he
missed, whilst these may show the method of operation of this government, they
really can’t account for the difference in death rates. In fact, many people
would argue keeping Boris Johnson away from making decisions is probably
helpful rather than a detriment. I instead think we should be focussing on 4
key areas that do seem to have made a difference to the success of different
countries in reducing the death toll. They are:<o:p></o:p></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "arial" , sans-serif; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span>
<ul style="text-align: left;">
<li><span style="font-family: "arial" , sans-serif; line-height: 17.12px; text-indent: -18pt;">1.<span style="font-family: "times new roman"; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal;"> </span></span><span style="font-family: "arial" , sans-serif; line-height: 17.12px; text-indent: -18pt;">Speed and scope of social distancing measures;</span></li>
</ul>
<ul style="text-align: left;">
<li><span style="font-family: "arial" , sans-serif; line-height: 17.12px; text-indent: -18pt;">2.<span style="font-family: "times new roman"; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal;"> </span></span><span style="font-family: "arial" , sans-serif; line-height: 17.12px; text-indent: -18pt;">Ability to increase capacity of health services;</span></li>
</ul>
<ul style="text-align: left;">
<li><span style="font-family: "arial" , sans-serif; line-height: 17.12px; text-indent: -18pt;">3.<span style="font-family: "times new roman"; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal;"> </span></span><span style="font-family: "arial" , sans-serif; line-height: 17.12px; text-indent: -18pt;">Provision of Personal Protective Equipment (PPE); and</span></li>
</ul>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , sans-serif; line-height: 107%;"></span><br />
<ul style="text-align: left;">
<li><span style="font-family: "arial" , sans-serif; line-height: 17.12px; text-indent: -18pt;">4<span style="font-family: "times new roman"; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal;"> </span></span><span style="font-family: "arial" , sans-serif; line-height: 17.12px; text-indent: -18pt;">Testing for Coronavirus.</span></li>
</ul>
</div>
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpFirst" style="text-align: left; text-indent: -18pt;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<!--[if !supportLists]--><br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: left; text-indent: 18pt;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , sans-serif; line-height: 107%;">I don’t want to spend time
going in to why each of these is important in the fight. After all, since the
start of this crisis the people who were previously constitutional experts on
Facebook have re-trained as virologists it turns out. But the world over these
4 tools or levers (along with track and trace as a fifth in some countries)
have been the available actions open to governments to use. I am going to
consider the first two in this blog (part 1), and then look at the second two
and the media management in part 2.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: left; text-indent: 18pt;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , sans-serif; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: left; text-indent: 18pt;">
<u><span style="font-family: "arial" , sans-serif; line-height: 107%;">Speed and scope of social
distancing measures</span></u><span style="font-family: "arial" , sans-serif; line-height: 107%;"><o:p></o:p></span><br />
<u><span style="font-family: "arial" , sans-serif; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span></u></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: left; text-indent: 18pt;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , sans-serif; line-height: 107%;">In the UK, by the 5<sup>th</sup>
March we had breached the figure of 100 confirmed Coronavirus cases (it was 114
on that day). It seems a reasonable starting point for comparisons to be taken
against other countries. To put some context around it, by then we had seen
Italy (which reached that milestone on the 23<sup>rd</sup> February) in clear
trouble with an explosion in number of cases that was already threatening to overwhelm
their health service – by the 5<sup>th</sup> March this had turned in to 4,000
confirmed cases. By the 10<sup>th</sup> March, this had turned in to 10,000 confirmed
cases in Italy (along with 631 deaths). Our government knew that this was a problem,
and one that required urgent action. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: left; text-indent: 18pt;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , sans-serif; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: left; text-indent: 18pt;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , sans-serif; line-height: 107%;">It is both surprising and
appalling then that we did not initiate the social distancing measures we now see
until the 23<sup>rd</sup> March. That is 18 days when the government failed to
take action to implement social distancing that had been seen to work in other
countries and that scientists were saying was our best action at that point in
time. 18 days. In that time period alone over 3,000 more people had been
CONFIRMED as having been infected in the UK – when the rate of infection was
doubling every 2 days. 359 people died from it in that period. Quite simply our
government acted too late. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: left; text-indent: 18pt;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , sans-serif; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: left; text-indent: 18pt;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , sans-serif; line-height: 107%;">There has been lots of
speculation and accusation as to why that is. Certainly, interviews given in
the early to middle part of March by ministers and officials suggest that at
that point the government was working to a “herd immunity” strategy. This changed
very suddenly around March 18<sup>th</sup> – when this was dismissed by
(amongst others) Matt Hancock MP – the Secretary of State for Health. But why
the sudden (apparent) change? Because the whole concept of herd immunity was
rubbished by the science. It wasn’t something you could aim for; it was
something that might be a side effect of not acting enough and letting lots of
people die. But this wasn’t new scientific thinking – this was always the case. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "arial" , sans-serif; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , sans-serif; line-height: 107%;">A fair challenge then, is why are there no members of SAGE coming out to say that the government ignored their advice? Every government minister who has given press conferences or updates, from the very outset, has stuck to the line - "we are being led by the science" or "we are following the advice of the scientists". Surely we should be raging at SAGE for giving such bad advice? </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "arial" , sans-serif; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , sans-serif; line-height: 107%;">This ignores a fundamental and very important aspect of scientific advice. Scientists provide answers. What they don't do, in this setting, is ask the questions. It is quite simple really to use the questions to lead your response. If you ask "What is the best way to reduce deaths and keep people safe from Coronavirus?" to a group of scientists you will get one set of answers. If you ask "What is the best route to take to manage Coronavirus whilst protecting the economy?" or "What steps will we be able to implement quickly on Coronavirus without worrying the public?" or many other, well you get very different answers. It is a very clever way of deflecting the blame from yourself as a government. We are being led by the science. What you never add is that the science is being led by you. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "arial" , sans-serif; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , sans-serif; line-height: 107%;">What questions the scientists were being asked to opine on can be guessed at. But we don’t know, and right at this moment that isn’t important. What does matter is that because Boris Johnson’s
government left it so long more people have been infected, and more people have
died. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: left; text-indent: 18pt;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , sans-serif; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: left; text-indent: 18pt;">
<u><span style="font-family: "arial" , sans-serif; line-height: 107%;">Ability to increase capacity of
health services</span></u><span style="font-family: "arial" , sans-serif; line-height: 107%;"><o:p></o:p></span><br />
<u><span style="font-family: "arial" , sans-serif; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span></u></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: left; text-indent: 18pt;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , sans-serif; line-height: 107%;">One of the most worrying
things for anyone following the news during the early days of this crisis was watching
the health services of European countries struggle and collapse under the pressure.
Countries worst hit by this phenomenon were Italy, Spain, and Portugal. There
are a number of connecting themes for these countries – that are shared with
the UK. The specifics of the Coronavirus mean that to reduce death tolls (amongst
patients) requires 3 things – ventilators (along with the specialist spaces in
hospitals); doctors; and nurses to run those beds. It is really that simple.
Because we don’t yet have a really effective treatment regime or a vaccine the
only thing that health services can do is treat the symptoms. Beds, doctors and
nurses. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: left; text-indent: 18pt;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , sans-serif; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: left; text-indent: 18pt;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , sans-serif; line-height: 107%;">The common thread that runs
through those 3 countries is that they were all hit hard during the last
financial crisis, and that they all suffered from long, drawn out austerity
plans that reduced the capacity and capability of their health services. They
are 3 of the 5 “PIIGS” economies that were most impacted (the other 2 were Ireland
and Greece) and faced the deepest cuts. Quite simply government spending on
healthcare had been slashed in those countries in the run up to the current
crisis. In fact, spending had fallen in Portugal and Spain and kept flat in
Italy. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: left; text-indent: 18pt;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , sans-serif; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: left; text-indent: 18pt;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , sans-serif; line-height: 107%;">Why then didn’t we see the NHS
facing the same catastrophe? This is a mixture of a number of factors, some
historic and some based on government actions. The NHS has seen – over the
years of Tory austerity – a marked reduction in growth of spending on it. The
statistics and budgets make it very clear that since 2009 the NHS has not had
the same level of government support it had previously enjoyed. This is not a
point that can be argued. Certainly, we now spend more than we previously have,
and this rises every year. But it is not rising in line with the historic
trend. Our government is constantly tightening what is spent on health services.
<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: left; text-indent: 18pt;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , sans-serif; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: left; text-indent: 18pt;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , sans-serif; line-height: 107%;">Thankfully, historically we
have invested in health services more than other countries. This has meant that
because of a higher starting point even though we have faced similar or greater
cuts due to austerity our health service is still amongst the best in the
world. And you get it for free – at the time of writing this. We haven’t yet
been dragged down to the level of care that the government appears to be
heading towards over the last 11 years. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "arial" , sans-serif; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , sans-serif; line-height: 107%;">Additionally, one thing that the NHS did very quickly that other countries hadn't gotten right was to immediately limit the scope of all other services provided. In particular "elective" procedures. To give an example of an elective procedure, these include knee and hip replacements, removal of cataracts or fitting of leg-braces. I am not a clinician, and these decisions must be led by what is needed. What can be mentioned is that this decision has one other helpful effect. The government hasn't met it's target for elective procedures for the last 8 years (having previously met it or been close since the introduction). At least this time next year they have a reasonable explanation for it. Is it too much to expect that this will be the end of that measure?<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: left; text-indent: 18pt;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , sans-serif; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: left; text-indent: 18pt;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , sans-serif; line-height: 107%;">In addition, the government
was able to, at very short notice, set up additional centres to help deal with
any overspill by utilising NHS and military (along with civilian contractor)
resources. The speed at which these were made ready and operational is a
testament to the excellence of our armed forces and the NHS. Thankfully the planning for this
sort of threat had been done well in advance. In 2016 there was a 3-day
exercise on how the UK would cope with a flu pandemic. The findings from that
exercise were stark. And unfortunately, many were not listened to. We have
known for a number of years that we needed a stockpile of ventilators and PPE.
But the government never spent the money to acquire them. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: left; text-indent: 18pt;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , sans-serif; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: left; text-indent: 18pt;">
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-indent: 18.0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">We did
have the plans drawn up to increase the number of available beds. In fact,
these plans were immediately put in place. The army and NHS managed to set up
the Nightingale centre in an unbelievable amount of time due to their hard
work. It has so far treated 51 patients in it’s 4000 beds. It wasn’t needed in
the end, because the NHS in London worked brilliantly to manage the surge in
numbers. Time may yet tell, and this may be a prescient decision. We may face a
second surge in cases. Or we may face a double crisis when the flu season starts
if we haven’t gotten a vaccine. As a much wiser man than I said “I would rather
be looking at it, than looking for it”. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-indent: 18.0pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-indent: 18.0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">In addition,
it made excellent news when it was opened, and really, isn’t that all that
matters? </span><span style="font-family: "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 12pt; text-indent: 18pt;">Again,
what was needed, much more than the beds themselves, was a good media story to
placate the media. When this is over, hopefully there will be an enquiry – one
aim should be to understand how the NHS pulled off the seemingly impossible,
and another should be to work out why the hell we didn’t implement the
learnings of our disaster planning exercise.</span></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: left; text-indent: 18pt;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , sans-serif; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: left; text-indent: 18pt;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , sans-serif; line-height: 107%;">That doesn’t finish this blog –
in fact this is only halfway. In part 2 I want to cover PPE, testing and media
management. Because it seems that a lot more time has been spent considering
media management than any other aspect. <span style="font-size: 12pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<br /></div>
The unexpected socialisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09268267206158594574noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3892375255844626465.post-91557152835338986062019-04-04T15:24:00.001-07:002019-04-04T15:59:04.051-07:00Pick a side - will you continue to press the button?<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<br />
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-size: large;">There is a big red
button on your phone. If you don’t press it, nothing happens. That is how
buttons work generally. But if you do press it, it might tell somebody else to
kill someone. How often would you press the button? </span><o:p></o:p></i></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><br /></i></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
So yet another attack has taken place by a hate-filled
extremist on people going about their daily business. This time around it took
place in New Zealand. A right-wing Australian with guns and hate massacred
unarmed unsuspecting people going about their regular business. A few days
later an attack on a tram in Utrecht appears to be people being shot by a
suspected Muslim terrorist with guns and hate. Just this week we hear that devices
have been placed on railway lines by Brexiters. <o:p></o:p><br />
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
We can add these to the list of atrocities committed by many
different individuals. Manchester concert bombings, the Pittsburgh synagogue
attack, London Bridge, Finsbury Park. When you start to research these
atrocities often a motive is given for the attack – Anti-Semitism or Racism or
Right-wing Terror. I think it is a lot simpler than that. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Often when I write I compare events or opinions or arguments
and look at them side by side and explore the differences. Lots has been
written about the New Zealand attack – how it was out of the ordinary, how it
has driven an immediate response in New Zealand, profiles of the attacker
asking what went wrong to bring him here, how the attack was carried out. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
What saddens me is how obviously similar it is to all of the
other attacks mentioned above. And that we will face many more of these. The script,
the background story always seems to be the same. Lone individual, possibly
some contact with hate groups, obtained weaponry and attacked at a time / in a
way designed to create maximum outrage and fear. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
What brings these individuals or small groups to this point?
A point where they decide that the only way to make an impact to further their
views, to achieve success is to go out and kill people they have never met and
have no connection to, on the basis of whatever motivation they wish to give? Some
of these attackers have left their thoughts – either in the form of videos or
manifestos or even Facebook posts. So we can state their ideologies and way of
thinking with a bit of certainty. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Firstly, they all seem to believe in absolute groups. Us and
them. Whoever the “them” are doesn’t seem to matter in the grand scheme of
things. They could be Muslims, Immigrants, Jews, Non-Muslims. It is still very
fresh in the memory that Jo Cox was murdered by one of these attackers. Her
“them”? She was a remainer. Just imagine that. The line that separated people
who should live and have rights and people it was acceptable to kill was which
way they voted in a referendum. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
These lines don’t exist. These separating lines that split
us into definite groups are not real. But we do it all the time. We align
ourselves to others of the same religion, the same political party, family,
country, football team and use that alignment to see Them as somehow different.
We have far more in common with other people, no matter how little we think we
do, than we have that is different. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Secondly, They have either done some unfairness or injustice
to us, or are going to and we should do something about it – because nobody
else is. This is the deep-rooted belief that the threat / unfairness is
obvious, that everybody sees it, but that the authorities are ignoring it OR
are powerless OR weak. This is either that immigrants are taking over our
country, that Jews are pulling the strings to control government, trying to
steal Brexit from us, invading our countries to steal our oil / power /
influence. Whatever It is that They have done or will do, It is obvious from
the messages / communications / inputs the attacker sees. They are all equally
guilty of It too, because they are one group solely defined by one
characteristic.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Again, we have to call bullshit on this thinking. And we see
it all the time. Not all Muslims are terrorists or paedophiles who trade young
girls. Not all Westerners supported various invasions. Not all immigrants are trying
to steal your culture and your land. What I find really scary is that often
when talking to otherwise sensible people they have been conned into looking at
one example and extrapolating that risk across the whole They, and unless you
can refute that single example that is proof They are all like that. We have to
be better than that. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Thirdly, that they are acting on behalf of the rest of the
Us. They are doing it in Our name or Their name. Depending on which side of
their invented line you sit. This might be the act that wakes Us up, shows Us
what to do, and scares Them into stopping / giving up. It will ignite / unite Us
in taking action – because we are all just waiting.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
How do they get to this point? Where do these ideas come
from? That they have support for their actions, some sort of reward awaits
them? They’ll be seen as some sort of hero? Whilst their worldviews may be coloured by the mainstream
media, or religion, or groups, and this is where their “motivation” comes from,
this belief that they are supported and believed seems in almost all cases to
come from social media interactions. This seems to be the only place they could
possibly take the belief that there is a legion of support for what they are
about to do.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">There is a big red
button on your phone. If you don’t press it, nothing happens. But if you do
press it, it might tell somebody else to kill someone. How often would you
press the button? </i><o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><br /></i></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
We know from the writings of Anders Brevik he took most of
his motivation and ideas from other people writing on forums and social media.
ISIS regularly use facebook, twitter and youtube to get their message across
because they know these lone wolf individuals take succour from it. During the
recent attack in New Zealand the perpetrator live streamed it on Facebook. Over
and over these vile individuals take their comfort, their support, their motivation
from posts of other people on social media.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
It’s also important to remember – the people who do this –
they think differently from us. For the vast majority of us the idea of getting
so angry that we decide to attack, injure and kill people is abhorrent. More so
in cold blood. But none of them are picked up in advance. They suddenly follow
up on their decision making. Often family and friends are aware of their views –
but not that they are dangerous or genuinely considering this action. Until
somebody is dead. I am not a psychologist – I have no training to say who will
behave like this. Maybe we are all capable. But I don’t know which of my
friends, family, readers of this blog, and colleagues are capable of turning.
Neither do you. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">There is a big red
button on your phone. If you don’t press it, nothing happens. But if you do
press it, it might tell somebody else to kill someone. How often would you
press the button? </i><o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><br /></i></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
We have to choose a side. Are we the person who presses this
button or not? This week as an example videos emerged of British Army soldiers
shooting as an image of Jeremy Corbyn. If you support this – can you be certain
that won’t be seen as a message to someone to take out his old service revolver
and do it? After all Darren Osborne (who attacked Finsbury Park) was looking
for a way to kill Jeremy Corbyn. That post decrying Tony Blair as a war
criminal who got away with it? Posting videos calling remain supporting MPs
traitors? Linking Leave supporting MPs to violent racism? Do you really know
the impact of the language of hate on people around you? Perhaps you do.
Strangely I reckon the families and friends of the people mentioned as carrying
out these attacks felt comfortable sharing hate, and bile, and anger. I wonder
if they do now. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">There is a big red
button on your phone. If you don’t press it, nothing happens. But if you do
press it, it might tell somebody else to kill someone. How often would you
press the button? </i><o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<br /></div>
The unexpected socialisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09268267206158594574noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3892375255844626465.post-29060043022867465672019-01-21T14:02:00.003-08:002019-01-21T14:02:31.795-08:00The importance of appearing in control and how not to do it (when in opposition)<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 107%;">I started
out this particular blog post to try and suggest some answers as to why we have
ended up in such a mess over the Brexit process (because the road to the
decision is a strange and dark one, and I have talked about it enough. In
particular to look at the behaviours of the two main political party leaders in
the UK. They have, in my opinion, both shown a lack of leadership and this is
at the heart of the situation we currently find ourselves in. <o:p></o:p></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 107%;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>I have already spent a lot of time
on the first part of this blog considering how Theresa May has fared against a
relatively common set of leadership characteristics:<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpFirst" style="mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -18.0pt;">
<br />
<ul style="text-align: left;">
<li><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14pt; line-height: 107%; text-indent: -18pt;"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">·<span style="font-size: 7pt; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; line-height: normal;"> </span></span></span><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14pt; line-height: 107%; text-indent: -18pt;">Integrity – not just being honest,
but being seen to be honest, and doing the right thing even when you can get
away with doing the wrong thing</span></li>
<li><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14pt; line-height: 107%; text-indent: -18pt;"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">·<span style="font-size: 7pt; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; line-height: normal;"> </span></span></span><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14pt; line-height: 107%; text-indent: -18pt;">Courage – in making decisions, even
unpopular ones, with limited information, and willing to address difficult
points</span></li>
<li><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14pt; line-height: 107%; text-indent: -18pt;"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">·<span style="font-size: 7pt; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; line-height: normal;"> </span></span></span><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14pt; line-height: 107%; text-indent: -18pt;">Impartiality and fairness – not
pandering to special or favourite causes, identifying the fairest outcome for
everyone from a situation</span></li>
<li><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14pt; line-height: 107%; text-indent: -18pt;"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">·<span style="font-size: 7pt; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; line-height: normal;"> </span></span></span><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14pt; line-height: 107%; text-indent: -18pt;">Good communication – in both
directions, able to explain their message so others get it with clarity and
conviction, and able to listen to others and hear their points</span></li>
<li><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14pt; line-height: 107%; text-indent: -18pt;"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">·<span style="font-size: 7pt; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; line-height: normal;"> </span></span></span><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14pt; line-height: 107%; text-indent: -18pt;">Flexibility and responsiveness – able
to alter not only their plans and direction, but their style to achieve their
outcome, and able to listen to other people’s ideas and use the best one, not
simply their own</span></li>
</ul>
<!--[if !supportLists]--></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 36.0pt;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 107%;">Against which time and again she has been found wanting, and
badly ( <a href="https://unexpectedsocialist.blogspot.com/2019/01/the-importance-of-appearing-in-control.html">https://unexpectedsocialist.blogspot.com/2019/01/the-importance-of-appearing-in-control.html</a>
). But surely it is only fair to consider Jeremy Corbyn by the same yardstick?
The great man of principle who is very much beloved of party members (if not
entirely by his parliamentary labour party) must hold these qualities in
spades? <o:p></o:p></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 36.0pt;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 107%;">Its much harder to cover the entire process for the
opposition leader. Firstly he has had very little (i.e. nothing) to do with the
formal process. I will therefore focus on a few key points in the process where
he had opportunity to show leadership. Specifically: in the immediate aftermath
of the referendum result; the vote on Theresa May’s deal and calling and
holding the vote of no confidence. <o:p></o:p></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 36.0pt;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 107%;">I remember after the vote itself being completely shocked,
saddened and well, scared the following few days. This was a fundamental shift
for our country. I had always been European as well as British and English,
with family, friends and work colleagues across Europe and here from Europe.
I’ve worked as an accountant and seen the millions of pounds of EU money coming
in to areas of the North East desperate for regeneration. I’ve studied
Economics and understood the absolute logic of being part of trade blocs. <o:p></o:p></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 36.0pt;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 107%;">This was a body blow to me and many others. We were dismayed
and confused. What we needed was calm, a chance to re-group and get used to
this. Instead we got a Prime Minister running away from the problem he had
created and a leader of the opposition calling for an immediate invocation of
article 50. There were two massive problems with this immediate approach. <o:p></o:p></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 36.0pt;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 107%;">Firstly, Corbyn had a long history of concerns over being
members of the EU and expressing a desire to leave. He belatedly became an
advocate for staying. Throughout the campaign he had stayed away from the main
campaign to avoid standing with David Cameron (his reason). Calling for this so
quickly immediately left his integrity open to question. It doesn’t matter
whether he was being genuinely honest or not. Its whether people see you as
being honest. This approach damaged his integrity. Coupled with repeated
questions on which way he voted that he refused to answer, he was opened up by
his detractors and across the press as lacking integrity. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 36.0pt;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 107%;">Secondly, what we needed was calm and a chance to come back
together as a nation after a referendum campaign that had been divisive and
nasty. But it appeared that this opportunity to make political capital, and to
put pressure on the conservative party was more important. It is really hard to
see the fairness in that – putting party politics ahead of doing the right
thing. Both of these issues stemmed from a man who was no longer listening to
the pulse of the country, and a man who had failed to get out his message. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 36.0pt;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 107%;">Of course many Corbyn supporters (and I class myself as a
supporter) will point out that it is hard to communicate when you have large
parts of the press against you. This hasn’t happened over night. There has
always been an image of him portrayed by his detractors. It didn’t suddenly
appear. The narrative he has been wrapped in is made to measure. But the reason
it fits so well is that decisions he makes and how he communicates absolutely
lend themselves to it. It sometimes feels like there is a conspiracy to ruin
his credentials – and that conspiracy is made up of the Conservative party, right
wing media interests and Jeremy Corbyn. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 36.0pt;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span>
<span style="color: red; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 107%;">I absolutely get that Jeremy has painted his life as a man of
integrity, and a man of principle. There can be no question that he has made difficult
and unpopular decisions based on a strong moral sense of right and wrong. Once
he has decided what he feels is the morally right thing then he sees it
through.*<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 36.0pt;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 107%;"><span style="color: blue;">I absolutely get that Jeremy Corbyn is unwilling to change. He’s
made a career out of purposefully choosing the other view – almost for fun. He
makes a snap decision on evidence at the time and sticks with it come hell or
high water. This “man of principle” is so addicted to being morally right that
he can’t accept when he is wrong or things change.*</span><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 36.0pt;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 107%;">(*Delete as appropriate)<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 36.0pt;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 107%;">And therein lay the problem. Because his behaviour and the
way he acts and delivers his message can be played both of those ways. In order
to be an effective leader you must be able to communicate and be flexible. You
have to be responsive and aware. Sometimes sticking to your guns and your tried
and trusted methods because you have always been that person is actually the
counter to integrity – not the embodiment of it. Jumping into the trap laid for
you over and over again shows a lack of flexibility, responsiveness and communication
skills. <o:p></o:p></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 36.0pt;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 107%;">We’ve seen this behaviour in the House of Commons over the
last few weeks. In fact both Corbyn and May have been guilty of the title of
this blog – wanting to appear in control rather than wanting to be in control. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 36.0pt;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 107%;">When Theresa May lost, as she knew she must, the vote on her
badly-won, self-serving, ill-communicated, cowardly deal she immediately challenged
Corbyn to bring forward a motion of no confidence in the government. Everyone
knew he had to. But to her mind this was her showing the world she was still in
charge. If anybody other than May and Hammond believe she is still in control
of events then please send them my way – I have a second-hand bridge over the
Thames I would like to sell them. However it gave her a chance to remove the initiative
from him. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 36.0pt;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 107%;">When that motion failed, as he knew it must, Jeremy Corbyn
immediately rebuffed May’s offer of talks without his pre-conditions were met.
Again, this was an attempt to show he was now in control and would only meet on
his terms. Whilst this has now proven to be correct, and that the talks were
merely Mrs. May trying to sell her original deal, only in smaller groups and
with coffee and biscuits, this was immediately played in the press as Mr.
Corbyn refusing the outstretched hand. It could not have been more clearly a
trap if the prime minister had read it from a card marked ACME on the back.
Because it is how he is expected to react and unfortunately no flexibility or
learning is allowed. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 36.0pt;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 107%;">I do worry for Brexit and our immediate future. We have days left
now until we crash out without a deal. The leaders of our political parties,
whilst having very different policies, views and desired outcomes, appear very
similar in their approaches. Once the referendum result came in, any opportunity
for coming together as a country was lost. Both leaders have allowed their own
personal views and animosity along with political calculations to stop them
from doing what we need most. Which is actually lead. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 36.0pt;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<br /></div>
The unexpected socialisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09268267206158594574noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3892375255844626465.post-71220122732592803822019-01-17T15:26:00.000-08:002019-01-17T15:26:11.665-08:00The importance of appearing in control and how not to do it<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 107%;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">In the space
of less than 24 hours we had 2 of the most unique, important and interesting
votes that the House of Commons will ever give us. Most would argue that we
have had enough drama of the sort we have seen to last us for a long time.
Unfortunately, those votes and the debates and issues supporting them appear to
really only be at the end of the beginning, not even close to the beginning of
the end. The ongoing saga of Brexit has now dragged on for over two and a half
years since the referendum itself. Legally speaking, as it stands, we only have
around 10 weeks left to organise a withdrawal deal, or we crash out with No
Deal. <o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 107%;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 107%;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>Nobody knows how this is going to
turn out. Nobody knows, with absolute certainty, what is the best result for
the UK and the EU. We can all choose to believe whichever experts, anti-experts
or shaman most suits our views. Generally, that is what the overwhelming
majority of use have been doing. My view, and one I want to explain, is that
the biggest gap we have faced throughout the process has been the gap in
genuine leadership – none more so than from the party leaders themselves. <o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 107%;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 107%;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>There are hundreds of lists of
leadership qualities, and books have been written about the subject since we
started recording history. I want to focus on a few of those qualities that
appear across a wide range of them – it’s impossible to find some that appear
in all of them. The most regularly repeating qualities for effective achieving
leaders appear to be:<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpFirst" style="mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -18.0pt;">
</div>
<ul style="text-align: left;">
<li><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">·<span style="font-size: 7pt; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; line-height: normal;"> </span><span style="font-size: 14pt; line-height: 107%; text-indent: -18pt;">Integrity – not just being honest,
but being seen to be honest, and doing the right thing even when you can get
away with doing the wrong thing</span></span></li>
<li><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">·<span style="font-size: 7pt; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; line-height: normal;"> </span><span style="font-size: 14pt; line-height: 107%; text-indent: -18pt;">Courage – in making decisions, even
unpopular ones, with limited information, and willing to address difficult
points</span></span></li>
<li><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">·<span style="font-size: 7pt; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; line-height: normal;"> </span><span style="font-size: 14pt; line-height: 107%; text-indent: -18pt;">Impartiality and fairness – not pandering
to special or favourite causes, identifying the fairest outcome for everyone
from a situation</span></span></li>
<li><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">·<span style="font-size: 7pt; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; line-height: normal;"> </span><span style="font-size: 14pt; line-height: 107%; text-indent: -18pt;">Good communication – in both
directions, able to explain their message so others get it with clarity and
conviction, and able to listen to others and hear their points</span></span></li>
<li><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">·<span style="font-size: 7pt; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; line-height: normal;"> </span><span style="font-size: 14pt; line-height: 107%; text-indent: -18pt;">Flexibility and responsiveness – able
to alter not only their plans and direction, but their style to achieve their
outcome, and able to listen to other people’s ideas and use the best one, not simply
their own</span></span></li>
</ul>
<!--[if !supportLists]--><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 36.0pt;">
<span style="font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 107%;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">If we start by looking at how the negotiations process has
been operated by Theresa May, and the strategy taken to those negotiations, it
becomes very clear very quickly why she is not the right leader for the country.
And most certainly not at this point in our history. Look at the strategy she
has taken and it crumbles very quickly. <o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 36.0pt;">
<span style="font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 107%;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 36.0pt;">
<span style="font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 107%;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">First of all, from the outset the decisions and approach have
been her decisions and approach. She ignored every opportunity to reach out to
other parties. She refused to listen to ideas from anyone outside her immediate
circle. Throughout her career there are countless examples that point to her
need to be completely in control. It is a unifying thread that runs like iron
through it. How can you be impartial and fair if you are always right? Where is
the space for responding to other ideas if you wont even hear them? This
political change was the biggest we faced for at least 40 years – and arguably
since the Second World War. Why not put in place a specialist commission? A
government of unity? Citizen’s panels? No – Theresa knows what is best. Much
better for her to go away, decide and then come and tell US what is right. <o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 36.0pt;">
<span style="font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 107%;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 36.0pt;">
<span style="font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 107%;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Of course she realised very early on in the process that in
order for her to get away with that as Prime Minister, she needed to have as
much personal power and mandate as possible. So whilst we had a backdrop of a
clock running down, she called a General Election. Not for the good of the
country, not for the good of the negotiations, not even for the good of her
party. For her own benefit. And all after explicitly ruling out the idea.
Because she believed she would win a landslide. Where is the integrity in that
decision? Where is the impartiality and fairness of putting her wants in front
of our country’s needs?<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 36.0pt;">
<span style="font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 107%;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 36.0pt;">
<span style="font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 107%;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">During the election itself, she showed herself again and
again to have no communication skills. Strong and stable can not be the answer
to every question. I imagine during that period if asked her how she took her
coffee she would answer “strong and stable”. She ran scared of taking part in
debates – sending other people to do them. Because she has all the
communication skills and warmth of Buck Rogers friend Twiki, but without the
warmth. Or communication skills. Where is the courage in being afraid to stand
up without all of your lines safely locked down – taking no risks.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 36.0pt;">
<span style="font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 107%;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 36.0pt;">
<span style="font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 107%;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Having refused to talk to other parties, setting out her way
of doing it as the only way, and having been embarrassed in a general election
because she didn’t realise that the public didn’t want one, she then found herself
weakened. The hung parliament that she caused meant that she then had to sell
out some of her power to the DUP. This was at the cost of £1bn+ and additional
red-lines. She used public money to protect her own position. She reduced her
flexibility further. <o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 36.0pt;">
<span style="font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 107%;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 36.0pt;">
<span style="font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 107%;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Whilst all this carried on, Brexit Secretaries and other
ministers led a constant stream out of her government because she wouldn’t
listen to anyone else, and she kept coming back to the UK having given away
more and more negotiating strength. Because she was right, and how dare anybody
question or challenge her. She had to survive – she was the only one who was
right. The single most important point, throughout this process, has been the
survival of Theresa May. On average we have lost a government minister every
month since she became Prime Minister. Nobody knew what the current deal was,
until she deigned to tell us. No communication, no flexibility.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 36.0pt;">
<span style="font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 107%;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 36.0pt;">
<span style="font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 107%;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Where did this lead us? Her own party realised this couldn’t
continue – and she survived a confident vote there. 117 of her own MPs – one third
of her parliamentary party – wanted her to go. Did this change her approach or
make her consider her position? Not for a minute. She not only led her
government to be in contempt of parliament (for the first time ever), but she
ran down the clock by delaying the vote on her deal. Not for any purpose other
than she didn’t want to hear the truth – that she had gotten it completely
wrong but couldn’t bear to hear it. She suffered the biggest governmental
defeat in history. Only one third of parliament supported her deal – not even
the £1bn bung could persuade the DUP. Did this make her consider her position?
Not for a moment. <o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 36.0pt;">
<span style="font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 107%;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 36.0pt;">
<span style="font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 107%;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">On the back of this she faced a vote of no-confidence in
parliament. And I want to return to that point in part 2 of this blog – because
we also need to consider the leadership of Jeremy Corbyn in doing that. </span><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 36.0pt;">
<br /></div>
<br /></div>
The unexpected socialisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09268267206158594574noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3892375255844626465.post-9260801773179068852017-10-26T15:42:00.002-07:002017-10-26T15:57:39.521-07:00And now we are all experts on Spain<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Of course, that isn't true. In fact, even compared to the average, I know very little about Spain. Even my knowledge of the geography is limited to being able to point to the coast or the interior. I don't speak the language, and have visited possibly 5 times in my entire life - 4 of those to holiday resorts that had been turned into Little Britain with sun. Which makes even me wonder why the heck I would write a blog about the trouble that has notched up a level over the past few weeks. </span><br />
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Whilst I can't write from an emotional level on this issue, there are some important points that do need to be considered. And they are points that have an impact on parts of the UK too. After all, we have had our own challenges with parts of the country that want away, questions of self-determination and areas that contain people who see themselves as having different ethnicities. So what do we know / understand of the situation? Are there any impacts / lessons for the UK? I would also add - that I am trying to understand the situation and write this from that perspective. The feelings around this are very real and very raw - so I ask you to choose not to take offence. </span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">As someone who, until very recently, knew nothing about the drive for Catalan Independence (and for most of my life the much more pressing question appeared to be around independence for the Basque country) I have tried to research some of the history and here is my very abridged version. </span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Catalonia has a strong identity as a country / region with roots back to the 11th / 12th Century. From the formation of Spain in the 15th Century however it has been part of that country. But throughout it's history it still retained it's own identity within Spain - even retaining many of the trappings of statehood until much more recently. Of course whilst it had enjoyed a lot of autonomy from the 1930s onwards, this was brutally stamped on by the fascist regime of General Franco when he came to power. In fact, so afraid was Franco of Catalan resurgence that he restricted the speaking of the Catalan language.</span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Of course, when it comes to nationalism (in whatever form) - the more it is suppressed, the angrier its adherents become, and the stronger the feelings. Throughout history it appears that the harder you try to squash nationalism - the more you feed it. Conversely (in many cases) the more you allow it, and give further autonomy, the less the power and its sting. Scotland appears to be an example of this - given autonomy, and allowed to hold a peaceful, supported referendum. They ultimately chose to remain part of the United Kingdom.</span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">So since then Catalan (along with other parts of Spain, and other territories across Europe) has had political will from some people and parties to seek independence - a rise of nationalism at a local level. Interestingly many of those believing that their future lies in nationalism and separatism also believe, at the same time, that their future lies in internationalism. Their own sovereignty back, so they can share that sovereignty with other countries. Perhaps this apparent contradiction goes to the very heart of ideas of self-determination - they believe they have been forced to be part of a nation state, and would prefer to make an active choice. If this is the case this is certainly incorrect in the case of Scotland - they actively chose to become part of a United Kingdom.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">But what has driven the latest scenes of violence, civil disobedience and strikes? Images of police officers being held away from using sticks against civilians by fire fighters? The Spanish government attempting to remove the powers of the regionally elected government? Deadlock in the Catalan parliament? Where did it go so wrong? </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">The catalyst for this appears to be that Catalan pressed ahead with a disputed referendum on independence. Once the Catalan government chose to go ahead with this, various legal challenges, and ultimately police action followed. This culminated in the horrible scenes most people have seen of firefighters being attacked by police officers because they were trying to protect civilians attempting to vote in the referendum. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Lots of politicians have come out either in support of the people of Catalan (particularly within the Labour party and the left wing) or in opposition to the EU's handling of a national crisis (Nigel Farage MEP - I don't get it either). Whilst it is easy to lay blame on the basis of gaining short-term political capital, does this hold up?</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Well, generally I would always argue that whenever you see images of police, military or paramilitary forces sanctioned by the government to beat civilians it becomes quite clear cut. But in this case, whilst we can deplore those actions there is blame a-plenty on every side. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">We should remember what this is about at it's most basic level - and that is self determination of a nation state. But this itself is difficult. We tend towards the view that nation states are a defined area, with commonality of culture/history/tradition/language and a government. Unfortunately, there are precious few examples of nation states being born through peaceful, democratic means - even in modern Europe, beyond the unification of Germany and the split of Czechoslovakia. So there is always the risk of violence when pursuing this agenda. In fact it was within living memory for many people that Scottish Nationalist terrorists tried to blow up the Edinburgh Tattoo.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Additionally, the proposed referendum was illegal under not only Spanish law, but also under Catalan law. This would require any change in the constitution in Catalan (and there would be no bigger than this) to be supported by 2/3rds of the parliament. However, the Catalan nationalists knew they would not be able to achieve this, and attempted to carry out an illegal referendum to circumvent their own democratic rules.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">At the same time, the political desire for a referendum has been growing for a number of years. The Spanish government could have chosen to work with the regional government to allow a legal referendum - and then fought their case. Instead they have actively avoided any engagement on the question - hoping to bottle the pressure. We have seen what happens when you do this. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">So a Catalan independence movement pushing ahead with an illegal referendum and a federal government unwilling to listen to it's people. Neither of those are particularly positive images. Of course, Spain may have been concerned that once a referendum was allowed it would be re-run ad infinitum until Catalan nationalists got the "right" answer. Certainly that looked a risk after the Scottish Referendum - although Nicola Sturgeon, much to her credit, has delayed any future vote ( <a href="https://unexpectedsocialist.blogspot.co.uk/2016/06/a-heartfelt-letter-to-nicola-sturgeon.html">a-heartfelt-letter-to-nicola-sturgeon.html </a>) even if temporarily.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Putting aside the fact that it was illegal - can we take the outcome of the referendum in Catalan as being a legitimate expression of the wish of the people of that area? After all, irrespective of vagaries of governmental rules and regulations this must be the most important test. This has to be the most important question when it comes to self-determination. What do the people want?</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Again, the immediate response from the nationalist Catalan government was that the vote was overwhelmingly in support of independence. 90% of those who voted, voted for independence. But this was based upon votes from less than 50% of voters (the turnout was 43%). In context, this means that approximately 39% of the people of the region were able to vote for independence. Does this seem a clear message of support for forming a new nation state? Of course there appear to be several reasons for this. Not least that the spanish government did their best to disrupt the vote by closing polling stations, stopping people from voting and intimidation and violence. But it must also be noted anti-cessationist parties refused to take part in the referendum and advised their supporters not to vote. Do we believe if all points of view had taken part, the vote would be for a separate government?</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">At the last Catalan elections in 2015, 75% of the electorate turned out to vote. At that election strongly pro-independence parties took 45% of the vote. Based on this vote - in which all sides took part - there is appetite for independence from some voters, but not overwhelmingly. As we are currently seeing in the UK, nationalist tendencies amongst even a small majority can be enough to sway a vote - with disastrous effects. But there is no evidence of this being the case here. Indeed, even within the Catalan parliament there is no full-blooded majority push for complete independence (at the time of writing).</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">So we have a disputed, unfought, purposefully sabotaged, illegal referendum where we can not take a clear answer that the determination of the people would be for independence. We have clear evidence from the parliamentary elections and machinations that it is anything but a clear cut case. There is obvious evidence of the Spanish state behaving in a heavy-handed and appalling manner. But this in itself is not evidence that the people of Catalonia desire independence - it is evidence that Spain don't want it to happen. Of course we should berate the behaviour of the Spanish state. But this should not equate to support for independence.</span></div>
</div>
The unexpected socialisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09268267206158594574noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3892375255844626465.post-8722957093989884342017-05-04T15:33:00.001-07:002017-05-04T15:33:30.314-07:00You can't trust Labour on the economy (Part 2)<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">One of the most often repeated claims you will hear from Conservative party supporters is that you can't trust Labour on the economy. It is a message that has been repeatedly pushed by large parts of the media for many years. In fact, it has been heard so often it sometimes seems like it as is obvious as gravity, Liverpool football club struggling against smaller teams or that you can't get a decent cup of tea in a coffee bar. If you missed the first half of this blog, it might be worth visiting ( <a href="http://unexpectedsocialist.blogspot.co.uk/2016/01/you-cant-trust-labour-on-economy.html">http://unexpectedsocialist.blogspot.co.uk/2016/01/you-cant-trust-labour-on-economy.html</a> ) - although I am not guaranteeing it is worth visiting. In that I set out 3 major tests of whether an economy is working - a</span><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"> good economy would be one where: </span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: left;">
</div>
<ol style="text-align: left;">
<li><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif; text-indent: -18pt;">any growth in the economy benefits those who work for it;</span></li>
<li><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif; text-indent: -18pt;">it provides opportunities for everyone to participate and add to the economy whilst;</span></li>
<li><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif; text-indent: -18pt;">providing a reasonable level of protection from external shocks to the national economy and individual shocks through changes in circumstance</span></li>
</ol>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">I also asked how we could know if we could trust a party to deliver either of those. To be as fair as possible, I have split this down into 3 governments we can compare - that of the previous New Labour administration, that of the current coalition & Tory government, and a future potential Corbyn government.</span><br />
<div>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">So going back to our central question - are the Conservatives any better than New Labour at getting people to participate in the economy? And would Corbyn be any better than that? </span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Looking at the immediate headline statistics this seems obvious and clear cut. We are told every month now that employment figures are at a record high, unemployment at a record low. Obviously, the Tories win this hands down. But it doesn't take much scratching of the surface to get below that and see that it is not quite as it seems. </span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">The headline rate is shockingly good - 74.4% employment rate. This means that 74.4% of the people who could work are either employed or self employed. This is the highest since records of this sort began. Under the last Labour government, just before the global economic crash in 2008, the best they achieved was 73.0%. </span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">That 74.4% equates to (between 16 and 64) 30.67 million people either working or self employed. For the New Labour government, at it's highest point, this was 29.06 million. So there are 1.6 million more people employed compared to eight and a half years ago. But just being employed is not the entire picture. What is also important is how much you are earning for that employment. Because it is this - your income - that determines how much you can participate in the economy. In that case, we are doing slightly worse. In fact, average earnings (which excludes self employed people) are down by 3%. So more people are working, but earning less than before. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">What is causing this? </span><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Well, whilst it is hard to reach a really strong conclusion, there are some really good candidates for part of the explanation.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Firstly, the national minimum wage has not increased quickly enough. This had slowed down until then Chancellor George Osborne made some moves to re-dress the imbalance he had caused. Secondly, almost the entire public sector has had pay freezes or raises limited to 1% for 7 years. The public sector workers are carrying the rest of us through austerity. Third, there are more immigrants now in the country - willing to work for much lower wages - potentially around 800,000 in that period. Finally however, and this seems to have had the biggest effect, is the rise of the zero hours contract. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Since the last Labour government 700,000 new jobs have been created where those people have no guarantee week to week, day to day, hour to hour. The number has gone from 200,000 to 900,000. What was once a flexible way for employers and employees to work where this arrangement suited both parties has become the standard operating model for hundreds of employers. The coalition and tory government have done nothing to stop this. If you aren't on one of those contracts - just imagine what that is like. You never know if you are going to eat or pay bills - and you can't work anywhere else. It is as close to modern day slavery as most of us will ever get. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">So whilst employment has gone up far fewer people are actually able to participate in the economy in a meaningful way. We all on average have less to contribute with. And the increase in employment figures can almost entirely be matched to inwards net immigration and zero hours contracts. So whilst we had increasing spending power and jobs under the Blair / Brown governments, we have not seen this under a tory government. But what would we see under a Corbyn government?</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Well, that is hard to say. If we believe the promises made as part of his election campaign, there would be increases in the minimum wage, an end to zero hours contracts, pay rises for the public sector and real genuine investment by the government in major infrastructure projects - and the aim would be to increase employment rates through this. Of course the challenge for any future Corbyn government will be how to pay for these. This ties in to managing to deliver without destroying the economy and leaving it protected from shocks - but that will be part 3 of this blog.</span></div>
</div>
The unexpected socialisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09268267206158594574noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3892375255844626465.post-79320988176229122352017-04-19T12:25:00.000-07:002017-04-19T12:25:12.806-07:00The art of comedy? Timing<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;">Well, unexpectedly the Prime Minister called a “snap”
General Election yesterday. Unexpectedly because as recently as September 2016
she was quite clear in her refusal to do so “I am not going to be calling a
snap election…we need a period of stability to be able to deal with the issues
the country is facing”. So, why the sudden turnaround in that view? Has the
Prime Minister decided we need less stability? Or that Brexit is actually much
easier than she expected it to be? Or could there be another reason for it?<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;">It all feels a bit strange, and for those people who are
not engaged in politics, this must seem the worst possible outcome. After all
we had the particularly nasty and bad tempered Scottish Independence referendum
in 2014. Then a general election in 2015. Following on from that David Cameron
decided he would shut up UKIP and the brexiteer side of his party by destroying
them with ANOTHER referendum in 2016 (and that went so well for him) on EU
membership. That was quickly followed up with wall to wall coverage of the US
presidential elections (no genuinely, he actually won under their system). <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;">Since then the Prime Minister has insisted that any
referendum on Scottish Independence would be a distraction and the government
must be entirely focussed on Brexit. In fact just 5 weeks ago, she said “Now is
not the time. Just at this point all our energies should be focused on our
negotiations with the European Union”.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;">So why have we had this sudden change of heart from the
Prime Minister? There are a number of reasons that this may have taken place.
Apparently it is to get a stronger hand for Brexit, and to do the right thing
for the country. There are a number of other alternative theories too, so it
seems only fair that we explore them all. And just for fun, let’s add a
plausibility score out of ten – on whether it has directly impacted on the
announcement at this time. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<u><span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;">Official explanation from the PM<o:p></o:p></span></u></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<u><span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;"><br /></span></u></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;">Part1: The other parties and the Lords are trying to stop
Brexit, and I need a larger majority to force it through. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;">An interesting statement really, and one that doesn’t hold
up to scrutiny on any level. Firstly, the other political parties AND the Lords
have had opportunities to delay and frustrate the process. These votes have
been held. The opportunity to stop Brexit has been passed already. The votes
are completed, and Brexit will happen. As Yvette Cooper pointed out today - 3/4 of MPs and 2/3 of Lords voted FOR Brexit when the vote was held. There is no opportunity of stopping
Brexit now, unless there was a massive change in direction and views of the
country. That would really require the PM herself to come back and say “we
can’t achieve what we promised if we leave”. If that were really her fear she
would have called a general election during the NINE MONTHS she has had before
triggering Article 50.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt;">Plausibility rating: I wouldn’t buy a used car from her.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;">Part 2: Negotiations will continue until just before the
next General Election, and then you will be able to see what deal we have and
start to feel it impacting you. The other countries will use that to drive a
hard bargain. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;">There is probably more truth in this part of her statement.
But there are some massive implicit promises in there that you are expected to
miss out on. Firstly, it is an acceptance that we will not get everything we
want from any negotiations. In fact, it is the first time publicly that any
Conservative minister has admitted that the negotiations will be a 2-way
street, and that there will be give and take depending on the political
pressures the politicians feel at home. Secondly, there is an admission that
ordinary people will feel the negative impacts of Brexit. Even those who voted
for it and supported it will by then realise we have ended up with a
potentially worse deal than we had. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;">Theresa May is terrified the government will be blamed for
that. Perhaps, people may think, if they had spent more time negotiating the
best deal and less time threatening war with Spain and coming up with catchy little
phrases we wouldn’t be heading into a recession. I can understand Theresa May
wanting to avoid that. After all, she was a Remain supporter, who never wanted
to leave the EU. She can see closer and in much more detail how hard it will
be. I wouldn’t want to be measured on the basis of how successful or painful it
was in that situation. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;">Plausibility rating: More than a ring of truth about it.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<u><span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;"><br /></span></u></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<u><span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;">It’s a snap annihilation of the Labour Party<o:p></o:p></span></u></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;">Obviously, the staunch conservative voters and those who
have wanted the left wing of the Labour party to fail since the election of
Jeremy Corbyn are desperate to believe this is the reason for calling it now.
Certainly, if you believe the polls (you know, the ones that showed us there
would be no overall majority in the last election, that we would remain in the
EU, and that Trump would lose) then this makes good political sense. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;">However, why now exactly? We have only 2 years to negotiate
the exit from the EU, and this will take 7 weeks out of that timetable. Labour
have been wallowing in the polls for about 18 months. Why not as soon as David
Cameron resigned? Labour have said all along they will support it. So did this
really make Theresa May directly contradict herself and break a promise she
made publicly? Also, was the best time to launch it after Labour have had 2
weeks of announcing a number of incredibly popular policies – one a day – that
have strong public support? Finally, if this IS the case, it is a clear
admission that calling this election has nothing to do with the good of the
country – just the good of the Tory party. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;">Plausibility rating: A consideration, and an expectation,
but not the main reason. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<u><span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;">Alleged Tory electoral fraud from 2015</span></u><span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;">There is still, hanging over the Tories, a police
investigation into electoral fraud during the 2015 General Election. This arose
because the Tories spent a lot of money in specific target seats that they
claimed as central spending, when actually it directly related to the results
in those seats, allegedly. A file of possible charges has been sent to the
Crown Prosecution Service, and an announcement was expected THIS WEEK.
Obviously, that announcement is now up for grabs. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;">Certainly, we can glean some clues to this – the fact that
the CPS have confirmed they are still looking to continue this work suggests
there is a case to at least be considered. If there is a fresh election, it
means that this can be glossed over as having been solved at the Ballot Box
instead of in the courts. Secondly, when the Prime Minister was asked, on the
floor of the House of Commons whether she would allow anyone facing criminal or
legal proceedings over this to stand, she said that she would support all Tory
candidates to stand it begins to show the contempt that she feels towards free
and fair elections. Obviously, this is not something that the PM would want to
call an election for. But it may just be that this has been the final straw.
And it is hard to argue against, given the rushed and surprise nature of it,
the obvious U-turning and the fact she is now eating her own words on
stability. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;">Plausability rating: Ticks the box for the timing aspect. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;">So, there we have it then. A lot of conjecture, and a lot
of assumptions, and a lot of admittance on the part of the Government about how
bad things are. The most likely scenario is that this is a government who are
afraid of admitting the mess they are making of Brexit forced into this
decision by the timing of CPS decisions. They are putting the needs of their
party above your needs as citizens of this country. I would suggest you
remember that, and don’t let them get away with it when you are in the polling
station. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
</div>
The unexpected socialisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09268267206158594574noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3892375255844626465.post-8426715032054990472017-03-27T16:14:00.001-07:002017-03-27T16:15:16.922-07:00Tragedy, and the human response to it<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">So, I guess that really we all knew this day would come again. Once again a terrorist attack has taken place in the UK. This time driven by someone who has taken extremist Islam as their reason for pointlessly murdering innocent people on our streets. It is truly terrible that 4 people who had no idea what was going to happen or choice that day had their lives taken by a coward who attacked them hoping he would never have to live with the consequences. </span><br />
<div>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">There is no singular normal, typical or expected reaction to this sort of news. It is rightly so alien to us that we will all decide how to react - and it is not the right of society to enforce "norms" on us. That reaction is made up of our initial emotion, and then the judgements, conclusions and responses we then show. Many people have tried to use this attack as a weapon to whip up further hatred, anger and division. I want to consider whether this reaction stands up to close scrutiny. This is not to shame or insult people, but to offer them an alternative reflection to consider. </span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">We have had almost a full week since the terrible events that claimed the lives of a policeman and 3 random members of the public. Enough time for every possible shade and shape of human opinion (no matter how vile or incredible) to have made its way on to social media. Certainly an initial reaction from a lot of people (and we can't know if it is a majority, a large minority or simply the most vocal) was that this attack showed why we should "send them all home". Those angrily opposed to migration into the country certainly believed this was an opportunity to finally show how Muslims flooding into the country were a danger to our very lives. Of course, the problem with that was very quickly it was found out that the attacker was British born. </span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">But the leap from there having been an attack to this snap reaction is an obvious, if flawed one. If a Muslim coming into this country has carried out an attack, then there must be more coming in to do the same - this is finally the evidence of that. Of course, that sentence belies the incorrect thinking behind it - those people who are afraid that immigration makes us less secure ALREADY believed that before this attack. That the attacker was British born will do nothing to stop them thinking that. In many cases no amount of evidence will stop people thinking that. The term used by psychologists is "unsubstantiated conclusive" thinking - where you jump to a pre-determined conclusion irrespective of the evidence. It is easy to understand this thinking - particularly when it is reinforced and fuelled by so much of the media establishment in this country and parties like UKIP. </span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">From there, the next opinion or perception that came about was that actually all, or a large section, of the Muslim community in this country were dangerous. The proposed answer therefore is either to kick out all Muslims or to start a process for internment for them. Again, the logical flow behind this seems to be straight-forward. There is a danger from a particular community, we should therefore lock all or some of them up to keep everybody else safe. If you break that down, there are actually 3 separate ideas to consider. The first one is that there is a danger from an identifiable group (Muslims), we can spot those likely to be dangerous, and that internment will reduce the danger and make us safe. </span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Well, if we take the first point, that there is a danger from an identifiable group (Muslims) then we have to look at the terrorist attacks in recent memory. The definition of a terrorist attack "</span><span style="background-color: white; color: #222222;">means</span><span style="background-color: white; color: #222222;"> acts of persons acting on behalf of, or in connection with, any organisation which carries out activities directed towards the overthrowing or influencing, by force or violence, of Her Majesty's government in the </span><span style="background-color: white; color: #222222;">United Kingdom". </span><span style="background-color: white; color: #222222;">That would then seem to equally apply to 2 recent terrorist attacks - this one and the murder of Jo Cox MP. Jo Cox was killed by a man who had links to extremist organisations (the National Front, EDL and the National Alliance). Certainly 2 of those groups have openly tried to influence the government through violence. He was a lone attacker, who took inspiration from those groups without being directed by them to carry out an attack. He used weapons he had to hand to carry out a targeted but unsophisticated attack to create a feeling of terror in the political establishment. He had a troubled existence with a history of sporadic behaviours. All of those things apply equally to the recent attacker. </span></span></div>
<div>
<span style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">There is one difference however, ISIL, following the attack claimed that Khalid Massood was now a soldier of ISIL. Many have hung their hats on this fact to differentiate the 2 events. However, that does not hold up. Khalid Massood, as far as we know at this point, had no contact or direction from them. To hang whether someone is guilty of a terrorist attack or not based on what somebody else does after the fact simply doesn't make sense. Equally, to the victims of the attack, I am sure they would have scant regard for this distinction. So we are left with not one group of terrorists to worry about, but 2 - Muslim fanatics and right-wing fanatics. </span></div>
<div>
<span style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">If we look at the proposed solution to this, internment, then we would have to, from that, apply it equally to both of these groups. Of course, all of the available evidence, from whenever internment has been tried points to 2 very clear conclusions. Firstly, that it doesn't work and in many cases is counter-productive in that it acts as a recruiting sergeant for extremists. Secondly, that it will always lead to innocent people being unfairly imprisoned. These are clearly both very strong reasons to refuse to see internment as the answer. </span></div>
<div>
<span style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Clearly, this is not to say that nothing should be done to combat terrorist attacks. From every attack we need to learn what we can do to stop the next one. But currently, from what we are told, in this country we have been successful in stopping a number of attacks. To go further than we have so far we must challenge the radicalisation of any individuals in any group, ensure we have appropriate policing, security and intelligence strategies, and the tools and resources to carry them out. But internment is not one of those, and it never should be. Something must be done can not turn into the worst possible response must be done.</span></div>
<div>
<span style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif;"><span style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">One of the very shameful events that cropped up in our reactions was that of the shaming of a Muslim woman, walking past an injured person being treated immediately after the attacks, ignoring what was going on and chatting on her mobile phone. For those that wanted yet further evidence of the inhumanity of Muslims, this seemed to be a "smoking gun". The picture very quickly spread across social media platforms - evidence (as if it was needed) that Muslims were against "us". When I initially saw it I too believed that it showed a woman on her phone near the scene of an atrocity. </span></span></div>
<div>
<span style="color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif;"><span style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div>
<span style="color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif;"><span style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Again, we should break down the mindset that leads to this point. Firstly, we are attributing how somebody should react when something like that happens. Some people will rush to help, some will run away, and some people, in shock will try to pretend it hasn't happened. We can not judge how others react because we don't know what their reaction really says. Secondly, on the basis of a still photo shared on social media, this ladies actions and thoughts have been guessed at and then shared as if a clear and undeniable truth. If she was on her phone near the scene, could she not have been calling the emergency services? Telling her family what she had seen but that she was OK? Could she have been so wrapped up in her day she hadn't even realised what was happening? Anyone who has been to London will know that plenty of people in that city do walk around in that mode. Finally, there was a leap from her not reacting according to some decided norm, then on to her not caring or even being happy this had happened to that, somehow, being evidence that all Muslims are bad. I can't even believe I am writing this - but that is the logic that some bought into and shared - within 24 hours of the incident itself. </span></span></div>
<div>
<span style="color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif;"><span style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div>
<span style="color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif;"><span style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Of course, the photo was then shown to be of something quite clearly different - the lady in question was not on her phone, but holding her face in shock and horror. But for people who wanted to believe the first interpretation because it supported their view - this wont matter. My point is that it is easy to be mistaken, or see one thing as something else. But we must be careful before being led to logical leaps and bounds by people on social media. It is natural (and uncontrollable) to have an emotional reaction when something like this happens. We all do it. It is easy to jump to conclusions - in fact in more dangerous times jumping to a snap decision is a survival strategy. But we should all be able to look at that conclusion, or flow of thought and ask ourselves - does my conclusion stack up - or does the conclusion have more to do with what I already believe? Because if we start making snap judgements on how our country protects itself, and treats us as citizens on the basis of our reactions - we bloody well have to get them right first. </span></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
</div>
The unexpected socialisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09268267206158594574noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3892375255844626465.post-52295564027191856162017-03-07T16:55:00.002-08:002017-03-07T16:55:35.830-08:00All we need now is Spandau Ballet<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"> I am sat writing this the evening before the first full budget of our 2nd Tory chancellor of the last 20 years, Philip Hammond MP. We have now had a full 6 years of Tory chancellors - even if for 5 of those they were supported in Parliament by a weak and ineffective coalition partner in the Lib Dems. So, it is probably worth looking at how well those Tory chancellors and governments have done for us. By us, I mean the great British working classes. I include in that those of us lucky enough to be working, and those of us who for whatever reason can't or aren't working at the moment. It is also right and fair to measure those chancellors against what they set out as their own priorities. After all, it is not fair to only measure them against things they never promised to do.</span><div>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"> Like most economists (and other political writers) it would be really easy for me to fall into jargon and measures that most people don't understand. Who really feels GDP, deficit, debt ratios? Whilst I want to steer clear of these as much as possible - they are necessary to consider. Mainly because these were the measures which George Osborne and then Philip Hammond have measured themselves against. But there are other measures that they feed into - and these do matter. These are how well-off we as individuals feel, and the future prospects for the economy. As well as these, there are other factors that matter - how well funded and effective our public services are; how much tax we pay and how many of us are in gainful employment.</span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"> Coming into power in 2010 was never going to be easy for any government. The world was still reeling from a financial crisis, caused by global banks, that was as severe as The Great Depression. This was impacting pretty much every country - though some worse than others. In the UK because we had bailed out the banks here we had a massive public sector debt (the amount the government owes) that had risen from under 40% to around 65% a the time of the General Election. This was the worst of all worlds - it was driven by an increasing amount of debt from bailing out the banks, a shrinking economy and a growing deficit. The deficit or surplus is the difference between how much the government is earning (basically through taxation) compared to how much it spends (on services for the people). </span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"> So whichever Chancellor came in had to do one (or all) of 3 things - grow the economy, reduce the deficit and / or reduce the overall debt the government had. The prevailing idea from George Osborne (and presumably supported at that point by the public) was to reduce the deficit, within 5 years, and thereby start to pay down the debt levels. Surely we could return to surplus? After all, we had run a surplus for the overwhelming majority of the Blair years, after the deficit laden years of the Thatcher government. This therefore gave rise to the austerity agenda - the aim being to reduce how much the government spent to get in line with what they earned. </span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"> But the Tories also inherited a number of other problems and benefits at that time. For example, we had an NHS that was the best in the world, as proven by a number of international comparative studies. This was not only in terms of the service provided, but also how much it cost to provide. Gone were the days of waiting on trolleys in corridors. We had improved standards across schools. Whilst not all of the policies used were particularly popular, they were, mostly, working. Sure Start and EMA were supported by all parties as right and necessary because of the benefits to social well-being. The unemployment rate however had taken a marked increase - meaning fewer people were working - whilst this had stayed stable around the 5% mark for the majority of the Blair years this shot up as a result of the global banking crisis to 7.5%. This had been a massive improvement - during the Thatcher years it had been between 7.5% and 10% for almost the entire period. </span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"> So across those areas, how have the Tories done? Well, let's look at deficit and debt reduction, unemployment, amount we pay in tax, and those services mentioned above one at a time. </span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Debt & Deficit</span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Since 2010, the debt as a share of GDP (the most reliable measure) has increased from 65% to 85%. In money terms, these 6 years have added £1trillion of debt. That is debt which our government must now pay back. More worryingly, the deficit is still at 3%. We were meant to be rid of both of those things by now. In fact, neither has been delivered on. We are worse off than we were. </span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Unemployment</span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Here, it appears, we have good news. The unemployment rate has seen a steady downward trend. It has moved from a recent high of 8.5% to 4.8%. We should all be celebrating, shouldn't we? Well, it isn't quite so rosy. 700,000 of those new jobs are zero hours contracts. That is 700,000 people who don't know if they will have work from one day to the next. We may as well go back to the days of the Labour exchange. Workers earnings have not increased - which you would expect from high employment. More people can say they have a job, but more than ever don't have enough money coming in to actually survive. So we must remain cautious if we want to say this is good news.</span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Taxation</span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">The level of government taxation - ie how much they take out of the economy each year to pay for public services has now increased back to levels last seen in 1986. So whilst they have spectacularly failed to reduce the deficit, they have done that whilst taking more of your money from you. Not only that, but the source of that tax has become far less friendly for you. Much less is being taken from big businesses and wealthy individuals. Instead, more tax is being taken from your wallet, by way of increases in VAT and Insurance Premium Tax. They have openly and actively taken from the poor to give to the rich. A true reverse Robin Hood. </span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Public services</span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Well, Sure Start and EMA didn't survive the first year under the Tories. Our health service is once again falling apart. This winter we had the worst performance during the winter since we started measuring such things. Junior doctors went out on strike - previously unheard of. In education there are experts, councillors (of all parties), headteachers and MPs screaming at the government to address the lack of funding. What it the response of the current government? To instead set aside money for their pet project of grammar schools and free schools. Just consider that, any extra money they find is not going to your child's school - but to open a new one that you have no say over. Teachers are leaving the profession in droves, and recruitment of new ones is drying up. We are back to poor services where only the wealthy will be okay. </span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"> So, it is amazing that we find ourselves here again. A government that can't get spending under control, where services are so poor they are a laughing stock, where only the wealthy are benefitting. Things haven't been this bad across so many measures since the early 1980s. Some would argue that there are other similarities - for example a Labour leader who is painted as a dangerous leftie by the media and who doesn't seem either willing or able to shake off the tag. What is worrying is that against this backdrop the Tories are still enjoying electoral success. This really should be a wake up call and warning to the Labour Party. The question is whether they are listening - or repeating the internal fights of the 1980s. Only time will tell. The problem is, how much of a country will we have left at the end of it?</span></div>
</div>
The unexpected socialisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09268267206158594574noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3892375255844626465.post-7286444173620263382017-01-20T12:52:00.000-08:002017-01-20T12:52:19.789-08:00Step right up, now everyone’s a winner, bargains galore. <div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 36.0pt;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">Thank goodness for Donald Trump
and Boris Johnson. There was I, worried that leaving the European Union might
in some way be bad for our economy, workers’ rights and public sector, when
they come along and show me that everything is going to be OK. Of course it is
not just the US. Apparently, countries are queueing up to do trade deals with
us. We now thankfully have some greater clarity on what Theresa May plans for
her brexit strategy. So, what can we take from her announcement yesterday? And
how bright is the future looking for us? Can we get ready for a massive influx
of trade we don’t currently have? Is the prospect of a Global Britain better
than the prospect of a “Shared Britain” (now removed) or a “Red, White and Blue
Brexit” (now removed) or is it just another meaningless slogan?<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 36.0pt;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">Really, we need to understand
from the speech what we are potentially losing compared to what we might gain.
That is the only way we can judge whether we are looking at a net positive or a
net negative. This was the most important speech that the Prime Minister has
given since we voted for her to be our leader. Only joking of course, we live
in a parliamentary democracy where elected representatives are chosen and
entrusted to make our decisions for us. Well apart from THAT decision
obviously. So, the most important speech since her party voted for her to be
party leader and therefore Prime Minister. Only joking, there was no vote for
her. So, the most important speech she has given since 35,000 in the borough of
Maidenhead voted for her (that’s right Americans, you think you have problems).
<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 36.0pt;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">I am going to focus purely on the
aspects relating to trade and the economy. There was actually some good stuff
in there, relating to how the process will run, and also massively important
areas around immigration and nationality, borders and governance. But that will
have to be part of another blog. So what did we learn? Well the key points were
these:<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpFirst" style="margin-left: 72.0pt; mso-add-space: auto; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -18.0pt;">
<!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">·<span style="font-stretch: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; line-height: normal;">
</span><!--[endif]-->All existing rules and regulations of the EU
will become British Law and workers’ rights will be protected, then will “keep
pace with the changing Labour Market”<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-left: 72.0pt; mso-add-space: auto; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -18.0pt;">
<!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">·<span style="font-stretch: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; line-height: normal;">
</span><!--[endif]-->We will leave the single market, and the customs
union then “pursue a bold and ambitious Free Trade Agreement” with the EU<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-left: 72.0pt; mso-add-space: auto; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -18.0pt;">
<!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">·<span style="font-stretch: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; line-height: normal;">
</span><!--[endif]-->We might pay to be a part of “specific European
programmes”<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-left: 72.0pt; mso-add-space: auto; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -18.0pt;">
<!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">·<span style="font-stretch: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; line-height: normal;">
</span><!--[endif]-->If we don’t get the deal we want with the EU, we
will trade with them without a trade agreement<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpLast" style="margin-left: 72.0pt; mso-add-space: auto; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -18.0pt;">
<!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">·<span style="font-stretch: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; line-height: normal;">
</span><!--[endif]-->We will seek out new trade deals with other
partners that we don’t currently have in place<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<u><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span></u></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><u>Keeping existing rules and regulations, and workers
protections</u><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"> So,
depending on your point of view, keeping existing safety and consumer laws is a
good thing or a bad thing. It will mean that we can continue to export to mainland
Europe because our goods and services will be comparable. But it might also
mean that we are held to a higher level of regulation than say US or Chinese
manufacturers. Therefore, this could make our products uncompetitive on a
global market. So this really depends on whether we get a trade agreement with
the EU. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"> More
worryingly, is the specific language used around workers’ rights. This should
be a massive big warning sign to everybody who is employed in the UK. Over the
last 6 years the Tories (and their coalition partners) have overseen the
stripping away of workers’ rights, and have resisted every opportunity to improve
them. For example, even at the height of the furore over zero hours contracts,
the government did nothing. Coupled with that our rights to strike have been
eroded, weakening our bargaining power with companies. And senior members of
the government are openly talking about banning the use of strikes across
industries. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"> Mrs May
could have said that workers’ rights would be improved upon, or strengthened.
But the language is purposefully specific. “Keeping pace with the changing
Labour Market”. Well, if we look at how the Labour market is changing, more
people are being put in to roles where their employers can pretend they are
self-employed; employers can give up any sort of responsibility through the
“gig” economy; zero hours contracts will become more prevalent; trade unions
will be downgraded and weakened at every turn; pensions agreements will no
longer be stuck to by employers whilst taxpayers bail out pensions funds.
Basically, if you are employed, then this is the start of a bonfire of what
rights you currently have. If you are applauding this speech, you are either an
employer yourself, or not paying attention. Perhaps somebody could remind me,
when we voted for the UK to leave the European Union, where we also voted to
give up our working rights to Sir Philip Green and Mike Ashley? I obviously
ticked that box without realising. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<u><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span></u></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><u>Leaving the Single Market and Customs Union, getting a
trade deal with Europe instead, paying for access</u><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"> It is
probably worth, as a starting point, understanding what our trade deal within
Europe currently means. Firstly, it is worth stating that it is probably the
most comprehensive, invasive and wide-ranging multi-lateral trade agreement in
the world. It includes everything from free trade (meaning we trade our goods
free from tariffs being applied by other countries), customs union (meaning we
all apply the same tariffs to goods coming from outside our deal), free
movement (of services, capital and resource ie people) and a level of political
union too. It covers almost every aspect of trade and commerce, industry and
services, import and export. The effort to split ourselves out from it is on a
scale unprecedented and untried. It is not simply rhetoric to say it is of the
scale that countries leaving the USSR and Eastern-bloc felt during the early
90s. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"> So we
would be leaving, with great difficulty and cost a <u>free-</u>trading bloc of
450 million people in 27 states (once you take us out of the official figures).
It has GDP of US$13tn (again once you take us away from the published figures).
It is 41km away from us at the closest point. Those are the really key
considerations in any trading deal we want to do: how many individual consumers
are there, how wealthy is it, how far away is it, and what tariffs would we
expect. It is worth also stating that given the depth and breadth of the
negotiations that will be needed, this will (you would hope) require a great
deal of considered and careful negotiation. We currently have no experience of
trade negotiations, given that we haven’t had to for about 40 years. It seems a
reasonable assumption that what experience we can muster together will be
focussed on this deal. Two years of effort to LEAVE that free trade deal.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"> Of
course, it is possible that we could end up with an even better trade deal.
However, it is highly improbably. By its very nature, if we are choosing to say
to a trading bloc that have grown together “we want to trade with you, but
don’t wish to pay in to your structural costs” then it is only reasonable to
assume we will get a worse deal than full membership. Even Theresa May accepts
that. Hence why the Prime Minister and others have been warming us up to the
idea that we will still have to pay something to continue to trade freely in
certain markets. I think it is fair to assume this will include the Motor
industry (if not, then what the hell have we promised Nissan?) and financial
services (given it is our biggest single industry). Of course, that gives us
the question of what will the cost be? How much will we have to pay for access?
Not only that, does it mean any industry which isn’t beloved of the Tories
(Steel, manufacturing, non-financial services) should now expect tariffs to
start to affect their business. So there we have it, a deal where we still pay
in (when it suits the Tories) and everybody else has their business negatively
impacted. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"> Not
only that, but what if we start imposing our own tariffs on European goods?
Well, that will lead to massive instantaneous inflation, whilst at the same
time our economy is getting worse. We had this in the 1970s – and the term
which was coined was stagflation – a stagnant economy whilst prices rise. It
was a horrific time. If you are too young to remember it be grateful, then ask
somebody who was around how it felt. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<u><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span></u></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><u>No deal is better than a bad deal, trade deals with other
parties</u><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<u><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span></u></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"> Of
course, we could choose to have no trade deal at all with Europe. However, just
the most cursory glance at this shows how completely stupid and damaging this
would be. This would mean that we would immediately start trading with ALL of
the European Union at WTO Tariff rates. In effect every single item that we
export to Europe would immediately be less competitive, and therefore we would
either have to sell less OR sell them more cheaply. The idea that no deal is
better than a bad deal is complete hogwash – and everybody knows it. God even
to export Oxygen to the EU we would have to pay a tariff of 5% - and they
breath the bloody stuff (yes, I know, thanks). So this idea that we will go
with No Deal is never going to happen. Besides which, in all honesty both
parties want to get a deal. It is in their interest as well. It is entirely a
PM trying to sound tough for the UKIP-leaning voters in her own party. It is
simply within our interest to achieve some deal with Europe (popn 450m, GDP
US$13tn, dist 40km) – and it is theirs to do a deal with us (popn 65m, GDP
US$3tn, dist 40km). <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"> What
about other deals? We are told by Boris Johnson that countries are “queueing
up” to do a trade deal with us. Well, the first consideration is – why aren’t
we trading with them currently? If these countries are so desperate to get a
trade deal with us, why is that? Well, we already do trade with many of them.
But it is at a lower level than perhaps we could. Therefore, any belief that
this will lead to a massive influx of NEW trade is again erroneous. What it
will do is make trade easier and therefore give some lift to our global trade
levels. It might also (if we remove import tariffs) lead to consumers paying
less for certain goods. It is way beyond me to be able to state with any
certainty what scale the impact would be. But it would need to be very high
indeed to offset any major losses of trade with the EU. I am going to leave the
US to one side for a moment, but still, let’s pick out some of the options
which do look like “live picks” ie countries that are talking about trading
with us:<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<table border="1" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="MsoTableGrid" style="border-collapse: collapse; border: none; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-padding-alt: 0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt; mso-yfti-tbllook: 1184;">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td style="border: solid windowtext 1.0pt; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt; width: 92.4pt;" valign="top" width="123">
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">Country<o:p></o:p></span></div>
</td>
<td style="border-left: none; border: solid windowtext 1.0pt; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt; width: 92.4pt;" valign="top" width="123">
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">Population<o:p></o:p></span></div>
</td>
<td style="border-left: none; border: solid windowtext 1.0pt; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt; width: 92.4pt;" valign="top" width="123">
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">Size of economy<o:p></o:p></span></div>
</td>
<td style="border-left: none; border: solid windowtext 1.0pt; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt; width: 92.45pt;" valign="top" width="123">
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">Distance<o:p></o:p></span></div>
</td>
<td style="border-left: none; border: solid windowtext 1.0pt; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt; width: 92.45pt;" valign="top" width="123">
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">Comments<o:p></o:p></span></div>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="border-top: none; border: solid windowtext 1.0pt; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt; width: 92.4pt;" valign="top" width="123">
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<b><span style="color: red;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">EU<o:p></o:p></span></span></b></div>
</td>
<td style="border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-left: none; border-right: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-top: none; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt; width: 92.4pt;" valign="top" width="123">
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<b><span style="color: red;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">450m<o:p></o:p></span></span></b></div>
</td>
<td style="border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-left: none; border-right: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-top: none; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt; width: 92.4pt;" valign="top" width="123">
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<b><span style="color: red;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">US$13.1tn<o:p></o:p></span></span></b></div>
</td>
<td style="border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-left: none; border-right: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-top: none; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt; width: 92.45pt;" valign="top" width="123">
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<b><span style="color: red;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">41km<o:p></o:p></span></span></b></div>
</td>
<td style="border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-left: none; border-right: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-top: none; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt; width: 92.45pt;" valign="top" width="123">
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="border-top: none; border: solid windowtext 1.0pt; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt; width: 92.4pt;" valign="top" width="123">
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">Iceland<o:p></o:p></span></div>
</td>
<td style="border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-left: none; border-right: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-top: none; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt; width: 92.4pt;" valign="top" width="123">
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">0.3m<o:p></o:p></span></div>
</td>
<td style="border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-left: none; border-right: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-top: none; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt; width: 92.4pt;" valign="top" width="123">
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">US$0.016tn<o:p></o:p></span></div>
</td>
<td style="border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-left: none; border-right: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-top: none; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt; width: 92.45pt;" valign="top" width="123">
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">1,894km<o:p></o:p></span></div>
</td>
<td style="border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-left: none; border-right: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-top: none; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt; width: 92.45pt;" valign="top" width="123">
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="border-top: none; border: solid windowtext 1.0pt; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt; width: 92.4pt;" valign="top" width="123">
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">India<o:p></o:p></span></div>
</td>
<td style="border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-left: none; border-right: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-top: none; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt; width: 92.4pt;" valign="top" width="123">
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">1,300m<o:p></o:p></span></div>
</td>
<td style="border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-left: none; border-right: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-top: none; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt; width: 92.4pt;" valign="top" width="123">
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">US$8.72tn<o:p></o:p></span></div>
</td>
<td style="border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-left: none; border-right: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-top: none; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt; width: 92.45pt;" valign="top" width="123">
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">7,194km<o:p></o:p></span></div>
</td>
<td style="border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-left: none; border-right: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-top: none; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt; width: 92.45pt;" valign="top" width="123">
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="border-top: none; border: solid windowtext 1.0pt; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt; width: 92.4pt;" valign="top" width="123">
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">New Zealand<o:p></o:p></span></div>
</td>
<td style="border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-left: none; border-right: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-top: none; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt; width: 92.4pt;" valign="top" width="123">
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">4.7m<o:p></o:p></span></div>
</td>
<td style="border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-left: none; border-right: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-top: none; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt; width: 92.4pt;" valign="top" width="123">
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">US$0.174tn<o:p></o:p></span></div>
</td>
<td style="border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-left: none; border-right: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-top: none; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt; width: 92.45pt;" valign="top" width="123">
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">18,500km<o:p></o:p></span></div>
</td>
<td style="border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-left: none; border-right: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-top: none; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt; width: 92.45pt;" valign="top" width="123">
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="border-top: none; border: solid windowtext 1.0pt; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt; width: 92.4pt;" valign="top" width="123">
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">Australia<o:p></o:p></span></div>
</td>
<td style="border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-left: none; border-right: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-top: none; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt; width: 92.4pt;" valign="top" width="123">
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">24m<o:p></o:p></span></div>
</td>
<td style="border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-left: none; border-right: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-top: none; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt; width: 92.4pt;" valign="top" width="123">
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">US$1.2tn<o:p></o:p></span></div>
</td>
<td style="border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-left: none; border-right: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-top: none; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt; width: 92.45pt;" valign="top" width="123">
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">17,000km<o:p></o:p></span></div>
</td>
<td style="border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-left: none; border-right: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-top: none; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt; width: 92.45pt;" valign="top" width="123">
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="border-top: none; border: solid windowtext 1.0pt; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt; width: 92.4pt;" valign="top" width="123">
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">Canada<o:p></o:p></span></div>
</td>
<td style="border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-left: none; border-right: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-top: none; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt; width: 92.4pt;" valign="top" width="123">
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">36m<o:p></o:p></span></div>
</td>
<td style="border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-left: none; border-right: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-top: none; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt; width: 92.4pt;" valign="top" width="123">
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">US$1.5tn<o:p></o:p></span></div>
</td>
<td style="border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-left: none; border-right: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-top: none; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt; width: 92.45pt;" valign="top" width="123">
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">5,700km<o:p></o:p></span></div>
</td>
<td style="border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-left: none; border-right: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-top: none; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt; width: 92.45pt;" valign="top" width="123">
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="border-top: none; border: solid windowtext 1.0pt; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt; width: 92.4pt;" valign="top" width="123">
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">Ghana<o:p></o:p></span></div>
</td>
<td style="border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-left: none; border-right: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-top: none; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt; width: 92.4pt;" valign="top" width="123">
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">27m<o:p></o:p></span></div>
</td>
<td style="border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-left: none; border-right: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-top: none; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt; width: 92.4pt;" valign="top" width="123">
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">US$0.121bn<o:p></o:p></span></div>
</td>
<td style="border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-left: none; border-right: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-top: none; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt; width: 92.45pt;" valign="top" width="123">
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">4,800km<o:p></o:p></span></div>
</td>
<td style="border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-left: none; border-right: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-top: none; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt; width: 92.45pt;" valign="top" width="123">
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="border-top: none; border: solid windowtext 1.0pt; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt; width: 92.4pt;" valign="top" width="123">
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">Mexico<o:p></o:p></span></div>
</td>
<td style="border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-left: none; border-right: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-top: none; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt; width: 92.4pt;" valign="top" width="123">
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">120m<o:p></o:p></span></div>
</td>
<td style="border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-left: none; border-right: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-top: none; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt; width: 92.4pt;" valign="top" width="123">
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">US$2.2tn<o:p></o:p></span></div>
</td>
<td style="border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-left: none; border-right: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-top: none; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt; width: 92.45pt;" valign="top" width="123">
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">9,000km<o:p></o:p></span></div>
</td>
<td style="border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-left: none; border-right: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-top: none; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt; width: 92.45pt;" valign="top" width="123">
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="border-top: none; border: solid windowtext 1.0pt; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt; width: 92.4pt;" valign="top" width="123">
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">South Korea<o:p></o:p></span></div>
</td>
<td style="border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-left: none; border-right: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-top: none; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt; width: 92.4pt;" valign="top" width="123">
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">50m<o:p></o:p></span></div>
</td>
<td style="border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-left: none; border-right: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-top: none; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt; width: 92.4pt;" valign="top" width="123">
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">US$1.4tn<o:p></o:p></span></div>
</td>
<td style="border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-left: none; border-right: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-top: none; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt; width: 92.45pt;" valign="top" width="123">
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">9,000km<o:p></o:p></span></div>
</td>
<td style="border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-left: none; border-right: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-top: none; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt; width: 92.45pt;" valign="top" width="123">
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="border-top: none; border: solid windowtext 1.0pt; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt; width: 92.4pt;" valign="top" width="123">
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<b><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">Total <o:p></o:p></span></b></div>
</td>
<td style="border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-left: none; border-right: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-top: none; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt; width: 92.4pt;" valign="top" width="123">
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<b><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">1,562m<o:p></o:p></span></b></div>
</td>
<td style="border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-left: none; border-right: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-top: none; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt; width: 92.4pt;" valign="top" width="123">
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<b><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">US$15.3tn<o:p></o:p></span></b></div>
</td>
<td style="border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-left: none; border-right: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-top: none; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt; width: 92.45pt;" valign="top" width="123">
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<b><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">9,136km average<o:p></o:p></span></b></div>
</td>
<td style="border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-left: none; border-right: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-top: none; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt; width: 92.45pt;" valign="top" width="123">
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody></table>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"> So, if
the worst happened and we stopped all trade with the EU (which no-one is
suggesting, to replace it we would need to trade with these 8 separate
economies to get a trading block of the same size. Ignoring the fact that on
average that would mean sending goods 45 times further on average to sell them.
<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"> To put
it another way, our trade with the EU accounts for 45% of our exports. If we
lost a quarter of that export trade – on our doorstep – we would need to boost
our sales internationally to non-EU countries by 11%. Unfortunately, our trade
with international neighbours is already at record levels for us. What else are
we going to sell – at a competitive price after sending it an extra 9,100 km? The
very desperately sad thing is, we are already a successful trading nation. Is
it really possible that not being part of a customs union with the EU is going
to boost our trading with every we currently trade with across the board by
over 10% BEFORE the end of the current deal with the EU in 2 years’ time?<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"> Who is
going to negotiate these trade deals? Everyone with experience or knowledge
will be working on the EU deal? Or should we leave that to Boris “let’s joke
about the Nazis” Johnson? Genuinely? Of course, we have the trade deal to look
forward to with the US. After all, we have been promised a trade deal by the
President-Elect, a man who never goes back on what he says. Well, he has
already threatened to pull out of NAFTA (a free trade deal), and put 35% import
tariffs on goods from China and Mexico – 2 of their biggest trading partners
and very strong economies. If Donald Trump is looking to trade on those terms
with others, why would we believe we would get anything more beneficial?<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<u><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span></u></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><u>Everything’s rosy</u><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<u><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span></u></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"> There
is no hard evidence to say that is all impossible. It may well be that against
all odds the government manage to deliver. But for that to happen we would need
a massive turnaround in fortunes, in abilities, in industry, in trade patterns
and in the views of our own government. At the same time we would need the EU
to be kind to us in any future trade deal. Put quite simply, the potential
risks are much greater than the opportunities at the moment. I would love to be
wrong about this – and I am often wrong. But I see no analysis which suggests
anything other than this stark conclusion – by leaving the single market we are
throwing away access to a strong market on a really good deal for the
possibility of access to less accessible markets, with less good deals. This
can only be bad for our economy. 52.1% of people voted for Brexit. But how many
voted for an almost certain worsening of our economy, job losses, rights and
protection losses, uncertainty and a weaker economy?</span><o:p></o:p></div>
</div>
The unexpected socialisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09268267206158594574noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3892375255844626465.post-86885514166550921122016-11-08T16:45:00.001-08:002016-11-08T16:45:44.372-08:00Some Leave voters have every right to be angry. They just need to work out who with.<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<span style="font-size: large;">So quite an extraordinary act took place last week. 3 judges from the High Court in London made a decision on a technical point of law and sent the news and the political sphere into overdrive. This doesn't happen very often, but given the topic they were ruling on this was hardly surprising. They were passing judgement on a case brought by a group of private citizens against the UK Government on the specific legal steps the government must take to invoke Article 50 of the EU - that is to start the formal process of Brexit.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;">This has been jumped on, by members of the public and experienced politicians alike as an attempt to derail the democratic will of the UK - that we want to leave the EU. The majority have spoken, and here are a bunch of bremoaners trying to stop that from happening. Is that the case though? Our democracy that has been hard won and hard protected now under attack? Certainly during the Leave campaign much was made of our governance, rights and democracy tying back to the Magna Carta and being uninterrupted since then. Is someone trying to run roughshod over that?</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;">I believe the answer is an unequivocal yes. Should Leavers be angry? For some of them, I think they have every right to be.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: large;">Lots of leavers voted that way for lots of different reasons. I think it is a real shame that so many have wanted to tar them all as racists. Some Leavers had decided, long before any cases were put forward that they wanted to Vote Leave. That is absolutely fine. It is a democracy. We don't get a right to limit the vote to only people who consider issues in the way that we do. It is the system we have. But over the course of the referendum campaign, there were really 4 key issues that were used to push the Leave vote. Firstly, to take back control of unchecked immigration. Secondly, to take back control of our laws and rulings. Third, that we would be able to create new and better trading relationships with a wider range of partners. Finally, that we could save money paid in to the EU and use this, for example, to give the NHS an extra £350 million a week. </span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;">These 4 issues, when combined and brought together, spoke to the very heart of the issues a large group of people care about. It spoke to our national pride and national strength. Anyone arguing against this could easily be derided as not patriotic (I know this, because I took this claim fairly regularly). But I can see the emotional flow of that argument. These claims were pushed very strongly, not just by the official campaign, but by UKIP and the majority of the British press too. </span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;">It's quite easy to see, when someone is faced with this level of emotional argument, and see a set of factors that are so clearly wrong and unjust, that they expect everyone else to see it too. I actually wonder why there wasn't more aggression and violence. But also, if you have been given this story, you would assume that once through the referendum, this horrible situation would be remedied quickly. No more EU, no more money paid, no more immigration, control back in your hands.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;">Unfortunately, they have been both badly let down, and badly lied to. Firstly, David Cameron has let down not only Leavers but everybody in the country. This referendum was only ever meant to kill off UKIP. There was never any intention within government that Remain would actually lose. For this reason, there was never any clarity or honesty as to what would happen if they did. The government didn't even make contingency plans for that outcome. Just imagine that, a government not planning for a possible outcome of a binary referendum. Leave was never on the cards. Why else do you think the PM immediately resigned?</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;">The other effect of this is that there was never any clarity given on how we would or could leave and what leaving would free us from. Had government departments been allowed to work on both outcomes then a clear option would have been given. Stay, and you get A. Leave and you get B. Unfortunately, this was taken away from the electorate. Instead, the Vote Leave campaign, UKIP and press barons were allowed to fill the void where official government guidance should have been. </span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;">A really good example of this is shown by the reaction to the court case last week. The legislation which allowed the referendum was quite clear that it was advisory. Any decision was always going to be subject to British laws and British government - in the shape of the houses of parliament. But if you have been told for three months - you, personally - that you were taking back control, wouldn't you be shocked to now hear that? I would be. </span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;">But this belief that people were given, came quite clearly from UKIP, Vote Leave and the press. It is therefore not at all surprising that all of those bodies have immediately come out and attacked the judges and the law of this country. Not because they ever believed it. But because the alternative is that this raw emotion they have unleashed turns on them to hold them to account for selling them a fairytale. </span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;">Indeed, the judges had not made any ruling on whether we could or couldn't or even should or shouldn't leave the EU. They were purely ruling to say that British Law must be followed. However, social media and the mainstream media were awash with this attempt to stop Brexit by these judges. Never mind the fact that reading of it is completely untrue - UKIP, The Daily Mail, The Express all presented it as an attempt BY THE JUDGES to stop Brexit. In fact, in ever more dangerous behaviour Nigel Farage has called on people to march on the Supreme Court. Because nothing says respect for the rule of law like attempting to intimidate judges. </span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;">Of course, this is just one example where a lack of planning and honesty is going to cause problems. There was never any decision or agreement on whether we would have any future relationship with Europe at all. This was not covered in the referendum. We were given a binary choice between the status quo and whatever the Leave campaign wanted to sell us. So it is far from certain whether our final leaving deal will include: Trade tariffs, freedom of movement, single market access, accepting some European rules. But the Leave camp have already sold all of these things. Given the level of emotion they have plumbed and brought to the surface, this could lead to even greater anger in the future. </span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;">If you voted or now want to Leave, I would not expect any other outcome. But it is time to look at what you have been sold, and whether you actually want it. And if you do, what should it look like? The problem is that other Leavers might have a different view from you. There is no way you can all be kept happy. So, you have every right to be angry. But be angry with David Cameron for making a mess of such an important democratic process. Be angry with those who have lied to you. But don't be angry with the courts. Once this is all over, it is likely they will be the only ones left to us. Do you really want to damage them to the point that they can no longer hold the government to account?</span><br />
<br /></div>
The unexpected socialisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09268267206158594574noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3892375255844626465.post-26667314315308742902016-10-22T04:05:00.001-07:002016-10-22T04:08:50.702-07:00How to attribute blame, apparently<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: large;"> Justice, and the perception of justice, is something that can be very personal. Many people will see acts, or offences, or outcomes of criminal or civil cases and overlay their own experiences and views on them. Similarly, this must happen to those people who have been asked to act as jurors. Additionally, we have a whole host of people in the UK who are charged with seeing justice delivered - police officers, lawyers, judges, Police and Crime Commissioners. They will also use their own experiences. I want to look at the reaction to two very different situations which are surprisingly closely linked. Our system of justice works on the basis that we believe people will be as fair as they can be. But can we really trust that still?</span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: large;"> I am no legal expert. I am sure that any lawyers who read this will have a field day with my lack of reasoning. Having said that, I still find myself wondering what drove the jury in the Ched Evans case ( <a href="http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/ched-evans-rape-verdict-footballer-cleared-not-guilty-a7361701.html">http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/ched-evans-rape-verdict-footballer-cleared-not-guilty-a7361701.html</a> ) to their decision. To recap the points of the case that are NOT in dispute. His friend chatted up and took an extremely drunken girl back to a hotel room.Once there, his friend phoned him, and he travelled to the hotel, got a key card for the room, went in, had sex with the girl and then left via a fire exit. </span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: large;"> </span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: large;"> Initially, this was sufficient evidence to have Ched Evans convicted of rape - a decision he appealed, on the basis of new evidence. What new evidence could possibly throw light on what appears a straight forward case to the uninitiated? Surprisingly, it was evidence that aimed to make the case about the previous actions of the victim rather than the accused. The new evidence was that the person in question had, in previous encounters, consented to sex with other men whilst drunk. It wasn't evidence about the night in question, or the act itself, but rather evidence that this girl could have consented AND had done so previously with other men. That was sufficient for Ched Evans to be found not guilty. Not only that, but there has been an outpouring of support for him and talk of how his life has been ruined. </span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: large;"> I can just about understand how today's world can be confusing for young men. Ironically for someone who uses the internet to share his thoughts, I can see how corrupting an influence the internet can be. Recently a friend of mine had to post the following message on her Facebook account</span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<i><span style="font-size: large;">"<span style="background-color: white; color: #1d2129; font-family: "helvetica" , "arial" , sans-serif; text-align: left;">Just a friendly reminded that if you're a left winger and I accepted you as a friend on here based upon our similar political affiliation PLEASE don't inbox me being a perv because I'm really not interested - I mean seriously - even if you look like Daniel Craig and have the political principles of Jeremy Corbyn. I'm here for friendship / comradeship / solidarity - not sex.</span><span style="background-color: white; color: #1d2129; font-family: "helvetica" , "arial" , sans-serif; text-align: left;"> </span></span></i></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<i><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="background-color: white; color: #1d2129; font-family: "helvetica" , "arial" , sans-serif; text-align: left;">I'm getting REALLY pissed off with the amount of men inboxing creepy stuff and I refuse to stop accepting people based upon the actions of a few because we're socialists and socialism is all about being social! But let's keep in mind there's a line and let's try not to cross it!</span><span style="background-color: white; color: #1d2129; font-family: "helvetica" , "arial" , sans-serif; text-align: left;"> "</span> </span></i></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<i><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></i></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: large;"> People are confused about what the social conventions are, particularly on the internet. At the same time we now have unfettered access to free pornography and the impact that has on our view of what is normal. But I defy anyone to tell me that travelling to a hotel because you believe a girl is there who is so drunk she will have sex with anyone can be seen as positive behaviour. We have to assume the court is correct. But even if it was consensual, how many of you would be happy to hear that your brother, or father, or son, or friend had behaved that way? So how exactly do people now see him as an innocent victim? Whatever the answer, the court ruling and parts of public opinion are clear - if any blame can be attributed to the victim (real or not) then they shouldn't receive justice through the courts. </span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: large;"> To contrast that I want to also talk about another news story that has occurred recently. The assistant chief of police in Leicestershire said that people who don't lock doors and windows shouldn't have crimes investigated ( <a href="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3841248/Police-chief-claims-burglaries-shouldn-t-investigated-victims-leave-WINDOWS-open-12-months-telling-officers-ignore-attempted-break-ins-odd-numbered-houses.html">http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3841248/Police-chief-claims-burglaries-shouldn-t-investigated-victims-leave-WINDOWS-open-12-months-telling-officers-ignore-attempted-break-ins-odd-numbered-houses.html</a> ). So his argument is that if you are a victim, and you could have done more to prevent the crime, in other words you carry some of the blame (by making it easier for thieves) you shouldn't get access to justice. As you can imagine, this caused uproar. Even Tory MPs rushed to condemn his comments as victim blaming. </span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: large;"> I find this incredible. I don't agree with the Assistant Chief by the way. But I find the hypocrisy sickening. We may as well write the rules and laws down as "if any blame can be attributed to the victim (real or not) then they shouldn't receive justice through the courts - but only where the victim is a woman". We really can't allow this to continue. This level of horrific, damaging, harmful patriarchy simply shouldn't still exist. A system where the past behaviour of a victim (any victim) is considered as part of the crime surely can't be right? Particularly where this seems to be much more used when it comes to rape and sexual assault. When was the last time you heard a murderer get away with a crime because their victim wasn't very nice for example? Quite simply justice must be available to everyone in the same way. It is one of the cornerstones of a mature democracy. But all the available evidence shows that we don't have that, and in some cases, we don't want it.</span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
</div>
The unexpected socialisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09268267206158594574noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3892375255844626465.post-89829118778606700952016-09-29T16:14:00.001-07:002016-09-29T16:14:44.731-07:00The party is over, long live the party.<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;"> Ah, the
morning after the night before. I was lucky enough to get a ticket last night
to the closing party of The World Transformed – the Momentum fringe event at
the Labour Party conference. Sadly, due to childcare arrangements I left 10
minutes before Jeremy Corbyn arrived. But I did get to see a visibly
“emotional” famous Guardian columnist arriving. It was a great party – I
managed to see fantastic sets from Barbieshop (who did the most amazing cover
of Birdhouse in Your Soul) and All We Are. Who knew people were still making
music like that? Anyone who likes 80s pop electronica really should go and see
them. Of course, it is now 8am the next day and I am travelling to London by
Virgin “You can stick your data protection laws around CCTV up your arse”
trains. So feeling a little jaded.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;"> Of course that is the party over,
but we still have one day of conference left (although by the time I publish
this we will know what JC had to say). Whilst details of his speech, in time
honoured fashion, have been given to all of the major reputable news channels
(and News International I imagine) I am not going to delve so much into that
speech, but more generally look at the state of the overall party, given the
conference so far. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;"> Firstly, we now have a twice elected
leader. Once could be seen as a fluke. Twice, with an increased mandate, and
the fact that the runner up in the election was Purged voters, really should
show to those who are unhappy with JC that they will not be able to get rid of
him that easily. For a man who is unelectable, thin-skinned and unresilient he
has proven to be remarkably electable and robust. Of course, those are only the
votes of the Labour Party members, and they are all mad lefties who don’t
understand the real world or concerns of the general public. So what would they
know. It is, after all, their party. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;"> Whilst JC has again won the
leadership of the party, it looks as if he still doesn’t have control of it. I
mean this in 3 different ways. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: left; text-indent: 36pt;">
<span style="font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;">Firstly, as can be seen from the lack of discipline in
comments at conference from some people – and the “faux” outrage that Laura
Kuenssberg has spent 3 days trying to ferment over the Clive Lewis speech – JC
does not have the level of control over the party that Blair / Brown /
Mandelson / Campbell mastered. Of course, this is not necessarily a bad thing.
Anyone who has seen it will remember the Mark Thomas Comedy Product where he
used a list of pager numbers to frighten terrified MPs and delegates into
giving repeated standing ovations during a speech (Series 3, Episode 8). I am
not sure we should want to return to a party that has absolutely unwavering
discipline to a messiah at it’s heart. I believe that debate and democratic
tension is really important. If we lose this we will lose the right to call
ourselves a democratic, socialist party. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: left; text-indent: 36pt;">
<span style="font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;">Secondly, due to movements behind the scene, JC has also lost
control of the National Executive Committee. Just days after gaining control of
it. Depending on what you believe, the decision to increase the size of the NEC
by an appointed member by the leader of each of the Welsh and Scottish parties
has been on the cards for ages, it just happens to be now that it has become
imperative OR Progress / Saving Labour have done this in order to ensure the
balance remains, for now at least, against Jeremy Corbyn. Now, you can make up
your own mind on that. But one thing that I certainly would draw your attention
to is the fact that on the evening before these proposals were going to be
voted on Saving Labour begged people who backed this to be in conference early
to stop a card vote / line by line discussion. Even asking their members and
supporters to “incentivise” people to turn up early and vote their way with
free drinks. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: left; text-indent: 36pt;">
<span style="font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;">I think that shows a third way that the left wing faction /
JC is not in control of the party. And that is they are playing a different
game from Progress in terms of how to pull the levers of power and how to get
things done. We will really see this in 3 ways through the next cabinet
reshuffle and elections to it (should they be reinstated), formulation of our
policies and getting on an election footing, and how any question of positive
selection of Labour candidates is handled. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: left; text-indent: 36pt;">
<span style="font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;">I strongly believe that we should aim to be a party of power,
and that to do that we have to win elections. I also believe that to win you
have to have strong performers in your team, and that your team needs to work
as one. I would therefore strongly urge that there is no immediate major
reshuffle. I think that would show quite poorly however it goes. If too many
MPs who have no loyalty to the leader and who are seen as superstar parliamentarians
go back in, we end up with a fractured top team. It also sends a really strong
signal to people like Clive Lewis and Angela Rayner and Emily Thornberry (who
have been doing an excellent job) “Thanks, you have done a really good job, but
the big boys are back now”. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: left; text-indent: 36pt;">
<span style="font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;">If not enough changes are made then Jeremy Corbyn will be
pilloried in the press and the right wing of the party as having snubbed them,
aiming to be a party of opposition etc. If a major reshuffle happens, then it
would need to be done with a deftness that so far we have not really seen from
Corbyn and his team – balancing all of those things, individual drive and
ambition, views from the party and an ability to deliver people in to jobs they
might not have necessarily considered. So far, in my opinion, JC has not shown
the level of managerialism to pull that off well. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: left; text-indent: 36pt;">
<span style="font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;">Of course, delaying it does risk(?) a move towards some form
of direct democracy in terms of choosing the shadow cabinet. Now whilst I
believe that there are some in the PLP who are not pulling for the party (and
fuck knows why Tristram “the 1% should rule you all” Hunt is still a Labour MP)
I find myself moving towards some or all of the positions being chosen by the
PLP and some by the party leader rather than direct democracy from the
membership. My rationale for this is that any form of democracy or governance
needs to be robust. That is, it needs to be the right size for the job, strong
enough to get things done and flexible and agile to deal with issues. If we had
direct elections to the shadow cabinet from the membership the administrative
burden of this would be so great as to tie us down. We would not be able to
deal with issues quickly and if there were resignations we would end up
paralysed until the process was put through the NEC and the invariable legal
challenges so beloved of millionaires and members. So maybe certain key posts
being appointed by the leader, regular elections to the others by the PLP
(maybe every 2 years) with any resignations being filled by the leader’s
choice. This allows and forces the PLP to work together with the incumbent
leader (whoever that is) and vice versa. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: left; text-indent: 36pt;">
<span style="font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;">Of course, that also plays into the next point – formulation
of policies and getting onto an election footing. Many would see this as having
a fixed direction of travel in terms of policy aims, which we are settled on
and that are easy to explain and understand. We can’t simply go with
platitudes. We need to focus on offering an alternative to not only the tories
but UKIP and the SNP. They are the parties damaging us in what are working
class areas. I’m stealing from a friend of mine here but as he said “winning
power means winning back UKIP voters – let me know how many of them you see at
your next Momentum event”. This will not be done by going back into arguments
around Trident, internal party politics, whether capitalism is good or bad. The
focus on these, because they are close to the leaders and many members hearts
(and rightly so) needs to stop. That is not a party geared up to face the
country. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: left; text-indent: 36pt;">
<span style="font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;">So we should focus where we can win – with clear unambiguous
policies. I think we must focus on the reasons for the brexit vote. 52% of
voters voted brexit. Whilst we can’t know why they all voted that way, we need
to understand for those voters where it was a protest vote what we can do to
improve their lives. But we need to listen to them first. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: left; text-indent: 36pt;">
<span style="font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;">We also need to act in unison. We can not, as a party, win an
election whilst we have Chris Leslie MP running around briefing against Labour
policies and actively trying to scare voters away from voting Labour. It is not
enough for the party to try to connect to the electorate. MPs need to connect
to the party, the message and their electorate too. Where they can’t or won’t
do that, then they need to consider whether they still have the desire to be a
Labour MP. Part of that needs to be in my opinion, a move away from threats of
deselection or mandatory reselection. I don’t even recognise what those terms
mean. However, I strongly support the idea that each CLP should, on a regular
basis positively confirm who they wish to support to stand up and go in front
of the public on behalf of the party. Whilst there is currently a trigger
ballot mechanism, this is unhelpful, combative and goes against working in a
co-operative democratic party. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: left; text-indent: 36pt;">
<span style="font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;">I would therefore strongly support a standing, regular
scheduled positive confirmation from each CLP that they still support their
candidate, before that candidate stands in front of the public. This should
include, where it is welcomed by the members of the CLP, the opportunity for
others to stand for that candidacy. We must ensure we have a strong link to the
local CLP – after all their funds, hard work and resources will be spent in any
election campaign. If not, then there can be NO argument if we go back to the
days when Peter Mandelson could decide who would stand in constituencies where
a resignation or retirement takes place, only now with Corbynites parachuted
in. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: left; text-indent: 36pt;">
<span style="font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;">My worry is that when you look at how the party is being run
too many decisions are being made still by those who directly and openly oppose
the current leadership and direction of the party. Momentum are (so far)
holding true to their aims of developing a community, grassroots and activist
movement. Even dispatches when they tried couldn’t find evidence of concerted
efforts to get hold of those levers of power. What they found was what is there
– a group of people of mixed ages, abilities and social backgrounds trying to
embed a new way for the world to be from the ground up. What we need to see is
some level of maturity and control from the centre. If Jeremy Corbyn and
Momentum are not going to do this for the leadership, they need to find someone
who will. But it is hard to see who will be able to save the party by pulling
it back in line – without being willing to go against the leaders newer, nicer way
of doing politics. And without it, will Corbyn ever control the party? Well, we
should know by the time of the next general election.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
</div>
The unexpected socialisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09268267206158594574noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3892375255844626465.post-65200304350017118542016-09-13T13:51:00.000-07:002016-09-13T13:51:19.561-07:00Our Leadership Candidates<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div class="MsoNormal">
Well, another summer comes to an end. Children are going
back to school, the 2 weeks in Torremolinos are a distant memory for us all.
Nights are just starting to draw in, and another Labour Leadership election is
drawing to a close. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
I
wonder which was worse now. Was it last year’s or this one? <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 36.0pt;">
At least for the one last year,
there felt like a real purpose to it. We had lost the general election for
reasons that the Beckett Report went into (<a href="http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2016/01/beckett-report-into-labours-loss-is-uncomfortable-reading-for-all-party-factions/">http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2016/01/beckett-report-into-labours-loss-is-uncomfortable-reading-for-all-party-factions/</a>)
whether you believe that or not. We needed new leadership to change the
direction of the party on some fundamental issues. We didn’t have a leader – Ed
Miliband had stood down. We now know (thanks to Ed Balls) that he had to –
after all, it was all his fault for not including Ed Balls in his decision
making (<a href="http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/sep/02/ed-balls-interview-speaking-out-memoir-labour-blair-brown">http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/sep/02/ed-balls-interview-speaking-out-memoir-labour-blair-brown</a>
). I am sure his professional dance partner is bricking it. I think we can know
whose fault it will be if he is voted out. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 36.0pt;">
We had a plethora of contenders.
There was Jeremy Corbyn, Blairite 1, Blairite 2 and Liz Kendall MP of the
conservatives for some unknown reason. (I am well aware that at some point in
this blog I am probably going to fall into “purge-able” territory, but to be
honest, anything you now say counts so may as well be damned for doing). There
was, from the membership, a resounding decision. 59.5% of the party members
voted for a non-Blairite, left-wing politician to be leader. Worse than that,
the man was a serial rebel who didn’t then appear to be particularly keen on
being leader. He didn’t have the polished façade of the modern politician,
honed to a cutting edge by SpAds and an office funded by millionaires and
staffed by consultants from the Big 4 accountancy firms. What the hell were we
thinking?<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 36.0pt;">
It’s almost like, and I realise
this may surprise some in the PLP, the membership were lashing out at this
ideal they themselves had built of a professional political operator who was
simply focussed on what they had been told would be the best way to win votes. Or
maybe, like me, members of the Labour party really fancied a party leader who
seemed to be a bit “socialist”. Whilst that terminology and that ideology are
not beloved of everyone, you have to assume it was a mixture of those 2 things.
After all, he won. I don’t think there was a huge swathe of Labour members
saying “I disagree with his positions and policies and that is not the
direction I want the party to go in, but man does he look good in a grey
tracksuit. I am voting for him”. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 36.0pt;">
Not only did he win, but the
Labour party saw a groundswell of new membership. The reasons behind this can
be argued about, but what this did mean is a massive increase in our available
resources to fight the electoral battles coming up. Even if we assume that all
of those members pay only £1 per month, the minimum, then that is an extra £3.6
million per year pouring into the Labour party coffers. By an eerie coincidence
the tories outspent Labour by £3.5m at the last election (<a href="https://www.ft.com/content/bb84c98a-bf74-11e5-9fdb-87b8d15baec2">https://www.ft.com/content/bb84c98a-bf74-11e5-9fdb-87b8d15baec2</a>)
. So there has been a financial boon to the party of Jeremy Corbyn being leader
– no matter how much has been spent on questionable court cases over whether he
should be allowed to stand as leader. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 36.0pt;">
Of course, there have been
problems with his leadership. A central one seems to be that he is not the
leader that the PLP see for themselves. Now, there has been yards (sorry, we
are no longer European so I am not using metres) of column and newsprint spent
on whether that is because Jeremy Corbyn is a good leader or not. For some
reason whilst Clive Lewis and others find him easy to work with, many MPs say
he is distant and dismissive. They can’t all be telling the truth. So, I have
come to the conclusion that some of them are not being completely honest. I
know. The problem is, for those of us who are rank and file members who should
we believe?<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 36.0pt;">
That really is a question for you
and your conscience. For me personally, I have seen enough to believe that
perhaps the drive from the PLP was coming irrespective of his performance as
leader. Not that I am entirely happy with his performance as leader. There
certainly have been enough questions over his abilities. What concerns me is
the consistency of his performances in front of the media. This is not only
about the clear and obvious bias against him – which even those Trots at the
LSE have confirmed is genuine (<a href="http://www.lse.ac.uk/media@lse/research/pdf/JeremyCorbyn/Cobyn-Report-FINAL.pdf">http://www.lse.ac.uk/media@lse/research/pdf/JeremyCorbyn/Cobyn-Report-FINAL.pdf</a>).
-but his own performances. Of course, we should have expected this, but even
then the ferocity of the attack has left many startled. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 36.0pt;">
So here we are again and, having
followed the various leadership debates, it really doesn’t leave us as a party
in a great position. From the tone of the debates themselves to the decision to
leave the BBC question time debate which was always likely to be the one which
more people viewed to the very end. What you ended up with was 2 battered and
tired characters replaying the same lines with less zip and vigour and more
simple acrimony. When you know your contenders comeback lines so well that you
have a prepared “on such and such a date you said such and such” you don’t look
like a leader, you look bitter. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 36.0pt;">
What have we learned from the
combatants in these battles? Well, the choice seems to be simple. In the red
corner you have Jeremy Corbyn – beleaguered, nice guy, who wants to reach out
to his membership with promises of nationalisation but who is unable to
honestly answer questions on security and defence because he realises that the
answers he wants to give are completely unpalatable versus Owen Smith in the
slightly less red corner. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 36.0pt;">
Owen Smith, the Great, White,
Middle Class, Middle Aged, Managerialist, Male hope. You have to feel some
sympathy for the “Anyone But Corbyn” camp that this was their chosen
prizefighter. The obvious candidate – Angela Eagle - was so clearly not going
to win that she was unceremoniously dumped by the very political class who had
initially rallied around her. She was never going to stand a chance once the
Chilcott report was published. When she had fallen back on her “Well, it’s
about time it was a woman” rhetoric you knew she was defeated. It is hard for
me to decide which is more depressing from an equality point of view – that she
thought this was an acceptable line to take or Jeremy Corbyn’s remarks that
obviously men don’t want to go home and look after their children. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 36.0pt;">
The biggest challenge for Owen
Smith has been that, in all of his outings, his lack of depth and of core
principles has led to him spouting platitudes whilst being woefully
inconsistent. For example, he tells us he will do whatever it takes to gain
power because that has to be the most important measure – and in the next
breath is saying he will fight for a re-run of the referendum (a strategy that
seems guaranteed to keep us out of power). That he is passionate about disarmament
– but only if every other country does it at the same time. That he believes in
an end to nuclear weapons but would happily pull the trigger. <o:p></o:p></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 36.0pt;">
Worryingly, his method of
delivery (in fact, his persona) is so screamingly political class that voters
must worry they are seeing the re-run of Blair / Cameron / Clegg. His use of
macho metaphors and empty promises that can never be held to scrutiny are
exactly the things that are turning people off politics and politicians. The
decision to make is whether that would be worse than a Jeremy Corbyn who makes
gaffes and blunders and is completely unsupported by his own parliamentary
colleagues. Because although Corbyn
seems to misunderstand a lot of the social and political changes that have
happened in the last 30 years, at least he cares. <o:p></o:p></div>
</div>
The unexpected socialisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09268267206158594574noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3892375255844626465.post-77664795906431450672016-08-25T14:42:00.000-07:002016-08-25T14:42:01.611-07:00The missed opportunity on reporting the gender pay gap<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">This is a first for me. I am writing the same post for my
blog (very political, very left-wing, unforgiving in its views) and for
LinkedIn (my professional self, steady, don’t rock the boat, nothing too contentious).
The reason for this is that there is a subject I feel so passionately about
that crosses into every area of our lives. That is gender equality in the UK
and the fact that we are STILL so far away from it in so many respects. And, in
my view, we are applying the wrong initial mindset to every really do anything
about it. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"> This
has come up (again) this week because of a new
report by the Institute of Fiscal Studies (you can find the full report
here <a href="https://www.ifs.org.uk/publications/8428">https://www.ifs.org.uk/publications/8428</a>
). Sadly, the report is really nothing new. The messages remain the same as
they ever were. Men earn more than women. The gap is seen at all occupational
or social levels (so we aren’t educating our way out of it). Generally, the pay
gap increases once women have taken time off to raise children. If we really
needed a report to tell us this, we simply aren’t paying attention. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"> It does
make me wonder – did the Equal Pay act happen 46 years ago, or was that just a
myth (<a href="http://www.inbrief.co.uk/employees/equal-pay/">http://www.inbrief.co.uk/employees/equal-pay/</a>)?
In a country which has over that period had 2 female Prime Ministers we still
languish behind most other developed countries in terms of ridding ourselves of
the gender pay gap. Certainly, when
compared to Scandinavian countries who are in many ways near neighbours to us
we are nowhere close to their understanding. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"> I am
not going to say this isn’t an important subject. But I do wonder, are we
actually framing this in the right way to achieve equality for men and women.
Let me give you an example – TUC general secretary Frances O’Grady was quoted
as saying “It is scandalous that millions of women still suffer a motherhood
pay penalty. Many are forced to leave better-paid jobs due to the pressure of
caring responsibilities and the lack of flexible working” ( <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-37156178">http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-37156178</a>
). I think part of the problem lay in that statement. It could be put another
way – “many men face a taking time-off penalty because of the expectation on
them to provide for the family”. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"> I think
we need to reframe the conversation. Instead of the IFS report focussing solely
on “The Gender Wage Gap” perhaps it should look at both sides of the problem –
“The Gender Wage and Caring Responsibilities Gap”. If we take a look back at how this
conversation has been framed, since the Equal Pay Act, the language has been
chosen by the patriarchal view of our society – that the important thing is
Pay, how much we earn, how much we provide. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"> This
has an impact on both men and women. It can not be right that our society
forces us to think that the only measure we should focus on is pay – and then
thrust the next generation into trying to win a game where the rules are
stacked against them. This is a complex problem, and there are lots of remedies
that need to be considered to address it. But are we really open to considering
all of them whilst we focus on equal pay only? Whilst the recent legislation in
the UK to provide Shared Parental Leave (<a href="https://www.gov.uk/shared-parental-leave-and-pay/overview">https://www.gov.uk/shared-parental-leave-and-pay/overview</a>)
is a step in the right direction, many men (including myself) are priced out of
using it because it didn’t include equal access to Company Maternity Pay.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"> There
are some obvious things that need to happen. Firstly, men and women need to be
paid similarly from the outset. That is a no-brainer and large companies will
soon be forced to report much more in-depth information to make this harder to
get away with. I am certainly not saying we should stop the fight for equal pay
for equal work irrespective of gender. But until we can move the conversation
on, and talk about work-life balance, sharing our parenting / caring
responsibilities as part of the gender pay gap, are we really trying to break
out of the patriarchal view that keeps women at home and men in the workplace?
We need to push towards a culture that sees raising children and supporting a
family financially as the responsibilities of all parents. Until we reframe the
questions, I worry we will ever reach it. </span><o:p></o:p></div>
</div>
The unexpected socialisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09268267206158594574noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3892375255844626465.post-57500055427064787902016-08-05T17:16:00.000-07:002016-08-05T17:17:22.039-07:00Another Leadership Election<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 36.0pt;">
<span style="font-size: 13.5pt; line-height: 107%;">Sad that we are at this point really. I think it
is pretty clear that nobody wants to be at this point. The membership of the
Labour party certainly don't. The PLP certainly don't - hence their aborted
coup. Jeremy Corbyn himself seems not to either. But, we find ourselves at one
of the most monumental points in national history looking inwards at what sort
of party we want to be. It seems to be what we do. Apart from a few years from
1994 onwards when the party was gripped tightly and controlled centrally. But
even that left a lot of people unhappy. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 36.0pt;">
<span style="font-size: 13.5pt; line-height: 107%;">Of course, after the abortive attempt by Angela
Eagle to take power from Jeremy Corbyn we are now left with a straight two way
fight. Clearly, this shows that the PLP have learned from last year when 3
candidates occupied the right of the party leaving just one left winger. So we
all have a couple of decisions to make: what sort of party do we want, and what
sort of government do we want to offer the electorate when the next General
Election is called. But both of those are tied up into – who do we want to lead
the party. (Before I write this, I would like to silently thank a new friend of
mine who has helped me work through my own thoughts on this point. I would
probably give him joint credit for the piece – but given that anyone who puts
the head above the parapet in the Labour Party at the moment is liable to have
it hacked off. So I will claim all of these views as my own.) <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 36.0pt;">
<span style="font-size: 13.5pt; line-height: 107%;">For me, what sort of party do we want is the
first question we should ask. I only recently joined the Labour Party. Not
because of some late awakening. But because I didn’t feel either the need to
join until we lost the last general election AND because I never felt until
then that the Labour party really addressed my left of centre views for most of
my adult life. Certainly, during 1997 and 2010 the Labour government did a lot
of good things. We shouldn’t deny that – Sure Start centres, increased funding
of the NHS, a buoyant economy.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 36.0pt;">
<span style="font-size: 13.5pt; line-height: 107%;">But equally, they committed some really grievous
sins during that time. Public sector reform in NHS and education through
marketization, burdening the country with huge PFI debts, overseas wars,
failing to really understand and control what was driving the buoyancy in the
economy. They become too close to big businesses who told them “Don’t worry, we
know what’s right for the country, we’ll help you free of charge with policy
decisions”. For this reason they didn’t see the global economic collapse of
2008 coming towards them. Mind you, very few did. What is genuinely sad is that
many of them still don’t accept the things they got wrong. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 36.0pt;">
<span style="font-size: 13.5pt; line-height: 107%;">Part of the reason that the party went in this
direction was the absolute belief amongst many in the government that we had to
go this was to stay in power. That the only way to win votes was to buy in to
this. I wonder how true that is. How many voters really sat at home thinking
“well, I’d vote for them, but only if they introduce an element of competition
into our school system”? Sadly, the party was so well controlled that a lot of
dissent from members and a minority of MPs was drowned out – not allowed to be
heard. We were sold Blairism as a way of stopping the Tories being in power.
And found ourselves wearing their clothes. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 36.0pt;">
<span style="font-size: 13.5pt; line-height: 107%;">I don’t want to be that sort of party. I don’t
want to be with a party that will sell its founding and basic principles for a
taste of power. I want to be in a party that holds its socialist principles
dearly. But we must be willing to make some sacrifices to the gods of
necessity. And we must have being able to implement our policies as a
fundamental goal. This means a party that wants to be in power. It must be a
party that never forgets what we are here to achieve for those who most need us
in society. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 36.0pt;">
<span style="font-size: 13.5pt; line-height: 107%;">But to do that we need to live by the old
Socrates quote “The only way to live with honour in this world is to be in all
things that which you appear to be”. So if we want to be a party that can push
policies that stand up for fairness, for social justice, for democracy and for equality
of all people we have to be all of those things internally. That means that we
can’t be seen as a PLP that will ignore the choice of their members. One where
there is no whiff of racism or sexism or any other discrimination. And one
where we can have open, honest and passionate discourse without trying to
silence those with whom we disagree. My worry is that over the current debate
we have lost many of those things. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 36.0pt;">
<span style="font-size: 13.5pt; line-height: 107%;">This is a charge that can be levelled at both
wings of the party and a number of various groups. But for me the behaviour of
many in the PLP has been simply unconscionable. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 36.0pt;">
<span style="font-size: 13.5pt; line-height: 107%;">I am not in the parliamentary Labour party. I am
not an insider who sees how things are working in Westminster. I can only pick
up what we see and hear from the reports and media. That puts me in the same
boat as the overwhelming majority of Labour members. We can not know what
happens on a daily basis there. I watch Jeremy Corbyn sit on interview shows
and say that he is willing to speak to MPs. Then MPs – including many who
seemed initially supportive – tell tales of not being able to reach him. Meanwhile
MPs talk of policy hold ups, press gaffes and dithering over decisions. But
some of those MPs have had a goal of removing Jeremy Corbyn since it became
obvious he would win the leadership election. But we can’t point that
accusation at everybody. I do not believe it is possible that 150 Labour MPs
have been secretly conspiring for the last year for this to happen. It simply
doesn’t pass the bullshit test. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 36.0pt;">
<span style="font-size: 13.5pt; line-height: 107%;">So we are left with a seemingly unsquare-able circle.
Either Jeremy Corbyn is a habitual and well practiced liar who can make whole
swathes of the party believe what is patently untrue. Or the Labour Party is
full of two faced backstabbers who are lying to our faces. Or maybe a third
option – which is that the problems are not with Jeremy Corbyn himself, but
rather with the team around him. But ultimately, the man who picks the team
must bear that responsibility. Therefore, I would suggest that if Jeremy Corbyn
does win this election, he needs to consider a real rapprochement with the
Party. Not just inviting them back in, but making some of the changes being
asked for, including reviewing his personal team. That also means he must reach
out further than his core supporters. Whilst rallies are amazing spectacles, he
is only reaching those people who would follow him anyway.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 36.0pt;">
<span style="font-size: 13.5pt; line-height: 107%;">So if that is the sort of party I want (and I
believe for the most part we are that party, even if we forget it sometimes),
what sort of government should we offer the electorate? I think quite clearly
the history of the last election is that we need to offer an alternative to the
tories. Wearing their policies but trying to look as if we are slightly nicer
clearly doesn’t work. So, we do need to offer social democratic policies – ones
that we believe in. There is clear support already for many of the things that
Corbyn has said. But there has been too little meat on the bones. We need
clear, well argued policies that relate to the problems people in the country
have. Whilst issues such as Trident, Palestine, Globalisation are important,
they are not the issues which people feel in their every day lives. This is not
the time to fight the fights that we lost within the party a generation ago. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 36.0pt;">
<span style="font-size: 13.5pt; line-height: 107%;">Our focus should be on poverty, living standards,
injustice, social inequality and aspirations. Our leader should not be so naïve
as to repeatedly work on to the end of “rope a dope” tactics in TV interviews
on topics and arguments well versed for 40 years. The agenda must be set by the
Labour Party – this is what we are offering the electorate. It is different and
better than the opposition. We also need to re-frame the conversation away from
talking about the tories as our enemy. We have lost votes to UKIP and the SNP.
We should be talking much more, at all levels in the party about our real
enemies – inequality, poor corporate
behaviour, injustice, lack of opportunity. They should ALWAYS be the
enemies we call out. Not a feud with a particular party. A large number of
those people who voted to leave Europe did so out of a sense of anger that
whilst we are constantly told how much better off we are, large swathes of the
country don’t feel that way. Imagine what we could achieve if we tapped into
that anger and said to those people “let us be your voice”. Or we can go back
to being angry with media bias and focussing our energy on that. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 36.0pt;">
<span style="font-size: 13.5pt; line-height: 107%;">Well, almost 1600 words and no mention of who I
will be voting for. So I want a party that holds its socialist principles dear,
but one that wants to be in power to deliver policies based on them. A party
that is open, democratic and welcoming to all. We should offer a government to
people that doesn’t just look like another load of middle aged men in nice
suits offering platitudes whilst helping the rich stay rich. Fairness, social
justice, democracy and reducing inequality – with a chance of implementing those.
<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 36.0pt;">
<span style="font-size: 13.5pt; line-height: 107%;">It is for those reasons that I will not be voting
for Owen Smith. Two big things stand out for me. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 36.0pt;">
<span style="font-size: 13.5pt; line-height: 107%;">Firstly, if we want to let people know that we
are serious about listening to them, and addressing what they need instead of
simply being part of a machine they are angry with, we have to stick with
something different. If we want to show that we believe in democracy and the
votes and views of individuals we can’t allow career politicians in London to
decide who is the leader of a party which is meant to stand up for those
without power. Those eligible to vote in the election have chosen once Jeremy
Corbyn. They need to know that the choice rests with the membership, not the
elite. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 36.0pt;">
<span style="font-size: 13.5pt; line-height: 107%;">Secondly, I am not convinced that he is truly for
the policies he is currently espousing – or that he can differentiate the party
sufficiently from the tories. My worry is truly that come the next election he
would have moved away from the “left” and back to the new centre – which is
further right-wing than it has ever been in history. Could he deliver a
government? Potentially. Could Owen Smith deliver the sort of policies that the
Labour party wants to see? I don’t believe he has that in him. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 36.0pt;">
<span style="font-size: 13.5pt; line-height: 107%;">So I will be supporting Jeremy Corbyn this leadership
election. Not because I necessarily believe that he is the best possible leader
for the Labour Party. More that he is a better choice than Owen Smith. But
also, to send a message to the PLP – this is the party of the members, fighting
all the ills that people in society face. Not a plaything that is there to keep
you employed. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 36.0pt;">
<br /></div>
<span style="text-indent: 36pt;"> </span> <br />
<br /></div>
The unexpected socialisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09268267206158594574noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3892375255844626465.post-80776967222694460532016-07-05T14:04:00.001-07:002016-07-05T14:04:38.856-07:00The greatest trick the devil ever pulled<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div class="MsoNormal">
I am of a certain age where there are some films that
absolutely define me. Most people could guess my age pretty accurately, given
that my favourite films include Pulp Fiction, Fight Club, Jerry Maguire, Top
Gun, Die Hard and The Usual Suspects. In the last of those there is a brilliant
line delivered by Kevin Spacey as Verbal Kint – “The greatest trick the devil
ever pulled was convincing the world he doesn’t exist” (If you are a young
person, I would suggest watching that movie straight away, along with Fight
Club). <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
As a
member of the Labour Party, at the moment I feel a great deal of sadness and
anger in terms of where my party is. I am at heart an unreconstructed
socialist, who has wound his way back here via a variety of other views being
tried on for size. The ongoing / stalling / necessary / evil / failed /
righteous* (delete as appropriate) coup has really shown the worst of our
politics on all sides. What is equally saddening has been that within the
Labour Party and the wider bit of society that sees itself as left-leaning we
have seen the worst of absolutist thinking and “othering” behaviour. You are
either a Corbynista or a Blairite. You are Progress or Momentum. It is black
and white, chalk and cheese. For god’s sake whatever you do, pick a side.
Certainly you must not see anything in between (don’t worry, I am not going to
use the phrase “a third way”). You are either for or against – and that view
will completely and entirely colour whether something is acceptable or not –
not the act itself. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
It is
because of this thinking that I have separately heard a wide variety of
possibilities in terms of the underlying cause of the coup in the Labour Party.
It is either a right wing coup orchestrated by Portland (<a href="http://www.prweek.com/article/1401004/portland-forced-deny-involvement-plot-oust-jeremy-corbyn">http://www.prweek.com/article/1401004/portland-forced-deny-involvement-plot-oust-jeremy-corbyn</a>)
on behalf of the permanent political class who rely on voter apathy (<a href="http://www.thecanary.co/2016/07/02/the-real-reason-the-permanent-political-class-is-trying-to-topple-jeremy-corbyn/">http://www.thecanary.co/2016/07/02/the-real-reason-the-permanent-political-class-is-trying-to-topple-jeremy-corbyn/</a>
). Or alternatively, it is evidence of the party fighting back against an
existential threat of Momentum Entryists trying to steal the party (<a href="http://uk.businessinsider.com/corbyn-could-split-labour-and-create-a-new-socialist-party-2016-6?r=US&IR=T">http://uk.businessinsider.com/corbyn-could-split-labour-and-create-a-new-socialist-party-2016-6?r=US&IR=T</a>).
When you look at either of these theories they BOTH have an awful lot of “if
and then” logic in them. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
The
quote from The Usual Suspects comes from an original from Charles Baudelaire.
But given the above theories, if either of them prove true, it will certainly
need to be changed. So, depending on where you are on that perfect duality
where any behaviour is allowed as long as it justifies the ends, you can either
have: “The greatest trick the devil ever pulled was after failing to convince 3
MPs involved in the plot to stand aside so there was one candidate standing
against Corbyn to not fully engage in the EU referendum; stop the newspapers
reporting what Jeremy Corbyn was doing during the referendum campaign; stoke
hatred of Jeremy Corbyn by people he works with in the House of Commons;
convince almost all of his shadow cabinet to resign in a timed way one after
the other (and the press to report it in that order); convince other MPs in the
party that it was all his fault; pass a vote of no confidence; but be so
incompetent as to botch a leadership challenge by being unclear on what the
rules are; to avoid Tony Blair being impeached for war crimes”. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
I am
going to go out on a limb here – if you could manage to make 90% of that happen
without problem then you would have been able to control the Blairite
candidates, and you would have known that you could push through the coup by
way of Leadership challenge. Was there anything as disappointing as seeing Neil
Kinnock brandishing a print out of the Labour Party rules on the Andrew Marr
show saying that Jeremy Corbyn definitely wouldn’t be on the ballot for leader
because the rules could stop it? A couple of things show how silly that is – if
you know you can get rid of someone through a leadership challenge you go down
that route rather than publicly humiliating someone on front of their
colleagues. Secondly, sane people do not walk around with a certificate to show
they are sane. If you are going on air with a copy of the rules in your pocket,
you are not sure the rules really support you. You are using them the same way
a drunk uses a lamp post – more for your own support than illumination. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Oh yes,
two possible changes to the quotation. For those of you who are Blairites (and
remember – you must be one or the other) “The greatest trick the devil ever
pulled was convincing MPs who didn’t support his views to nominate him to get
on to the paper; then to have hundreds of thousands of entryists prepared to
spring into action and join the Labour Party (myself included); then get them
all to vote for him; convince the other contenders to not drop out so their
vote was split; hang on to power through both local elections and an EU
referendum whilst seizing control of the Labour Party machinery; manufacture
outrage within the party to create a split in the party (by way of smearing a
PR company with links to Tony Blair) ; in order to get all of those people you
have convinced to join the party 12 months earlier to now leave the party and
join a newly set up Momentum party; convince the Union Leaders to come with you
and bring their members; and on the way get an establishment judge to find that
Tony Blair does have a case to answer over the Iraq War; call for and get an
impeachment against him; thus destroying the Blairite Labour Party and start
afresh with a clean left wing Momentum party”. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Again,
stretching this a bit but maybe there are easier ways to do that. Quite
frankly, the thought that a government inquiry into a decision to go to war
would ever (or would ever be allowed, take your pick) to find that a Prime
Minister of this country had performed in a way that could lead to criminal
charges against that PM seems a long way from the truth. If it was going to do
that it wouldn’t have been delayed so much. There are not enough people in
Politics, irrespective of parties who want to see that happen. I realise that I
am making myself a hostage to fortune by calling that before Wednesday. The
whole project would be based on the outcome of other things – not a successful
strategy usually. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
There
is a well-worn approach when considering different theories called Ockham’s
razor (or maybe Occam’s Razor depending on your spelling) which isn’t proof of
logic of an argument, but is a good starting point – the theory is “Among
competing hypotheses, the one with the fewest assumptions should be selected”.
In other words – the idea with the fewest parts should be your starting point.
Looking at those competing viewpoints above anybody outside of the debate would
be forgiven for saying they both smell a bit fishy. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 36.0pt;">
What is interesting is that both
sides of the argument are giving the appearance that any means is justified
because their ends are just. So Jeremy Corbyn allegedly refusing to take Tom
Watson’s calls (although clearly these calls must have come after the
Glastonbury weekend), the public defrocking of Jeremy Corbyn in parliament
which was only second to Cersei’s walk of shame in its gratuitousness, threats
for mandatory reselection and taking legal advice on whether MPs can keep the
Labour party name whilst splitting from the leadership are all acceptable
weapons. As well as that we have entered a lockdown phase where everything
Corbyn has done is right OR everything Corbyn has done is wrong. Whether this
is what you think or not, it is how it is playing out in the media. And both
sides are looking at their own constituencies as an example of them being
right, as if this is a binary decision “we have the members on our side so we
must be right – is democracy” versus “we have the voters as well as the party
members to think about so we must be right – is democracy”. Yeah, because voting
on things democratically has been working out so well for us in the last few
weeks. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
What is
needed now is calm heads and moving away from that sort of thinking – and
pretty quickly. We need to save the Labour party and the ideals it stands for.
Unfortunately, that would mean both sides would have to learn and grow up a
bit. Let’s get rid of the conspiracy theories, and stick to things that we do
know or at least can agree on. There must be some of those mustn’t there? Or
are we so far down the rabbit hole we can’t find any common ground. I have tried to list these in order of
increasing contentiousness. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpFirst" style="mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -18.0pt;">
<!--[if !supportLists]-->1.<span style="font-size: 7pt; font-stretch: normal;">
</span><!--[endif]-->Leaving the EU referendum provides immediate
short term risks that the Labour Party needs to be ready for<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -18.0pt;">
<!--[if !supportLists]-->2.<span style="font-size: 7pt; font-stretch: normal;">
</span><!--[endif]-->As a party we are better off together, looking
outward rather than fighting ourselves<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -18.0pt;">
<!--[if !supportLists]-->3.<span style="font-size: 7pt; font-stretch: normal;">
</span><!--[endif]-->Our enemies are those who oppose social justice,
fairness, workers rights, an end to poverty (look, I am trying to be cool but
quite obviously that is code for the Tories and UKIP)<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -18.0pt;">
<!--[if !supportLists]-->4.<span style="font-size: 7pt; font-stretch: normal;">
</span><!--[endif]-->The PLP never wanted Jeremy Corbyn as their
leader, and some have openly attacked him, some have been half-hearted and some
have supported him<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -18.0pt;">
<!--[if !supportLists]-->5.<span style="font-size: 7pt; font-stretch: normal;">
</span><!--[endif]-->The membership did want him – even without us
nasty Entryists, the full members of Labour voted overwhelmingly for Jeremy
Corbyn<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -18.0pt;">
<!--[if !supportLists]-->6.<span style="font-size: 7pt; font-stretch: normal;">
</span><!--[endif]-->Having a vote of no confidence in him which
carries no constitutional weight whatsoever is a clear indication that you are
too nervous to run the gauntlet of a leadership election when that would have
been quicker and easier. Stop pretending we are dicks who don’t get that<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -18.0pt;">
<!--[if !supportLists]-->7.<span style="font-size: 7pt; font-stretch: normal;">
</span><!--[endif]-->Jeremy has achieved some things – particularly government
u-turns around education cuts; benefit cuts; police funding etc.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpLast" style="mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -18.0pt;">
<!--[if !supportLists]-->8.<span style="font-size: 7pt; font-stretch: normal;">
</span><!--[endif]-->Jeremy Corbyn (or possibly the team around him)
has made mistakes and what is clear is that something does need to change. Anyone
willing to cling to their rationality could see that mentioning ISIS and the
state of Israel in the same sentence was going to be a bloody stupid idea<o:p></o:p></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 35.45pt;">
What isn’t clear is whether the aim of the PLP is to get rid of Jeremy
Corbyn (the person / the team) or whether it is to get rid a left wing agenda
of policies. This is going to be really crucial in winning many of the party
over to looking at a way ahead, potentially without Jeremy Cobryn as leader if
that is what it takes. For many people (ie me, and trying to claim the moral
high ground) we joined because we were attracted to the agenda rather than
necessarily for the person. For those on the Corbyn side it may be time to
accept that a new leader is needed – but one who can carry on his views and direction
of travel for the party (although let’s be honest, no-one thinks that is Angela
Eagle). How we handle this WILL define how we handle the upcoming months and
years of turmoil in the country and the next general election. This will
therefore help to decide how successful we can be in standing up for the values
of the Labour Party. Perhaps, in that we can take something positive from this.
It reminds me of my most favourite film quote from Fight Club, delivered by
Brad Pitt “How much can you know about yourself if you’ve never been in a
fight”.<o:p></o:p></div>
</div>
The unexpected socialisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09268267206158594574noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3892375255844626465.post-4542446381266761692016-06-30T14:22:00.002-07:002016-06-30T14:22:22.485-07:00A heartfelt letter to Nicola Sturgeon<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div class="MsoNormal">
It’s a funny old thing when you start writing a politics
blog. I chose to do it entirely for my own interest and to get myself writing
regularly. My original aim was to write semi-amusing articles that some people
would like and some wouldn’t – and to deliver something every couple of weeks.
I hadn’t realised that politics in the country would be turned on its head by a
vote to leave the EU. I sat down last night and counted 15 separate topics I
wanted to cover in separate blogs. It’s a funny old world sometimes. We now
have a smirking Nigel Farage trying to destroy any goodwill remaining in the
European Parliament, racism and xenophobia rampant on the streets, David
Cameron resigning, looking less likely that we will actually Brexit every day, Boris
Johnson not standing for PM (right now) and a thoroughly horrible coup in the
Labour party threatening to rip the party apart. But there has remained one
constant – Nicola Sturgeon would like to take Scotland out of the United
Kingdom. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Dear
Nicola Sturgeon MSP<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Firstly,
well done to Scotland for voting to remain within the EU. This would have been
my preferred outcome for the whole of the UK. Many people across the country
are still reeling from that vote. The only thing that we can say with clarity
because of that vote is that we are heading for a great deal of uncertainty.
This uncertainty affects all of us – whether we are in Scotland, England,
Northern Ireland or Gibraltar. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
The
numbers in the vote were quite stark – and the differences between the
countries marked. 1.6 million people voted to Remain across Scotland compared
to 1 million people who wanted to Leave. That is a 62% remain vote within a
turnout of about 67% (<a href="http://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/find-information-by-subject/elections-and-referendums/upcoming-elections-and-referendums/eu-referendum/electorate-and-count-information">http://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/find-information-by-subject/elections-and-referendums/upcoming-elections-and-referendums/eu-referendum/electorate-and-count-information</a>)
. A huge push for Remain. Whilst this was across the UK the biggest democratic
exercise that has ever been performed (in terms of turnout) it wasn’t in
Scotland. Many more Scots voted in the Independence referendum in 2014. Then
you have another 1 million people voting. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Obviously,
we can’t know which way people voted in each referendum – whether people who
wanted to stay in the UK wanted to also stay in the EU for example. I am not
sure the data is readily available for that. But it is a desperate shame that
we couldn’t get more EU remainers out to vote in Scotland. It could have had a
big impact on the overall result. As it is such a low turnout in Scotland may
have helped the Leave side – and forced you into considering a second referendum
yourself. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Although
I say forced, I am not sure that is quite the correct word. You are after all
the leader of the SNP. Your entire raison d’etre as a party is to take Scotland
out of the UK. The party line following the defeat in the last independence
referendum was that something would have to materially change to hold another
one. This certainly seems to count. I can understand to some degree how you
must have felt after that result – I am sure it was similar to how I felt this
week. But here’s the thing – given the uncertainty can you be sure that is the
right thing for Scotland?<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
My
often repeated views during the original referendum were quite simple – the
case put forward for independence was pie in the sky and didn’t add up, and
that we are all better being part of something bigger. That co-operation with
others was always the best way to go. To not follow arguments that were purely
nationalistic rather than actually good for the country. I would have argued
until I was blue in the face that the people of Britain believed that. I would
have argued that leaving to go it alone was an inherently more risky
proposition for Scotland. I can see how some of those arguments have absolutely
been holed below the waterline now. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Of
course at the time we had no idea what the Scotland Out campaign would really
deliver. A manifesto that promised a government to be all things to all peoples
was never going to wash. The fact that the manifesto was predicated on receipts
from oil money that has largely dried up also now shows the wisdom of the
Scottish voters in rejecting it (<a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/scottish-independence/12052565/Independent-Scotland-would-be-bankrupt-and-appealing-to-IMF.html">http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/scottish-independence/12052565/Independent-Scotland-would-be-bankrupt-and-appealing-to-IMF.html</a>)
. There seems to be an interesting learning from both referendums best summed
up by Jamie Vardy – “Chat shit. Get Banged.”. If you try to sell the voters a
clearly unreal picture they will rally against you. Of course in your case that
was a picture of Scotland that could never come to pass. In the EU case that
was a serious of threats to do horrible things to pensioners and the working
class that no-one believed by George Osborne. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
I would
imagine you have learned from that. I am sure there are some very clever
election strategists working out how to avoid that pitfall. Maybe that would
help in any future campaign to deliver the result that your party has been
seeking for its entire life. Certainly it must be really tempting, whilst the
rest of the UK and our politicians are looking the other way to try and push
ahead with your agenda. Knowing they are out of the game whilst fighting within
their party or negotiating with the EU would certainly make me go for an early
referendum. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
But
would that, right now, be in the best interests of Scotland or Scottish people?
Or is your desire for independence at any cost clouding your judgement a little
bit? Because to win a referendum you would have to change the minds of about
half a million Scots – and if I may generalise for a moment – it is hard enough
getting one Scot to change their minds once they have decided on something. Would
using the fact that Scots want to be part of the EU be enough to change how
voters would vote?<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Firstly,
you would need a clear, realistic plan of what would happen if you left the UK.
That needs to be clear from 2 points of view to win people over. One of those
is that you would have to be clear what you are going to. If you ceded from the
UK, what would that plan be – to immediately rejoin the EU? If so, you would
need to be really clear the terms that would be on and get assurances from the
EU on that. Do you think that is going to be, right now, a top priority for EU
politicians? Never mind the fact that you would have Spain standing in your way
at every step (because of their own Catalan separatists) (<a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-36656980">http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-36656980</a>)?
So how quickly would you be able to do that? Also, given that the oil price has
fallen off a cliff and doesn’t look like recovering the economic case this time
round would be much weaker that isn’t helping your case.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
The
other point of view is showing people what they are voting away from. As you
have shown once simply answering “The English” to this question really isn’t
enough. Whilst the Leave EU campaign managed to tap into people’s anger, you
have failed to do that once. So what would you be taking people away from? The
answer is that you simply can’t know. I get that neither would any Stay
campaign – and from a political point of view that would possibly help you
massively. But look inside yourself and be honest - would that really be doing your best for
the Scottish people as a whole? There still remains a possibility that a UK
outside of the EU would be a good thing for Scotland. There also remains an
increasing possibility that nobody will be brave enough to pull the trigger on
Brexit – or as Leavers hoped – we end up with all the benefits and none of the
costs. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
You
simply can’t know. And so you would be asking the Scottish people to vote
blind-folded, with one hand tied behind their backs on what would be right for
them. Purely to achieve a vote for independence from something unknown and
unknowable on the basis of nationalism. If you think you can live with that on
your conscience, perhaps go and talk to David Cameron. <o:p></o:p></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
I
understand that the SNP will re-run this referendum time and again until it
gets the right result. But please, do what is right for Scotland first and
foremost, and wait until people can honestly know what they are voting for and
against. Because voting in the absence of knowledge can often get you the wrong
result. <o:p></o:p></div>
</div>
The unexpected socialisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09268267206158594574noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3892375255844626465.post-57806460822553233412016-06-27T16:10:00.000-07:002016-06-27T16:10:33.377-07:00I shouldn’t be writing this blog <div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div class="MsoNormal">
I really shouldn’t. On Thursday the UK voted that we should
leave the EU. 1 million people more voted to leave than remain. Whether you
agree with that decision or not it is a fact. The people who voted most
strongly for Leave were, based on the official polling data, from working class
towns who have been let down and left behind over the past 30 plus years. This
was a chance for them to scream out their anger and rage at the state of their
lives and the fact that they don’t feel listened to. Since the results the far
right, the racists and the xenophobes have used that as an excuse to peddle
their hatred, believing (I think wrongly) that the vote has shown more people
agree with them than they previously knew. The Prime Minister has resigned. The
EU want us to start negotiations. The Vote Leave campaign have come out already
and said their big claims (more NHS money and lower immigration) were never
actually true. People who voted leave are about to find out that when the
campaign said “Take Back Control” they added a silent “and give it to Etonians
in London”. We are about to go into one of the angriest phases in this country’s
history.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 36.0pt;">
We should all be sitting down,
and working out what we do to get from this point to one where we can act as a
country again. Hell, we need to decide what sort of country we really want
first. Not what sort of country are we being offered by career politicians in
London. I should be setting out, as a socialist, my view for what that could
look like and how we could achieve it. We need cool heads, reconciliation and
calm debate to answer all of those people who voted in anger. We must not fail
to hear that voice – they are the majority in this country. That is what I
should be doing.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 36.0pt;">
But no. Instead I am writing a
blog about another attempted coup in the fucking Parliamentary Labour Party
(PLP). A party which now appears to be so full of career politicians from the
Blair years that it is incapable of seeing outside the Westminster bubble they
live in. Who think it is more important to get the “right” result from the
leadership election they were on the wrong side of than look to their
constituents and address their concerns. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 36.0pt;">
Now, in an attempt to upset every
Labour party member in one go, I am going to admit to something which people will
see as an act of treason itself. I no longer believe that Labour would get the best
possible results in a general election with Jeremy Corbyn as their leader. I
voted for JC, and I strongly believe that we need a left leaning leader in
order to win back not only votes, but those people who have roared at the
government in this referendum. We must not allow them to fall down the route of
listening to the racist demagogues of UKIP. So I think we need a left-wing
leader who can get those people back. I believe there may be better candidates
than JC. I do not believe his performance in the referendum was strong enough.
There were enough instances of poor performance and behaviour that we should
all be able to see it. I do believe that a move towards a left wing leader who
is a more natural vote winner is the direction we should go in. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 36.0pt;">
But this is not the way to do
that. At a point when we need a strong, united and responsive Labour Party we
are turning our backs on the country to fight internally. What a hideous joke.
I am still waiting for the punchline. Let’s be clear on this – dear politicians
of pretty much every party YOU ARE NOT DELIVERING WHAT THE PEOPLE OF THIS
COUNTRY WANT. Many feel they no longer have a voice and government is a long
way away and not listening. Well done to the PLP for showing those people that
is exactly what politicians do. Particularly when you consider the reason for
this timing – so that this coup can happen before changes to the NEC lead to
rule changes that might make it more difficult to get rid of the party leader. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 36.0pt;">
The problem is one entirely of
your own making PLP. The party in parliament is so far further right than the
party members that when the leadership election comes up there is only ever
going to be one left wing candidate – the fact that they take turns putting
themselves forward proves that. But what happened last year (after the tories
won an outright victory) is that people said “enough is enough, we want left
wing policies and a left wing leader”. We gave you those instructions. By an
absolute landslide. There is no questioning the view of the party members in
this. The fact that people signed up to join the party in their thousands to
make sure that happened should have given you some idea. This, I believe, is
the route to taking our country back from those who no longer care about the
working class. <o:p></o:p></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 36.0pt;">
Instead of working with those
instructions and that leadership you have used every opportunity to undermine
and challenge it. You have shown no loyalty to your party members. I do now
hope you understand that those party members should feel no loyalty back to
you. Neither should the electorate of the country as a whole. You have put your
own self-interest ahead of the national one. For that you should be appalled at
your behaviour. If you do not like the views of the membership of the Labour
party feel free to leave and join another party. Get elected on the back of
their membership fees, their hard work and activism, their policies. You truly
should be ashamed of your behaviour. We certainly are. <o:p></o:p></div>
</div>
The unexpected socialisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09268267206158594574noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3892375255844626465.post-28985271042581543702016-06-14T15:28:00.000-07:002016-06-14T15:28:20.173-07:00WARNING! This post contains SPOILERS about what happens after a leave vote<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
Or, then again it might not. I say that because nobody actually knows what will happen to the economy if we leave. Nobody can. David Cameron and George Osborne don't. Nigel Farage and Boris Johnson don't either. Nor do Economists for Brexit, the IFS, the WTO or The Economist magazine. Neither do I. But given that the economy is one of the main areas of discussion in the EU referendum debate we can't possibly ignore it. So, before you read any further, there is a massive health warning - any projections which are made OR referenced might be completely wrong. This has been part of the issue that has been turning so many people off from this referendum. The repetition that as soon as one side trot out an indisputable fact, the other side dispute it with their own fact.<br />
So what can we say about the economy and the impact of leave or remain? Well a really good place to start is to understand some basic ideas which are directly relevant to the question at hand. Let's set out then what the EU is (from a purely economic point of view), where it came from (again from an economic point of view) and what are trade deals, tariffs and the regulations that are often discussed by various commentators on both sides. This might take a while and bore the shit out of you - so if you want to go and get a drink now is the time to do it (I'm certainly having one). This is the explanation nobody else will do - because it is incredibly long and boring. But I think worth getting to the end of. One thing I will try NOT to do is to address any claims or counter claims - there is enough of that round already.<br />
The EU was originally set up very much as a trading block. The underlying theory of many politicians at the time was simple (and actually pretty true) - that most wars, when you get down to it, are really about access to resources. Those resources might be money, land, water, access or a million others. Given that Europe had spent the best part of a thousand plus years at war, then wouldn't it be better to settle disputes over a negotiation table instead of a bayonet? Therefore a "trading block" was set up relating to Coal and Steel - at the time the 2 key resources you needed to fight a war and also the 2 resources you would be likely to fight over. To avoid using an EU reference, you can find all of that information on wikipedia ( <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_European_Union">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_European_Union</a> ). How would that trading block work? Well, they would work together to decide how much to produce, who to sell it to, at what price and what would be the rules for producing it. The last point is really important. They would also allow the countries in the block to sell to each other without "tariffs" - that is the governments wouldn't add costs to goods coming in from the other countries. To make this fair and achievable, what was very important to the countries involved was that the produce was created in the same way. So, same workers rights, same standards of outputs etc. This was so that no individual country could make more profit by undercutting the others unfairly.<br />
These are the regulations that are often held up by leave as blockers to British dominance of markets. These hated "regulations" that are thrown around as such a terrible thing include measures to ensure that:<br />
<br />
<ol style="text-align: left;">
<li>What you are buying is actually what you are trying to buy</li>
<li>You are not paying too much for products and services</li>
<li>When you buy something it wont kill or injure you and your family</li>
<li>The people producing goods are not being abused / have employment protections</li>
<li>Producing these goods doesn't damage the environment more than it has to</li>
<li>There is a standard level of quality for goods that you buy</li>
<li>No single organisation or country can run the entire market and abuse a leading market position.</li>
</ol>
<div>
As a general rule of thumb then, regulations are good for consumers, good for the market, good for workers and costly for businesses, and if it is costly for businesses that increases prices for consumers too. So whenever you hear the term "regulations" - run through that as a checklist and decide if they are things you want or not. Of course part of the problem identified by some on the Leave side is that these regulations attach to all companies whether they trade across Europe of not. I personally quite like the idea of regulations to stop all companies abusing workers and damaging the environment - irrespective of where they trade.</div>
<div>
In very basic economic terms then, the EU has now become a single market where lots of products and services are sold across Europe - with common regulations, but without tariffs being added if they come from within the EU. Tariffs go hand in hand with international trade - so let's look at what they are. Say your country and it's economy is very reliant on the production of "thingies" as an example. You as a government want to make sure that the "thingie" industry is protected. Therefore, what you do is add an import tariff to any "thingies"made overseas being imported - with the aim of making foreign "thingies" more expensive. It is called protectionism. It has existed since the start of international trade. Why wouldn't you do it?</div>
<div>
There are a couple of big problems with protectionism. The first one is quite simple - that protectionism breeds protectionism. Therefore whilst we are trying to protect our engineering industry, France is trying to protect their wine industry. Italy and Germany are trying to protect their car industries. And it goes on, and on, and on. What that means is that we all pay more for our products and services, but also because people don't want to pay higher prices they don't buy, so economies are held back. Secondly, protectionism favours rich countries. After all, if you have more to protect and trade, then you can afford to be tough to other countries with your tariffs ( <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protectionism">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protectionism</a> ). So as part of a global world we screw other people, our own consumers and ultimately our own economy. Again, as a rule of thumb then, tariffs are bad for consumers, bad for the overall economy but potentially good for individual companies in an economy.</div>
<div>
There are other ways of course as well as tariffs that countries can protect their own industries. Nationalised companies obviously have government support so can (generally) borrow money more cheaply. Or Labour costs can be controlled by government to help companies. Or grants, or a variety of other measures and methods that can be used. For example, the recent furore over the death of Tata Steel in the UK is often blamed on cheap imports of Chinese Steel "flooding the market". There is a huge lack of transparency around why the EU didn't stop this. The arguments (depending on which side you are on) are that the EU rules stopped the UK from intervening to help our steel industry OR the EU tried to block the chinese steel (by increasing tariffs) and the UK government stopped them from doing that. Whilst it is unclear what happened in this instance, the EU rules on this are quite clear - we could have increased tariffs at a European level to counter the protectionist measures of the Chinese. What is worth considering is whether the whole EU standing up to China would have more impact than the UK standing up to them on it's own.</div>
<div>
So, a single market, with common regulations and no tariffs, across a regional trading block, with an end consumer base of 500 million people. That is great because it gives companies (particularly international companies that trade across borders) certainty. Set up in Britain and access that market. Sounds pretty sweet. The main problem raised though is that in order to access that market we have to be (currently) a member of the EU. That in itself comes with a few costs. Firstly, the cost of complying with regulations as discussed above. Secondly, we have to pay to be a member of the EU. This is not a small amount of money, and the budget is set in Europe - we don't decide ourselves how much to pay. After rebate (which we do control) we pay £14 billion a year to the EU. That sounds like we might just be better off paying the tariffs in the first place. To put it into perspective - that is out of total UK government expenditure of £772 billion. Our payments to the EU (before looking at what they give us back in other ways) equate to 0.5% of the cost of government ( <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_spending_in_the_United_Kingdom">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_spending_in_the_United_Kingdom</a> ). So less than half a penny in every pound paid in tax goes to the EU. Finally, there is a cost of being part of the EU when we try to trade with non-EU countries. Because we are members when we trade with other countries without a trade deal the EU makes us apply tariffs. This is why the EU is currently trying to agree trade deals with a range of countries - Canada, the US, China as examples. However, overall tariffs are coming down across the world - in some cases slowly, but in other cases more quickly.<br />
There do seem to be some other major costs too economically. One of the obvious key ones is that if you are running a business in the UK then because of the close integration of the markets you are potentially not just competing with the business next door - but also the business in Paris, Madrid and Berlin. Is this a bad thing or a good thing? Well, first of all it means that the businesses in Europe are also competing with you - you can enter and sell to their local customers. Competition should also (according to prevailing economic theory) lead to better prices for consumers and a more efficient market, innovation and better products and services. The impact of this will depend on your business - common sense would suggest it is much easier to sell "knowledge" services over a phone line or internet connection. It might be much harder to sell fresh cream cakes.<br />
Finally then, there is also the concern over free movement of Labour - one of the central tenets of the European model of tariffs and regulations. Now, I have already written a blog about immigration generally ( <a href="http://unexpectedsocialist.blogspot.co.uk/2016/06/if-immigration-is-your-answer-someone.html">http://unexpectedsocialist.blogspot.co.uk/2016/06/if-immigration-is-your-answer-someone.html</a> ) and I don't want to revisit a lot of those points. But being part of Europe also requires us to allow workers to seek employment in any other part of the EU without barriers to that. Is this a cost to our economy? At a very basic level it would seem intuitive that having a greater Labour pool would help companies make money. They can drive down wages and salaries by hiring people from lower paid countries to work for them. This could therefore be good for companies (and earn more money for an economy) but bad for employees. It could also transfer funds from wealthier economies to poorer economies - by individuals remitting wages back to their home country. At the same time though, we have more individuals in the country spending their money here, paying taxes here and generally because they are of working age using less public services (remember, we are only talking about working migrants). Unfortunately, I do need to refer to a study here ( <a href="http://cep.lse.ac.uk/pubs/download/brexit05.pdf">http://cep.lse.ac.uk/pubs/download/brexit05.pdf</a> ) that shows that immigrants have NOT reduced wages for the UK population. It is simply a not true assertion. BUT TAKE THAT WITH A PINCH OF SALT.<br />
Economically then, what is the EU? Well a single trading block that increased potential customers but also potential rivals. A law making body that creates a lot of regulations that apply to all companies irrespective of whether they trade internationally. A body that tries to reduce protectionism and tariffs for the good of the global economy, not just ours. A bloc that negotiates on our behalf with other large economies that sometimes doesn't get the results that we would want. A larger, more competitive market that companies either thrive in or fail in. And one where the free flow of Labour allows people to work across a different range of countries depending on their skills, abilities and needs. This of course sounds rosy, but then again I am for remaining in. The problem is that whether we vote to stay in or vote to leave we are picking winners and losers. Some businesses will benefit from staying in. Some will benefit from losing. What we have to do is decide is whether getting rid of or replacing the things above will benefit US as individuals / companies AND what will be the impact on the overall economy. </div>
</div>
The unexpected socialisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09268267206158594574noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3892375255844626465.post-76703729288592179592016-06-05T13:34:00.000-07:002016-06-05T13:34:01.147-07:00If Immigration is your answer, someone has given you the wrong question<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Well,
there are only 3 weeks left (ish) until probably the biggest vote any<span style="color: red;"> </span>of us able to vote will take for the next 50 years.
The EU referendum. As a topic, for a lot of people the single biggest turn off
since the first time they realised that their parents had sex. The reason for
that disengagement is varied, and consists of several strands according to
various insights and polls produced for our delectation. For some people it is
a lack of hard facts, for others it is the language and behaviour of both sides
of the argument – spurious figures, absolute certainties shared, fears
mongered. There is also some concern over the topics that the debate seems to
now centre on – immigration, the economy and control / democracy. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"> Now
this is only a little blog, so I am going to focus in on just one of these
areas – and the one that still a lot of people feel uncomfortable talking about
– immigration. It is probably the most pertinent and divisive of the areas.
After all, where were all these democracy warriors when <span style="color: red;">the referendum on proportional representation </span>was happening?
Probably best to set a few ground rules for myself though. Firstly, talking
about immigration, and the volumes of immigration, and the process for managing
immigration is NOT racist. Some views might be, but the subject itself isn’t.
It worries a lot of people, and so is well worthy of consideration. Secondly,
in any discussion about remain or leave there are a limited number of hard
facts. There is only evidence and expectation, assessment and opinion. But
where possible I will try to bring in what facts there are. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"> A lot
of the arguments about immigration really focus on one thing – the sheer VOLUME
of inwards migration of people from Europe and our ability to control it to
suit our needs. Indeed the UKIP Leader Nigel Farage has gone so far as to claim
that Britain “is in the grip of an immigration crisis” (<a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-surrey-34348834">http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-surrey-34348834</a>
) and that we can’t do anything about it until we leave Europe – as they set
our immigration policy. But we need to pick this apart in to chunks that we can
consider, and see what stacks up. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"> So, we
should really look at whether immigration has increased to the UK firstly, and
whether Britain is particularly special in this. Next we need to define what a
crisis would be and whether what we are experiencing is one, and if we are, is
it being caused by immigration. Finally, we should look at specifically the
impact of Europe on that migration level, and whether leaving the EU would
help. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"> So, is
immigration higher now than historically? Well, almost certainly. Various
studies have been done on long term trends on migration. Just between 1960 and
2000 the growth in the number of people living outside of their birth country
is 100 million. That is 100 million more migrants in just 40 years (<a href="http://www.jstor.org/stable/27645348?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents">http://www.jstor.org/stable/27645348?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents</a>
). Clearly, that is a huge amount. But is this particularly surprising? Simply
factoring in advances in travel, our economies (and how we work) and <span style="color: red;">the increase in the middle class, you </span>would expect
more people to be living, working and settling overseas. So it is not unfair to
say that we are seeing more immigration now than before. But this is part of a
global trend. The problem with trying to put barriers in place for inwards
migration is that those same barriers then go up for outward migration too. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"> Are we
taking the brunt of this immigration (from a European perspective) in the UK?
Certainly there has been an ongoing attempt by the media to create a “moral
panic” about Eastern European flooding to the UK to either steal our low paid <span style="color: red;">jobs or </span>live off our benefits system (or from some
people, confusingly, live off our benefits AND steal our jobs). Actually, when
we look across Europe we are pretty much middle of the pack in how many
immigrants we have living in our country. This graph is from 2009, but is a
good indication:<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgo2TtxeOIlfrP24SMJ8PFZwWLPnr5D4hfg9tzMd3xKNbF6bn1d9QY_ve9MA0RhvIvIs8BBWWbGCjSVBcyU9TrUbM1Rw7PqVd_K07QS6eI71fLo3dMlF7TytV7H6-yDTrKeXS_d_eSCSnI/s1600/Foreign-citizens-in-Europ-007.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="305" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgo2TtxeOIlfrP24SMJ8PFZwWLPnr5D4hfg9tzMd3xKNbF6bn1d9QY_ve9MA0RhvIvIs8BBWWbGCjSVBcyU9TrUbM1Rw7PqVd_K07QS6eI71fLo3dMlF7TytV7H6-yDTrKeXS_d_eSCSnI/s640/Foreign-citizens-in-Europ-007.jpg" width="640" /></a></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">( <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2010/sep/07/immigration-europe-foreign-citizens">http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2010/sep/07/immigration-europe-foreign-citizens</a>
). So whilst the overall average level for the EU is 6.4%, for us it is 6.6%.
Hardly evidence that we are an outlier in this case. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"> Still,
size isn’t everything. It is still possible this is a crisis. What should
really decide that is the impact it has on the receiving country. So even
though we are not receiving lots more immigrants than other countries it is how
they are affecting the indigenous populations that can really have costs (and
in some cases benefits). In fact the official Vote Leave campaign points out
two areas in particular – the NHS and
schools ( <a href="http://www.voteleavetakecontrol.org/our_case">http://www.voteleavetakecontrol.org/our_case</a>
). But also in other areas people genuinely have concerns – availability of
housing, access to jobs and the impact on our culture. All of these have been
raised as problems of uncontrolled immigration. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"> It is a
quite simple supply / demand question. You have to do one of two things -
either increase supply or reduce demand. "Get control of our borders"
rhetoric is about a belief that you can reduce demand (but there are strong
arguments it wouldn't have any impact). The alternative is to increase supply
of all of these things. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">1) The
majority view of experts is that just in order to stand still in terms of
housing we need to build 250,000 new homes each year. No government has
achieved that since 1980. In fact, since the economic crisis in 2008
housebuilding has tanked (<a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/statistical-data-sets/live-tables-on-house-building%20table%20211">https://www.gov.uk/government/statistical-data-sets/live-tables-on-house-building
table 211</a>). And I am not suggesting we concrete over the green belt – there
are £12 BILLION of empty homes in the North West alone (<a href="http://www.mancunianmatters.co.uk/content/070811937-housing-crisis-%C2%A312billion-worth-homes-lie-empty-across-north-west-according-report">http://www.mancunianmatters.co.uk/content/070811937-housing-crisis-%C2%A312billion-worth-homes-lie-empty-across-north-west-according-report</a>
)<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">2) When the
last coalition government had an opportunity to secure the NHS and pump extra
money in, they instead pushed ahead with a costly top-down re-organisation. One
which makes the NHS much more privatisation-ready. (<a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-31145600">http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-31145600</a>
)<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">3) LAs are
no longer allowed to open new schools where they are needed - these can only be
opened at the mercy of the open access academy system. This is purely to break
the link between those dangerous left wing county councils and school
leadership. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">4) LA
funding and social services funding has been strangled on the back of an
austerity drive which has ADDED to the national debt, not taken away from it. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">5) We are
currently told by the government that we have the lowest unemployment figures
in a long time at 5.1% and holding (<a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-36320028">http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-36320028</a>
). <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: left; text-indent: 36pt;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">So really, this crisis is not one
made from too much demand, but one created by too little supply. Quite simply,
our governments have created this issue. And migrants are a handy scapegoat for
us to blame. Of course, all of these things have to be paid for, and have a
cost to the economy too. How can we do that?<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: left; text-indent: 36pt;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Well, migrants are actually net CONTRIBUTORS
to our economy (<a href="http://www.cityam.com/213058/eu-immigrants-contribute-463-second-uk-economy">http://www.cityam.com/213058/eu-immigrants-contribute-463-second-uk-economy</a>
) – in other words having migrants actually means we have more money to pay for
services even after taking account of the cost of providing services and
benefits to them. Where has this extra money gone? Over the period of
tory-imposed austerity that has led to many of these cuts the government have
managed to find the space to cut corporation tax to 18% - even though there is
zero evidence base this brings more companies and employment. The real pressure
on services has been created by the recent governments this country has had –
none more so than the coalition and current governments. I don’t deny that
there are crises in all of these areas – but the cause is much closer to home. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top: 12pt; text-align: left; text-indent: 36pt;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">So, a fairly
fact informed consideration of immigration (I hope) and we haven’t yet
mentioned EU Brexit OR been racist (I REALLY hope). We should probably turn to
one of those two topics now – Brexit. How much of our immigration comes from within
the EU as part of freedom of movement rules? Again, trying to arm ourselves
with the best facts available, the ONS reckons that EU migration makes up less
than half of our inwards migration (<a href="https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/populationandmigration/internationalmigration/bulletins/migrationstatisticsquarterlyreport/may2016">https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/populationandmigration/internationalmigration/bulletins/migrationstatisticsquarterlyreport/may2016</a>
). Not only that but MORE of the EU citizens coming here have definite jobs to
go to than ever before (about 60%). So most of our migration comes from outside
the EU, and those from within the EU come here with definite jobs. So if we
could stop EU immigration we would only be stopping half of the inflow – and a
half with a good track record of helping our economy. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top: 12pt; text-align: left; text-indent: 36pt;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Maybe that
would be enough? Perhaps cutting immigration in half would allow our
underfunded services to get back to an even keel over time, house building
could pick up etc. Well, there are still a couple of major challenges with that
suggestion. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top: 12pt; text-align: left; text-indent: 36pt;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">The first is
that a lot of those services (particularly the NHS) rely on European immigrants
to fulfil their staffing requirements (<a href="http://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/jan/26/nhs-foreign-nationals-immigration-health-service">http://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/jan/26/nhs-foreign-nationals-immigration-health-service</a>
). A lot of other areas do too – construction being another. Not a great idea
when you are trying to increase housebuilding. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top: 12pt; text-align: left; text-indent: 36pt;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">The second
problem is that leaving the EU does not guarantee that we would be able to
refuse rules on freedom of movement if we wanted to trade with Europe. All of
their other local trading partners who are NOT members of the EU have had this
stipulation placed on them. It is almost certainly one that the EU would place
on us too. So Brexit would not in any way guarantee us the ability to stop EU
migrants, whilst at the same time carrying lots of other risks. Quite simply,
Brexit do not know what would happen with free movement of Labour. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top: 12pt; text-align: left; text-indent: 36pt;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">So, there you
have it then. It is not racist to be worried about the crises in public
services, in housing and in jobs. The problem is that you have been given the
wrong cause of the problem by political parties and media alike. It is much
easier for you to be told the problem is economic migrants (and by extension
the EU). Actually, the problem has been our own leaders. So if you are still
not sure which way to vote (and that will be many people given the way the
campaigns have run) do think carefully. But do one thing right – don’t make
your decision based on immigration. It is the wrong argument to be focussed on.</span><o:p></o:p></div>
</div>
The unexpected socialisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09268267206158594574noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3892375255844626465.post-53174718717304719332016-04-21T13:59:00.002-07:002016-04-21T13:59:58.823-07:00Should politics and social media mix?<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"> This is not the next blog I expected to be writing. The
eagle-eyed and elephant-memoried of you will know that I was just starting a
mine series of blogs about economic competence and the action of the tory
government. This stopped ten weeks ago because of a specific event for me. I
posted a link to somebody else’s blog on Facebook and because of the content of
that blog a couple of people I thought of as friends (with whom I shared a
particular crucible in fact) walked away from our friendship. The blog I shared
used some very harsh and questionable language. It also had some extreme opinions
on things. This led me to consider a number of things. It seems timely when
there have been a plethora of stories about “trolls” from various political
wings causing problems on social media. Is it right that a friendship can be
ended over political views? If we are politically interested people, is it fair
to share it with others on our social media? Are there rules we should stick to
when posting on social media?<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 36.0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">I will come on to my own mistakes
in a little while, but I first wanted to set some of the background to why this
has caused me to think so long and hard. The use (abuse) of social media in
politics is very much here to stay, and it has been used to good and bad effect
a number of times recently. Just this weekend, Jeremy Corbyn has joined snapchat
(<a href="http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/apr/17/jeremy-corbyn-snapchat-instagram-labour-leader">http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/apr/17/jeremy-corbyn-snapchat-instagram-labour-leader</a>
) - genuinely. I imagine you have all paused from reading this in order to go
and sign up for snapchat and then find his page. I know I haven’t. But there
are murkier tales abounding from the internet of social media being used to
target and attack Labour MPs over the vote to bomb Syria (<a href="http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/momentum-vitriol-highlights-the-sexism-inherent-in-the-hard-left-a6761801.html">http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/momentum-vitriol-highlights-the-sexism-inherent-in-the-hard-left-a6761801.html</a>
). Of course, the key sentence used is “<span style="color: #281e1e;">No direct
link can be proven between Momentum organisers and the keyboard warriors” but
don’t let that stop you basing a story on it. Equally, the tales of CyberNats
during the Scottish Independence Referendum campaign are the stuff of legend ( </span><a href="http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/13165014.Call_to_end_online_poison_after_cyber_attacks_on_JK_Rowling/">http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/13165014.Call_to_end_online_poison_after_cyber_attacks_on_JK_Rowling/</a><span style="color: #281e1e;"> ). <o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 36.0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><span style="color: #281e1e;">There
are a couple of similarities I wanted to pick out on these stories – firstly
that they both point to a number of tweets but only reference only one, and
secondly that they are linked to a particular organisation or campaign but with
no evidence they have been officially sanctioned. This is an interesting point about social
media use. If you want to denigrate a group as a troll, don’t wait until they
themselves have said something, simply take umbrage at something somebody else
has said that is on the same side of the argument as them, and blame them for
saying it. It’s effectively a “straw man” argument for the new age. That is not
to in anyway argue that social media trolls don’t exist. They absolutely do and
they risk poisoning political debate on social media (</span><a href="http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/apr/13/trolls-trampling-political-discourse-abuse">http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/apr/13/trolls-trampling-political-discourse-abuse</a><span style="color: #281e1e;"> ) but they should not be allowed to end our use of
social media. <o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 36.0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><span style="color: #281e1e;">There
are also some very good examples of people thinking about social media and the
impact it can have. Certainly, it has been identified as one of the reasons
that a groundswell of support grew so quickly for Jeremy Corbyn during the
leadership election (</span><a href="http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/aug/04/jezwecan-jeremy-corbyn-social-media-vote-labour-leadership">http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/aug/04/jezwecan-jeremy-corbyn-social-media-vote-labour-leadership</a><span style="color: #281e1e;"> ). Certainly the more piss-take accounts (remember
@corbynjokes – if you missed it go there now) even seemed to help. The question
is whether the social media element itself did the work, or the strength of the
candidate. After all, Liz Kendall had social media too.</span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 36.0pt;">
<span style="color: #281e1e;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">So as
a Labour party member, surely I should be free to profess my views as and where
I want on my own social media accounts. Yes, I absolutely am. However I have
been incredibly naïve in understanding the impact it would have on other
people. And yes, this has led to people removing me from their timeline. Now,
the obvious bullish (dare I say masculine) response is to say “fuck it, you
can’t lose real friends, only people pretending to be real friends”. I am not
sure this rings true. For example, I have unfollowed and unfriended people who
have started espousing right-wing and nationalistic claptrap. If you realised
one of your friends was a proto-fascist you would forgive yourself for wanting
nothing to do with them. It should be equally fair if you vehemently disagree
with a friends postings (even when they are re-posting something written by
other people) if they are writing from the left instead of the right. <o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 36.0pt;">
<span style="color: #281e1e;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">In
terms of my own misdemeanour, I posted on my personal facebook a blog which
stated it was quite acceptable to call people who voted tory at the last
election c*nts (you can probably work out that word, but I would not be
sleeping in the big bed tonight if I said it correctly on my blog). Whilst the
language was strong, it was nothing you wouldn’t expect to hear in a barracks
or pub. The underlying intent to show that people who voted tory should
reconsider their position next time round given how horrific the current
government are, also still rings true for me. I was attacked on the basis of it
being taken as a personal attack by proxy – that their mother had voted
conservative and by extension I was calling his mother. I can understand this.
Another line of attack was that (and this is not a direct quote) “I voted
conservative, I don’t know enough about politics, you might be right, but
admitting it makes me feel uncomfortable about myself, and social media isn’t
the place for making me feel uncomfortable”. <o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 36.0pt;">
<span style="color: #281e1e; text-indent: 36pt;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Certainly,
I can understand that, and I have learned from this, there does need to be some
separation between social media friends and acquaintances and your loony-left
or swivel-eyed right leaning views. I will now have 2 social media presences –
one for the unexpected socialist and one for Barry. I will still cross-post
though. Partly because my view of the world is a major part of who I am. But
partly because I am a technological luddite who will end up doing it by
accident. Hopefully that will be enough for my detractors. But I can’t promise
that my loony-left-ism wont sneak out in other ways too.</span></span><span style="color: #281e1e;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></div>
</div>
The unexpected socialisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09268267206158594574noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3892375255844626465.post-2044626502939926772016-01-25T12:15:00.002-08:002017-04-20T15:14:31.247-07:00You can't trust Labour on the economy (updated since originally posted 15 months ago) Part 1<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">As the general election campaign for 2017 has now started in earnest, I have been locked away trying
to understand the outcome from the Margaret Beckett report on why Labour lost
the last election (<a href="http://press.labour.org.uk/post/137620361394/learningthelessons">http://press.labour.org.uk/post/137620361394/learningthelessons</a>
). Now, whether you believe the report or not <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-35392319">http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-35392319</a>
is entirely up to you. However, even without the additional analysis being
included, one thing can be said with certainty – voters did not trust Labour
with the economy. This has been borne out by my own un-scientific research –
i.e. speaking to people on internet forums and social media. It is one of the most repeated phrases I hear and read from a whole spectrum of people. It is one of those "truths" that has become so because it has been so oft-repeated.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">There will always be a subset of people who, no matter what can be proven, will
decide that they will blindly vote Conservative. We have the same people in the
Labour party and that is absolutely fine. People vote for their own reasons. If
you are one of those people who hate the Labour party and will never look at
evidence with a view to changing that position don’t read this. Use the time to
do something useful – read something else, make a cup of tea, look after your
children, speak to your life partner. That is fine. But I did want to consider
that individual central tenet – that people did not trust Labour on the
economy, and therefore wouldn’t vote Labour. I am going to try to extrapolate
that too – should they trust Labour on the economy now or in the future.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">In order to split this down we probably need to think about
two things – firstly what is a “good” economy and what does that look like?
Secondly, why should we trust a party? If we can answer those two, we should be
able to put together a fairly strong case one way or the other. Just writing
those two questions down outlines a whole host of problems, but let’s try and
answer them.<o:p></o:p></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: left;">
<u><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">What is a “good” economy?<o:p></o:p></span></u></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">So, the
real difficulty with this is that there is not, and can not be a single
definite answer to this. There are some broad areas of understanding, but
nothing that we can concretely say “that right there is your answer”. Each
individual will necessarily have their own view on this – and it will be
coloured by their upbringing, their view on how the world works and what is
important to them. We are after all a country of approx. 60 million single
issue voters – that single issue being “what is important to me”. <o:p></o:p></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><span style="line-height: 115%;">From
my perspective then (as a socialist) there are a number of measures of what
makes a good economy. The key one is that the national economy should be
measured on how that is used to provide a wellbeing for those people involved
in and covered by the economy. A good economy would be one where: </span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: left;">
</div>
<ol style="text-align: left;">
<li><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif; text-indent: -18pt;">any growth in the economy benefits those who
work for it;</span></li>
<li><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif; text-indent: -18pt;">it provides opportunities for everyone to
participate and add to the economy whilst;</span></li>
<li><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif; text-indent: -18pt;">providing a reasonable level of
protection from external shocks to the national economy and individual shocks through changes in circumstance</span></li>
</ol>
<br />
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br />I don’t pretend this is the only answer. There are other things that we could look at - a key one being how the economy is used to look after members of society in need. There are I am sure many issues that this doesn’t
address. As we will discuss, some of these items might even rub against each
other in different directions. Lots of people would argue that some of those
goals are impossible whilst we live in a capitalist system. It is the system we
have at the moment and nobody has yet convinced the British public to rally
together to change this system for an alternative one. Additionally there are
some huge topics that I have left out – the Private Finance Initiative (PFI and PF2 which are the same thing) are a massive burden on this country. However, political parties of all hues
are currently wedded to continue delivering them, so they don’t provide a
difference between how they are treated. This is a massive topic and the
subject of so much unknown and unknowable that it has its own Nobel Prize. To
expect me to do justice to it in a blog is probably asking too much. Even with
the simplified items above I am going to split this down into a couple of
(hopefully easily digestible, probably completely incomprehensible) blogs to not
completely frazzle people.</span><br />
<div>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif; line-height: 115%; text-indent: -18pt;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif; line-height: 115%; text-indent: -18pt;"><u>Should we trust a party to deliver?</u></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif; line-height: 115%; text-indent: -18pt;"><u><br /></u></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif; line-height: 115%; text-indent: -18pt;">The next question should then be: How do the
last Labour administration and the current (including the coalition years)
Conservative government stand on each of those measures? And how do we believe a Corbyn government would stand against those measures? Whilst this may be a little unfair (every government in waiting is brilliant until it gets in), we need to recognise that a Corbyn government would be very different to a Blair / Brown government. </span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif; line-height: 115%; text-indent: -18pt;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif; line-height: 115%; text-indent: -18pt;">Well the first measure mentioned above on economic growth and fairness really requires two parts to it – one is a growing economy, and two that the
benefits of that growth are shared amongst the actors within it. Whilst there
are a range of indicators for a growing economy a useful one is GDP per capita.
This shows the value of the outputs of an economy shared equally by the
population of that economy. For the UK, this shows the following output (taken
from </span><a href="https://knoema.com/atlas/United-Kingdom/GDP-per-capita">https://knoema.com/atlas/United-Kingdom/GDP-per-capita</a><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif; text-indent: 36pt;">
).</span><br />
<div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: left; text-indent: 36pt;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiISKKQB2xWXu2pZKFdKF14nfgkiJMPWfICvXx6T2WEeKu8O4JccxBDy5CnVHwjULsPza8X7g6UMfUPFWsSywnFACI_NR0lFYnLM_kJIadwp1rfMW6nGO1BNBYNMuKxuPl2e-T0qkUHvQY/s1600/gdp+per+capita.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="300" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiISKKQB2xWXu2pZKFdKF14nfgkiJMPWfICvXx6T2WEeKu8O4JccxBDy5CnVHwjULsPza8X7g6UMfUPFWsSywnFACI_NR0lFYnLM_kJIadwp1rfMW6nGO1BNBYNMuKxuPl2e-T0qkUHvQY/s640/gdp+per+capita.jpg" width="640" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif; text-align: left; text-indent: 36pt;">What you can see from this is
that under the last Labour government the GDP per person was higher than it
currently is at its high point. It also had a steeper growth – i.e. people were
(on average) getting wealthier, faster. This changed in 2008 because of the
sudden correction in the markets – caused by the banking crash. The key term
there I feel is “correction”. Put simply the market growth was to some extent a
myth, caused by a bubble of over-inflated house prices across the globe and
reckless behaviour of banks and consumers around the world.</span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif; text-indent: 36pt;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif; text-indent: 36pt;">Can we blame Labour for this? I
think there must be an element of realisation that for Tony Blair and Gordon
Brown the key indicator for economic success was GDP growth. Therefore the
worst excesses of the banks were missed at best or ignored and encouraged at
worst. This lends to the suggestion that Labour can’t be trusted. In order for
us to stick with that as a reason, we should also look at the behaviour of the
Conservative party in office. If the property bubble and banker behaviour were
key components of the sudden correction, then to trust the tories they would
have to clearly demonstrate a different approach. </span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif; text-align: left; text-indent: 36pt;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif; text-align: left; text-indent: 36pt;">I would say that quite clearly isn’t
the case. In fact the light regulation that allowed this to happen is slowly
returning. Despite the rhetoric about this at the time, the Conservative Party
(funded by hedge fund managers and property tycoons </span><a href="http://blogs.channel4.com/factcheck/labour-funding-party-donors-tories-factcheck/13899" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; text-align: left; text-indent: 36pt;">http://blogs.channel4.com/factcheck/labour-funding-party-donors-tories-factcheck/13899</a><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif; text-align: left; text-indent: 36pt;">
) is indeed pushing back on the regulation of the banks. Ring-fencing of banks
(to protect consumers and the economy) has been watered down. There have been a
plethora of new scandals SINCE the financial crash ( </span><a href="http://www.channel4.com/news/five-other-banking-scandals-since-2008" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; text-align: left; text-indent: 36pt;">http://www.channel4.com/news/five-other-banking-scandals-since-2008</a><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif; text-align: left; text-indent: 36pt;">
) they have slowly stopped investigations and reviews into the current banking
market. </span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif; text-align: left; text-indent: 36pt;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif; text-align: left; text-indent: 36pt;">So, if you don’t trust Labour on the economy for this reason, you quite
clearly can’t trust the Conservatives either. As an argument, it is nonsense.
Oh, and if you think that they have at least made sure another housing bubble
wont appear and burst, then forget about it (</span><a href="http://uk.businessinsider.com/roubini-the-mother-of-all-asset-bubbles-will-burst-in-2016-2014-12?r=US&IR=T" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; text-align: left; text-indent: 36pt;">http://uk.businessinsider.com/roubini-the-mother-of-all-asset-bubbles-will-burst-in-2016-2014-12?r=US&IR=T</a><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif; text-align: left; text-indent: 36pt;">
and </span><a href="http://moneyweek.com/uk-property-market-could-be-in-trouble-after-the-2015-election/" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; text-align: left; text-indent: 36pt;">http://moneyweek.com/uk-property-market-could-be-in-trouble-after-the-2015-election/</a><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif; text-align: left; text-indent: 36pt;">
) – those risks are still there. Worryingly from the above graph we can see that rather than the Tories increasing GDP per capita it has fluctuated and is falling again - and this is before the impact of Brexit takes its toll. </span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif; text-align: left; text-indent: 36pt;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif; text-align: left; text-indent: 36pt;">The next thing to consider from
any growth in the economy benefits those who work for it is that it benefits
those who work for it. To me, this means that the benefits are shared in line
with hard work, effort and risk. That is impossible to measure on an individual
basis. It is also massively unfair when we have different starting points.
Instead a good measure of how the people in an economy are benefiting, and
whether it is fairly or not, is something called a "gini-coefficient". If you wish to understand the maths behind it, then it can be readily understood from wikipedia. It basically measures how fairly income is shared amongst a population. This ties in with
GDP above – as it measures the income in a period, in much the same way, and
then looks at how income is spread between people. There are 2 extremes – but
the <u>lower</u> the gini-coefficient the more equally money is shared between the
people in the economy. Gini is calculated as between 0 (everyone gets the same)
and 1 (1 person gets all of the income). As a co-efficient </span><u style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; text-align: left; text-indent: 36pt;">it is not useful on it's own</u><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif; text-align: left; text-indent: 36pt;"> - but is useful for comparing 2 things - such as different points in time, different countries or different governments.</span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif; text-align: left; text-indent: 36pt;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif; text-align: left; text-indent: 36pt;">In order to get a fair reading on
this, then we must look at not only what the gini-coefficient was but how it
has changed over time under each of these governments. So under the previous
Blairite Labour administration, the gini co-efficient (<a href="http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/household-income/the-effects-of-taxes-and-benefits-on-household-income/2013-2014/data--the-effects-of-taxes-and-benefits-on-household-income--financial-year-ending-2014.xls">http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/household-income/the-effects-of-taxes-and-benefits-on-household-income/2013-2014/data--the-effects-of-taxes-and-benefits-on-household-income--financial-year-ending-2014.xls</a>
) after tax showed a gini-coefficient of 0.38 between 1997 and 2008 – this
didn’t really move. Since the coalition government came to power there has
actually been an improvement in income equality - the figure got
lower to 0.36 up to the end of 2013/2014. This will be in large part due to the
changes in taxation that was pushed through by the Liberal Democrats. </span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif; text-align: left; text-indent: 36pt;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif; text-align: left; text-indent: 36pt;">What
remains to be seen is how the changes enacted since then will impact through
2014/2015 and 2015/2016. Although if you believe that trying to cut working
families tax credits and battering disabled people’s payments will make income
more equal then you have really missed the point. I would expect that the
gini-coefficient starts to move back out sharply. After all, the current
government have tried to remove income from their definition of poverty ( <a href="http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/tory-plot-scrap-child-poverty-7244505">http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/tory-plot-scrap-child-poverty-7244505</a> )</span><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif; text-align: left; text-indent: 36pt;">. That can never
be a good sign. Whilst we don't yet have the official figures for 2015-2016 (the first year of a solely Tory government), for 2014-2015 the gini coefficient has started to move out again - that is we are becoming less equal once again.</span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif; text-align: left; text-indent: 36pt;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif; text-align: left; text-indent: 36pt;">What we can't know is how this will change under a Corbyn led Labour government. However, we can look to the policies that have been unveiled already - investment in public works to kick-start the economey, higher taxes on large corporations and wealthy individuals, higher national minimum wage, a clampdown on tax avoidance and evasion and an end to using the benefits regime to punish the disabled and these would all point to an improvement in this measure (and all measures) of inequality. In fact, his first major speech of this election campaign has been entirely rooted in sharing wealth more equally. So, if we believe that he will be true to his word, this would suggest that on my first measure there would be an improvement in both GDP per capita and how that is shared. But, what we can already say based on the available, independent evidence shown above is this - the Conservative party are NO MORE trustworthy than the last Labour Government. That isn't opinion, that is clear fact when you consider the above. So don't let anyone suggest otherwise - without proving them wrong. </span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif; text-align: left; text-indent: 36pt;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif; text-align: left; text-indent: 36pt;">Of course, this is only one measure, and I will look at the others in my next blog. An absolute key one is what state the economy and public finances are left in. This is another area where many believe what they are told in the media - that every Labour government bankrupts the national coffers if it is allowed to do so. But is this really true? Well, hopefully I can answer that point in my next blog. </span></div>
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpFirst" style="mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -18.0pt;">
<!--[if !supportLists]--><o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -18.0pt;">
<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -18.0pt;">
<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpLast" style="mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -18.0pt;">
<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<o:p></o:p></div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
The unexpected socialisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09268267206158594574noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3892375255844626465.post-74697051613719167912016-01-15T15:14:00.001-08:002016-01-15T15:14:26.230-08:00How to face the UKIP challenge<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"> Never one to step back from a challenge me. I recently got
myself embroiled in a debate (well, I say debate, I was providing arguments
whilst ‘kippers were sharing faked up images from Tommy Robinson) on twitter. The
disagreement was over UKIP policies. I actually had to think on this – do I
know their policies well enough? Do I understand them? We certainly can’t
assume that we have enough liberal people in the country that UKIP can’t be a
threat. Maybe I am doing them a disservice – and there is more to support than
denigrate. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: left; text-indent: 36pt;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">So, the challenge is twofold.
One, I have set myself is to review and consider their manifesto. After all,
they might be a party that we face at the next election (unless they crumble in
the run up to or the aftermath of the EU referendum). Two, how do we see off
their challenge? They themselves feel that they are a direct challenger to
Labour in working class areas (although, you know, only when they aren’t faced
with a democratic vote of the people of an area <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-35003152">http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-35003152</a>
like in Oldham West and Royton). <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><span style="line-height: 115%;">Certainly, in specific instances, UKIP do sound
like they have some compelling arguments and ideas. Patrick O’Flynn came across
as the least rabid right-winger on Question Time on Thursday 14<sup>th</sup>
January 2016 <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b06wcm9d">http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b06wcm9d</a>
. Although I would urge caution – the other right wingers included Camilla
Long, </span><span style="text-indent: 36pt;">Kelvin Mackenzie and Nick Boles,
so Genghis Khan may have appeared reasonable in that company. He certainly
gained some praise for the housing policies he espoused.</span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: left; text-indent: 36pt;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: left; text-indent: 36pt;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">As the last formal document
expressing policy for UKIP, I got hold of a copy of their 2015 manifesto <a href="http://www.ukip.org/manifesto2015">http://www.ukip.org/manifesto2015</a>
which comes with a handy <s>back of a fag packet</s> economic assessment of
their tax and spending plans – provided by CEBR. This is marked up as
“independent”. Now, if anyone has ever bought a house, you know that there is
no such thing as independent. Whoever pays the bill calls the shots and gets
the report they want. I couldn’t quite find the details of the independent
person who had paid for this report. I am sure UKIP will help explain how this
was done independently. So in the interest of fairness we will assume it was
performed independently. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: left; text-indent: 36pt;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">I will be honest, there is
probably too much to wade through in one sitting – even if you enjoy blogging
as much as I do. So I can going to focus on specific areas. What got me into
this conversation was the explanation of UKIP housing policies, so we should
look at<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><u>Housing.</u><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"> The
main thrust of the UKIP argument is really strong. A really sensible proposal.
An absolute acceptance that there is a massive shortage of social housing, and
that it has been caused by housing sell offs during the 80s. In order to combat
that, they have a number of different planks to their housing strategy.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: left; text-indent: 0px;">
</div>
<ul style="text-align: left;">
<li><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; text-indent: -18pt;"> Bringing 280,000 houses back in to use by
charging 50% additional council tax for homes left empty for 2 years.</span><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">These are houses which the owners can
already afford to own, and leave standing empty whilst paying council tax on
them. How much difference will an extra £500 per year make? This would not have
anywhere near enough of an impact. (Rating – not effective)</span></li>
<li><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; text-indent: -18pt;">Incentivise building of 2.5million houses on
Brownfield sites at a cost of £1.75billion over 5 years. </span><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Really, looking at this, I initially
believed this to be reasonable. However, the devil is in the detail. To build
2.5million houses would require all of the sites to be redeveloped. Even UKIP
have admitted their incentives would only cover 30% of sites – so a basic
assumption would be an extra 750,000 houses built over the 5 year period on top
of where we are now. So that would still make it a win – if the technology
genuinely exists to achieve this. (Rating – appears possible)</span></li>
<li><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; text-indent: -18pt;">Releasing long held dormant land from local and
central government.</span><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">There are no costings for this, or how much
impact there will be from this – it is a completely uncosted, result free fudge
(Rating – space filler)</span></li>
<li><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; text-indent: -18pt;">Reduce the pressure on housing waiting lists by
not allowing foreign nationals to access social housing until they have been
here for 5 years, working and paying tax. This is the biggest plank of their
proposal, and seen as the biggest issue, so I want to consider this in more
detail.</span><o:p style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; text-indent: -18pt;"></o:p><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; text-indent: 36pt;">I think here we see the real
thrust of UKIP and what they want to achieve. </span></li>
</ul>
<br />
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpLast" style="text-align: left; text-indent: -18pt;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><span style="text-indent: 36pt;"> So let’s agree some basic facts.
Using the latest data I can find, around 8 million foreign nationals abide in
the UK </span><a href="http://www.migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/briefings/migrants-uk-overview" style="text-indent: 36pt;">http://www.migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/briefings/migrants-uk-overview</a><span style="text-indent: 36pt;">
at the present time. If we assume they are in family groups of 4, that means
they require about 2 million houses. Of those 43% own their own home and 39%
rent privately </span><a href="http://www.migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/briefings/migrants-and-housing-uk-experiences-and-impacts" style="text-indent: 36pt;">http://www.migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/briefings/migrants-and-housing-uk-experiences-and-impacts</a><span style="text-indent: 36pt;">
. That leaves approx 18% in social housing – that would mean a reduction in the
social housing stock of 360,000 houses. There are 4 million social houses in
Britain </span><a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/423249/Dwelling_Stock_Estimates_2014_England.pdf" style="text-indent: 36pt;">https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/423249/Dwelling_Stock_Estimates_2014_England.pdf</a><span style="text-indent: 36pt;">
out of a total of 23 million.</span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: left; text-indent: 36pt;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: left; text-indent: 36pt;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">So, as a very rough estimate,
that means that migrants (of all types) take up 8.7% of housing, and 9% of
social housing. I don’t have any better figures, but let’s assume 50% of
migrants have been here less than 5 years. That means actually, this would free
up about 4.5% of social housing – but push this into private rented. This would
simply mean higher private rents (more people after fewer tenancies). What are
social housing rents now set with regards to? Private rents. So rent will go up
for everyone, and the only people who will benefit are PRIVATE LANDLORDS. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: left; text-indent: 36pt;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Alternatively, this approach
could mean we have fewer migrants at all. This would seem to follow the general
thrust of the UKIP arguments in other areas – where they wish to reduce
immigration. Many might think this is a
benefit to us. Of course, it would mean the end of the NHS, as 11% of all NHS
staff are foreign nationals <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/jan/26/nhs-foreign-nationals-immigration-health-service">http://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/jan/26/nhs-foreign-nationals-immigration-health-service</a>
- rising to 26% of doctors. So, yes, cheaper housing, but an NHS that can not
cope – without enough doctors. So irrespective of any question of morality,
that would be a massive loss to the country. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: left; text-indent: 36pt;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">(Rating – higher rents paid by
EVERYONE in the private sector OR no NHS – you decide). <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: left; text-indent: 36pt;">
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: left; text-indent: 36pt;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">So, there you have it, the UKIP
housing policy laid bare for all to see. One potentially good idea, two
soundbites and one policy so monumentally dangerous we could never enact it
(that is even if it was compatible with the law, which I am not sure it would
be). My worry is that like a lot of their other policies, what initially sounds
straightforward is really an absolute disaster waiting to happen. This is why
we need to fight UKIP – and this is how we need to fight them. By challenging
their catchphrases and soundbites and making them admit the dangerous policies
that follow behind. </span><o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpLast" style="mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -18.0pt;">
<br /></div>
</div>
The unexpected socialisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09268267206158594574noreply@blogger.com0