POLITICS CORNER

[Tripps]

the Windsor Deal,

It's a 'Framework' not a Deal. Deal is too precise a word - framework is vague enough for purpose.

It is also incoherent since if you can't dispose of the contents a UK Customs cleared 20 ton lorry in Belfast in exactly the same way as you could in say Birmingham then you have not 'got Brexit done'. A simple way would be to say to the EU 'we will let any freight into Belfast that we wish and if you want to check anything that 'goes forward' to cross your border, then feel free to do so'.

That of course would contravene the Good Friday Agreement so is impossible to contemplate.

As far as I can work out - It is impossible to reconcile these two situations. but someone is going to have to do so.

[Stanley]

I hate to admit it but I was thinking about this as I drifted off to sleep last night and came to approximately the same conclusion but overlaid with the realisation that the whole can of worms that is Brexit as we know it, is an artificial construct that sprang from the failure of one weak politician to control his Party. A perfect example of why our system is so fatally flawed if it can allow such a thing to happen!
See THIS BBC report on the fact that it looks as though Sue Gray, the civil servant who investigated Partygate, may become Sir Keir Starmer's chief of staff. This triggered a ridiculous and insulting outburst from the Rees Mogg.
Former minister Jacob Rees-Mogg said Ms Gray's Partygate conclusions now looked "like a left-wing stitch up". "So much for an impartial Civil Service, the Gray report now looks like a left-wing stitch up against a Tory prime minister," the former business secretary and Brexit opportunities minister tweeted. A friend of Mr Johnson said Ms Gray's job offer undermined the validity of her investigation into parties held in Downing Street when Covid-19 restrictions were in force. "What was supposed to be an investigation by independent civil servants is now revealed to have been carried out by someone who ultimately would go on to work for Keir Starmer," they said.
Have you ever heard anything more ridiculous? Of course Rees Mogg was stitched up as well if this is true and this could be the root of the slur.
Read THIS BBC article about Isabel Euphemia Oakeshott and wonder why Hancock was so stupid as to trust her with his confidential messages.

[plaques]

Listened to Boris Johnson's 'Drag Anchor' speech. anchor A typical blustering incoherent speech that is full of half truths and timeline mix ups where future actions appeared to predate those agreed in the past altering the whole context of the sentence. Boris was never wrong in his NI protocol plan ie: total free movement of goods to NI without checks and controls, it was just that the EU interpreted the rules a different way without him knowing. Although agreeing that Sunak's framework will ease the situation the best thing is to cancel it altogether but somehow maintaining the 'Good Friday Agreement'. This logic also runs across ALL trade with the EU where removal of agreements would usher back the Singapore on Thames opportunities allowing unfettered trade with the rest of the world. Ie: EU rules are a drag anchor on trade. Note that he uses the words EU rules as though they apply to everything that governs our lives rather than the rules that apply when the UK is trading with the Common Market.

It will be interesting to see if he is still an MP when the select committee have passed their judgment.
PS it will be Sue Gray's fault.

[Stanley]

Ken, did you hear Nick Robinson interviewing Alexander Stafford this morning on Today. Have a look at THIS Mirror report. If this is the Tory Party's idea of rebuttal they are mad. It was excruciating to hear Stafford twisting the response to every question to the point where Nick Robinson terminated the interview on the grounds that there was no point continuing as he was evidently not going to answer any questions.
Apart from being rude and offensive towards Sue Gray Stafford was incoherent. It was a relief to hear him taken off air.
As you say, the message the Tories are keen to convey is the Trumpian one that any criticism of the buffoon is obviously a Labour stitch up.

[Tripps]

We're in a bit of a plight now in politics. It comes to something when I now listen attentively to James O'Brien on LBC . I'm not his biggest fan. but he is on the money at the moment. His back room staff are good too. He is now speaking of the difference between the Mail's reaction to the Sue Gray report now (conspiracy to get rid of Boris) - and then (May last year) when it was described as a 'damp squib' and the headline was "Is that all".

I'd say stay away from the BBC for news. Cast your net wide and think it out for yourself. The sheer weight of news and opinion we have access to now, and the fact is that there is a whole industry whose job is to influence and manipulate our reaction to it.

Something else is the problem that a situation which has evolved through circumstances, is now seen as a carefully organised plot by one side or another. Example is that the reduction in the use of cash is planned, and is a plot to introduce a system of only digital curency, accompanied by electronic personal ID cards. My only use of cash in the last three years is for haircuts, one Chinese takeaway (disappointing), and a packet of M and M's at Addenbrookes! My Starling 'Tap and Go' card is just more convenient, and trouble free..

Stay alert - as they told us in the depths of the crisis - and stay sceptical I'd add. .

[plaques]

We're in a bit of a plight now in politics. It comes to something when I now listen attentively to James O'Brien on LBC . I'm not his biggest fan. but he is on the money at the moment. His back room staff are good too. He is now speaking of the difference between the Mail's reaction to the Sue Gray report now (conspiracy to get rid of Boris) - and then (May last year) when it was described as a 'damp squib' and the headline was "Is that all".

I listen to James O'Brien and the pathetic phone in replies. They never seem to ask themselves "why do I think like this?" Reading one book is dangerous as is listening to one person. Fortunately I'm a slow reader, part of the mild dyslexia, but it makes you study what's being said. Politicians rely on people thinking they know what they mean from the spoken word but when you read the text its something different.

[Tripps]

Reading one book is dangerous as is listening to one person

Cast your net wide and think it out for yourself.

I think we are in agreement there . . . .

[Stanley]

All purveyors of 'news' are partial and have their own agenda whether they realise/admit it or not. The thing about the BBC is that they do try to be fair and impartial.
There is so much going on now but it is mainly smoke and mirrors. See THIS BBC account of Hancock's actions after the kiss photo in the Sun. Who bloody cares! So why is it major political news? I am convinced part of the story is that it diverts attention from Sunak and the Irish question.
The same applies to the artificial row over Sue Gray taking a job as Starmer's chief of staff. It is ludicrous to say (As Rees Mogg and Stafford have to name only two Johnson supporters) that this 'proves' that she was talking to Starmer then and that Partygate is a Labour stitch up. Did you hear Nadine Dorries doing her bit to defend her hero, the Buffoon? The row is nothing to do with Gray but everything to do with diverting attention from the Privileges Committee finding, some preliminaries of which were released yesterday casting doubt on Johnson's statements to Parliament that he had seen no rules broken. Johnson later cited these findings as 'vindication' of him when they are exactly the opposite.
Of far more importance is a report I heard yesterday (Sorry, I've forgotten where) that MPs have nothing to do as Parliamentary business has dried up, nothing is being processed. This could be a factor, the devil finds work for idle hands. The bottom line is that our political system is broken. All the evidence that is coming out of Westminster (Whoever is reporting it!) shows a dysfunctional rabble arguing amongst themselves while the country slides down the pan. Others have noticed and made their assessments, I see Argentina has broken the agreement to disagree about the Falklands and has said they want talks on their sovereignty. (LINK) That might give Westminster something else to talk about.......

[plaques]

Privileges Committee findings. Boris is due to give his oral evidence in two weeks time which is a different league to smoke screening the general public. Sentences that start with.. Just imagine.. Can you believe.. would you think, ie: shifting the action from himself to others won't wash with them. Neither will the line... I'm so stupid and such a big idiot that I truly believe that I did nothing wrong. In law, ignorantia juris non excusat (Latin for "ignorance of the law excuses not". The fact that Boris was the Prime Minister selected for his wisdom and foresight by the rest of the Conservative MPs should rule this defence out. But there is just the half chance he was selected because he was stupid and a big idiot good enough to con people to Get Brexit Done.

Sue Gray is another smokescreen where she has moves from 'dependable and independent' to a fifth columnist a left wing commie set to bring the government down. Lets face it at 60 years of age and being instrumental in finding that Boris broke his own rules her cards will be well and truly marked. Any career advancement in the civil service must be vanishingly small. What would a normal person do under these conditions.. Look after yourself and get the best job you can. Who can blame her only the rabid Tories who are doing the same by jumping the sinking ship while they can.

[Tripps]

Surely time to watch this again. . . "We'll see tomorrow if he's lucky"

[Stanley]

I'm sure someone else has said this but out of the mouth of babes and sucklings......
What really disturbs me is that we are even having this conversation. Johnson was given the chance of Leadership by his party and proved he was unfit for office (He did that as foreign secretary actually, God knows why he was allowed to go forward to Leadership.) Can you imagine us talking like this about Atlee, Macmillan or any other half decent PM? For God's sake, let's keep it simple. Anyone sanctioned and fined by the police should automatically be barred from high public office. End of! All of the current waffling is simply a waste of parliamentary time when there are far more pressing matters demanding attention.
The unthinkable question that comes into my head is how much longer can we support the idea that we have a functioning democratic government? Evidence for this is thin on the ground!

[plaques]

If Jacob Rees-Mogg is correct in his assertions that Sue Gray is the leader of a left-wing conspiracy against the government then by extension the Metropolitan Police and many of the workers within Downing St must also be part of the plot. He should immediately open a civil case against these people and call for MI5 to investigate the Partygate scandal in a totally new independent investigation. The fact that both No10 and the civil service may have been infiltrated by these Communist elements must be a cause of grave concern and given priority over Matt Hancock's use of WhatsApp rather than the official government issue phones. On the other hand perhaps all government ministers using WhatsApp could be part of the plot should be suspended and have their phones confiscated. Jacob Rees-Mogg will do no such thing but in his gravest undertaker tones will try to cast doubt on Sue Gray's impartiality while all the evidence points to the fact that Boris and a large number of No10 workers totally ignored the 'gathering' restrictions imposed on the rest of the population.

[Stanley]

Dead right Ken and what is even more important, what does the fact that they acted in that way say about the mind set of those at the top of our civil administration? Alcohol consumption during working hours seems to have been an accepted thing and some of the attitudes illustrated by the leaked Hancock messages are at best puerile and at worst betray contempt for the general public.
As we noted at the time of Brexit, it was an exercise on how to stay rich by lying to the plebs. 'The good of the Country' was never in the picture.



All in the best traditions of some of our finest institutions.

[Stanley]

Looking at the political news this morning my first reaction is 'Same Old!'.....Draconian measures against migration in boats across the Channel, Dominic Raab bullying accusations, the Sue Gray pot kept boiling and a two year wait for cataract operations if you are lucky (Or £3k for a private job) Meanwhile in Northern Ireland the DUP are 'asking for clarification in several areas', in other words, no quick decisions there..... and the DUP stay 'in control' as they see it.
I noticed this comment on the migration issue....
Lord Blunkett, Labour's home secretary from 2001-4, said any new migration policy needed France's backing - and that the government knew it would not get it. Speaking to BBC Radio 4's Broadcasting House show, he said: "They know they can't do it before the election even if it would work, and it won't. "They're doing it in order to put the Labour party on the spot, provide a message after 13 years that they're going to get a grip of a problem of their own making." The Lib Dems called the plans "immoral, ineffective and incredibly costly for taxpayers while doing nothing to stop small boat crossings". Freedom from Torture, a charity which provides therapy to asylum seekers, called them "vindictive and dysfunctional". The government has previously said the Rwanda plan would discourage others from crossing the English Channel but so far there is no evidence that has happened.
And much more in the same vein.... Is Sunak really serious or just making gestures?

[plaques]

I never realized until this morning that I've been tearing my hair out watching these small boats crossing the channel full of 'illegal' asylum seekers who disappear once they have got here. This is quite strange because even Suella Braverman agrees that the only legitimate way to to claim asylum without an official entry visa is by a small boat. I would imagine that the cost of food, energy, rents, rates and hundreds of price increases would have been the priority in most peoples minds. That's even when Matt Hancock is not scaring the pants of us with new virus variants. No, top of the list is small boats full of disappearing migrants where the government is prepared to spend £millions putting our collective minds at rest. What a compassionate caring government we've got. Meanwhile nurses are still going on strike for a living wage as are teachers most other service staff. The NHS is still going down the tube towards privatisation and the 40 new hospitals, actually refurbished hospitals, will be further delayed due to price rises.

The good news is Prince Harry and Megan are making ends meet and Kattie Price's 15 year old daughter has got a four figure modeling contract. Things aren't all that bad after all.

[Stanley]

Once more boat people head the political news and my attention was caught by this Private Eye 'Number Crunch'...
£22m.annual salary cost of 800 asylum decision makers the government needs.
£1.27bn annual spend on hotel bills for asylum seekers waiting for decisions due to lack of decision makers.
Looks like a management failure in the Home Office and a perfect example of how austerity measures can actually increase spending by government departments.
Something that's puzzling me is THIS. It looks to me as though the route for most Nitrous Oxide to public use is the fact it is used as a gas for making whipped cream in cooking. Why not simply close this loophole?
Nitrous oxide, sold in metal canisters, is the second most-used drug by 16 to 24-year-olds in the UK. Heavy use can lead to a vitamin deficiency that damages nerves in the spinal cord. But the independent Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs (ACMD) said nitrous oxide should not be banned under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971. It comes after the Home Office asked the ACMD to provide advice on whether to make possession of nitrous oxide a crime. Earlier this year, ministers had been considering a ban on possession of the drug - and on all direct sale of it to consumers - as part of a move to tackle antisocial behaviour.
The fact that it is a simple way to make whipped cream opens the door to its sale to the public. Chefs managed without it before, so why not now?
Also can we please stop calling it 'Laughing Gas' as this makes it sound lightweight and friendly when in fact it is a dangerous drug.
Later.... Reports that Sunak has said that the changes proposed to migrant's status will solve the migrant problem once and for all. Really!?

[plaques]

These illegal immigrants are getting everywhere. Small boats have been seen on Lake Burwain, Foulridge and a red alert has been place on the Skipton boat marina.

The new laws will have retrospective action.

there is no prohibition on retrospective legislation where the intention to operate retrospectively is expressly or impliedly clear from the wording of the statute.

With a need to solve the crisis which started when the UK left the common market and dropped the Dublin agreement ie: a self inflicted problem that nobody in government wants to talk about, the small boat crossings have gone from 300 in 2018 to 45,000 last year. The bill will make small boat crossings 'illegal'. Those deemed as illegals will be move to a life sentence to a safe country (Rwanda) at an estimated cost of £6,000 per head. = £270 Million. What a far cry from "Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, Our inscription will be 'GET LOST' YOU'RE NOT WELCOME HERE.
The general opinion is that the law will be unworkable and will bounce about at great cost to the tax payer until it finally arrives in the next Conservative Manifesto promising.. this is what we propose to do. How are you (Labour) going to solve it? Please tell us because we have really no idea.

[Stanley]

That expresses my feelings as well Ken. Remember the 'Kinder Transports' and the good they did? Now contrast that with say a family of a translator who worked for us in Afghanistan and was promised a safe haven but due to incompetence it never happened. Suppose they used their initiative and managed to get to our shores under their own steam. What happens under this Bill? They are imprisoned in a detention centre and have no recourse to the law for 28 days and then the government pays to have them shipped out to Rwanda. Makes you proud to be British..... NOT!
Leaving aside asylum seekers from countries where they are in danger, there are also the people fleeing from famine and dire poverty who see us as a way out, certainly far better then where they come from. These so called 'economic migrants' are seen as totally unacceptable but the harsh truth is, and we have been forecasting this for a long time now, migration to escape starvation is going to increase as climate change progresses. The view of our government is that we import food from abroad and kick the economic migrants out to Rwanda or some other refuse bin deemed to be 'safe'.
What's the answer? The only one I can see is that we have to stop allowing excessive consumption here and share the available resources with the rest of the world. At the moment, we all ignore the fact that kids are starving every time we eat a meal. I am as guilty as anyone else and it troubles me. If we don't start to change this situation we have to accept that there will be a growing number of deaths from disease and malnutrition world-wide. It's happening now but it will increase.
See THIS BBC analysis of the motivation for this Bill.
"It was delivered by Suella Braverman, but this was unmistakeably Rishi Sunak's own policy. The prime minister has made "passing new laws to stop the small boats" one of his five priorities. He was conspicuously seated behind his home secretary, visible in the TV coverage, nodding, smiling and voicing his assent at key points as she outlined the new legislation. Delivering the new law is part of his plan to try to turn around the Conservatives' flagging poll ratings before the next election. Ms Braverman spoke of her approach being "supported by the British people" and she made a point of warning of 100 million people "who could qualify for protection under our current laws... they are coming here" aiming to tap into fears about growing numbers of arrivals. So the legislation may be, on the face of it, about stopping boats, it's also squarely aimed at galvanising political support at home. The debate was a divisive one, short on any details about the how this new policy is actually going to work.
In other words, like Brexit itself, this political move is motivated by internal problems in the Tory Party, not by the needs of the country. This is a complete failure of governance and somehow we have to find a way of breaking the strangle hold of these rogue politicians, for that is what they are.
Later.....
The United Nations’ refugee agency has urged MPs and peers to block Rishi Sunak’s “profoundly” concerning plan to tackle small boat crossings. They say it will be illegal.

[PanBiker]

Apparently the BBC are going "to have words" with Garry Lineker after he tweeted that the governments proposal to deport all folk arriving by boat regardless of circumstance no different to how the Nazi regime treated the Jews in the 30's and 40's. Hit the nail on the head I reckon.

[PanBiker]

Still on politics, I have just delivered Sally up to Skipton on International Women's Day. What else is there to do on such a day? Travel to London with hundreds of other WASPI women who have been robbed of their pensions. There is a big meet up on College Green to shout at the government and anyone else who will listen. The government is in contempt of court as they have not actioned the Supreme Court's ruling when they lost their appeal against the judicial review which upheld the women's case.

Will be interesting to see if the BBC cover the protest. Sky News and ITV are already lined up to cover the event.

[plaques]

Just when I had got used to the idea that small boats took priority over the cost of living, energy prices, food prices etc etc, a new world shattering event has taken top place. What date did Sue Gray agree to a job with Keir Starmer. This will be the main topic of discussion in the food bank queues for the next few months.
If she had been a Government Minister the rules are clear. The Ministerial Code states that once they leave office, ministers are not allowed to lobby government for two years.

As a civil servant leaving employment.

In general you may not accept gifts, advantages or hospitality, whether in the form of money, goods, services, free passage, subsidised travel or other benefits from anyone or any organisation with whom you are in contact by virtue of your official position or with whom you have had, or are likely to have, dealings in ...

As far as I can see Sue Gray didn't have any direct dealings with Keir Starmer although many in the Tory party are trying to spin it that somehow she organised the booze ups at No10 without Boris's knowledge.

I'll leave it there otherwise I'll lose my place in the food queue.

[Tripps]

You do have to run to keep ,up these recent days.
We've already seem to have forgotten about Rishi's triumph in negotiating the 'Windsor Framework', which I think was only last week. The DUP have formed a committee to study its full legal implications, and will report back by the end of March. There's a lot of long grass in Ulster.

Why do I always think of Colin Crompton when I see the word 'committee'.

Crompton, as chairman of the club, would sit at a small table in the corner watching proceedings with apparent lack of interest. He had a large manual fire bell which he would wind and sound purportedly to attract the audience's attention after an act, with various notices from "the Committee" (that is, the officials of the social club of which he was chairman), usually misdemeanours by the club's members or the committee itself:

On behalf of the Committee, I should like to tell you we made a mistake in offering the raffle prize of a diving suit. It is in fact a divan suite.

[Big Kev]

The Wheeltappers and Shunters Social Club

[Stanley]

And didn't he always use the fire bell to announce that the pies had arrived?
Ian, I had exactly the same thought about the similarities with the immigration policies of Germany in the 1930s. I also can't believe that Sunak and Braverman can truly believe that what they propose doesn't break all norms of civilized behaviour. Putting children on flights to Rwanda? I watched them both in the House and I was appalled by the fact that they actually seem to believe the crap they were spewing out on to the floor of the House.
In case you haven't noticed it he is doing this in our name. "Stopping the arrival of small boats is a "priority" for the British people, Rishi Sunak has said as he defended the government's new asylum plan."
Will someone please tell him it isn't even approved by all his back-benchers, let alone the voters.
See THIS BBC report to get the full awful picture of what Sunak and Braverman are pushing through Parliament. Then think back 80 years to what our attitude was to immigrants then. What changed was world economics but also the fact that then, we didn't reject European nations but worked and fought with them to defeat a common enemy.

[plaques]

Why does Suella Braverman's 'Illegal Immigration Bill' speech Remind me of Bobby Vee's Rubber Balls (boats) keep bouncing back to me. This has all the hallmarks of one big propaganda slogan... Stop the boats', similar in formulation to the NI protocol adjustments. Create a problem, offer up the most objectionable and possibly illegal solution then after two years drop it for what was common sense in the first place then claim a success.
So far we have learnt that the British people and the British Tax payer are facing a 190,000 backlog, whose fault is that? The government has taken measures which by her own admission are not working, "But, let’s be honest: it’s still not enough." The extremely clever Lawyers employed by the government will see that the bill complies with International Laws. I hope its a better team than that who said the Rwanda deal was OK. But just in case it all goes belly up she introduces a loop hole through which she can escape through.

Our approach is robust and novel, which is why we can’t make a definitive statement of compatibility under section 19(1)(a) of the Human Rights Act. Of course the UK will always seek to uphold international law and I am confident that this bill is compatible with international law.

The priority for the UK is not the cost of living, the NHS, price of food etc etc. but rubber boats.
Repeat after me. Stop the Boats, Stop the Boats, Stop the Boats. There! you feel better already.