POLITICS CORNER

[plaques]

increasing its nuclear weapon capability

Tom Lehrer is always good for this sort of thing try this.Who's Next.

[Tizer]

Talking of nuclear bombs and at this time of political hyperactivity I'm reminded of Bruff's comments about Pendle MP Andrew Stephenson supporting MP Treddinick's homeopathy promotion, the reason being...plutonium. I hadn't realised until reading a book about the elements last night that homeopaths sell a plutonium product. This is one of those "I just can't believe it" moments! They say it's safe because it contains so little plutonium. This element is one of the most poisonous substances known to humankind; how can if be so dilute as to be safe and yet have any beneficial activity in the human body. Yes, I know we've used `poisons' as health treatments for centuries and still do, but plutonium? No thank you. Here's an extract from the book on Google Books. If you google for homeopathy and plutonium you'll find others claiming to sell it.
LINK

[Stanley]

Love the fact that our Tory candidate supports the illegal sale of plutonium.... It must be illegal because how else would anyone get hold of it.
Fear is one of the most powerful social tools and the politicians use it all the time. I'll reserve my capacity for terror until I see a real threat.....

[Bruff]

Well you see Tizer, there is no plutonium in it. It doesn’t matter as the water has ‘remembered’ the plutonium as it’s been progressively diluted (as the water remembers all the other diluted active ingredients that form the homeopath’s ‘medicine’ cabinet). The enquiring reader might well ask how the water remembers the plutonium (and everything else) above say the silica in the glass and the bodily frighfulness that must, albeit severely diluted, also be in the water? That is, how do we know the plutonium is working as desired above the remnants of A N Other’s last stool? The homeopath has an answer to this (of course they do!), and that is that it’s all in the shaking of the water by the homeopath – a process they call succussion (clever word, sounds scientific that).

I’ll leave people to reflect on the idiocy of this.

To be fair, you could make the argument that Mr Stephenson’s belief in homeopathy makes him fit to sit in the legislature. After all, we do bang on about how MPs should be more like ‘us’. And given that quite a few folk are blithering idiots it’s only right they should have same to represent them in Parliament. I don’t have much truck with that though in a ‘first past the post ‘system, as it’s unfair to Pendle have the idiot. Under PR it wouldn’t matter, as you’d just slot them in to sit on green and yellow polka dot banquets with a whirly flower in their button-hole that squirts water…….

One should also note that the heir to the throne is a fervent supporter, and his gormlessness extends to many other areas. But frankly if you suscribe to the hereditary principle you should expect an ‘oddball’ to be popped out now and again.

Richard Broughton

[plaques]

After all, we do bang on about how MPs should be more like ‘us’. And given that quite a few folk are blithering idiots it’s only right they should have same to represent them in Parliament.

One possible answer is the placebo affect. If you believe in something strongly enough then it must be true. Perhaps the belief in God is one of the oldest of this kind of thinking. Having said that, many people get a great deal of support from their beliefs and barring a few extremists it is probable a force for good.

The extended 'Right to Buy' has now hit the fan. A very reasonable analysis in given hear -Right to Buy.. I would add that the jury is still out on the 'moral hazard' of the current scheme. The risk of lending money at times of historically low interest rates to people who are at the bottom end of the incomes pyramid could possibly end in misery for the borrowers should the interest rate climb back to normal. Plus the fact it will be the tax payer who picks up the tab.

[Tizer]

Richard - oh yes, I `forgot' about the `remembering' bit! It always makes me think of those school essays where we were told to write an essay on things like `A Day in the Life of a Water Molecule'. Homeopaths should be made to write an essay on `The Life of a Water Molecule'. It might begin on a comet, pass through rivers, seas and atmosphere in many cycles and finally reach the homeopaths. Just imagine what the molecule can remember at that point: evolution of life, photosynthesis, dinosaurs, whales, earthquakes, tsunamis, volcanic eruptions... One magic shake at the hand of the homeopath and it suddenly forgets all that and remembers one thing only: plutonium.

Plaques, the placebo effect can comfort people and aid positive thinking but it can also make them miss out on proven medical treatment. As used by fringe healers it also undermines evidence-based medicine among those who are less able to judge health claims and the like.

Now, better get back to politics!
That's right about encouraging people to over-extend their borrowing, there is a danger. I was born and raised in a council house and in the 1980s my parents were given the opportunity by Margaret Thatcher to buy it, but they didn't have enough cash and the bank manager wouldn't lend them the money. I'm glad the bank manager made that decision, because they would have ended up in debt, unable to pay it off.

[Bruff]

Precisely Tizer: a day in the life of a water molecule, a very good explanation there.

On the extension of the ‘right to buy’ via what appears to be a Government-sanctioned sequestration of a charity’s assets, it’s rare to see a policy receive such universal criticism but as various folk have pointed out, the Tories are not bothered anymore whether it is sensible policy rather it’s whether it cons enough folk electorally. I might also note that folk in Housing Association properties are very often those on the lowest incomes and so those who would struggle to get a mortgage anyway, even in the face of what seems a grossly irresponsible £100B bung to deliver the discount.

Other gems hidden away in the manifesto include the promise to deliver the 2015 Rugby World Cup, the 2017 World Athletics Championships and the 2019 Cricket World Cup. I might very well be wrong but I think those events’ taking place is not conditional on the election of a Tory Government in May. I’m pretty sure they are organised by the sport’s themselves. Seriously, you could not make this up. It’s laughable to the extent that they must surely have given up on any pretence to treating us as adults. As some wag pointed out they might as well promise to deliver 2016 next year, 2017 the year after and 18, 19 and 20 after that so that come 2020 they will have delivered a full five years!

In the face of this, one is almost tempted to see a belief in homeopathy and a rather harmless fancy.

Richard Broughton

[Stanley]

Thank you for some accurate, wonderful, intelligent and perceptive posts...
See THIS for the grenade the IMF have lobbed into the calculations supporting the manifesto give-aways which rely on forecasts of 'growth', I. E. almost all of them! As a nation, the majority fall for these snake-oil merchants every time. Can we report them to the Advertising Standards Authority?

[Tizer]

It's got to a ridiculous level now and no wonder the population say they want politicians to `tell the truth'. It was good to hear the former NHS chief on the radio this morning saying they need to stop claiming `we'll improve, this we'll improve that' and instead to focus on the fact the NHS is in deep trouble and needs bailing out. I wish we could force the parties to all agree that after the election whoever is in charge will raise income tax by 1p in the pound, 2p in the pound - in other words, however much is needed to prevent the NHS going belly up, regardless of their own NHS policies. If and when we can get the NHS safely secured we can then, and only then, remove that extra income tax. Each 1p on the pound would bring in about £4 billion.

[plaques]

for the grenade the IMF have lobbed into the calculations

for 'IMF' read 'Bank of America' a fervent supporter of Milton Friedman's monitory thinking. Austerity and a free market being the main tenets. I suspect they don't like the idea of less austerity that is now taking hold in Europe. Taxes to them are Ok as long as they don't interfere with profits. After all, big businesses pay most taxes don't they?

[Stanley]

Thanks for the correction P. I must have misheard. You are quite right about the Chicago School snake oil. Uncle Bob can remember his father exploding when he first heard Friedman expounding his theories, he saw through him straight way! My current heroes are Stiglitz, Piketty at al. Piketty forecasts that the historic rates of growth will not be repeated in this century. From memory he forecasts below 2% average until at least 2050. Bit like the mythical billions available from 'savings' and 'clawing tax back', they are about as feasible as the other lie 'reducing red tape and form filling'. But these are accepted currency by all politicians so we should automatically discount them.
Tiz is right and I think I'm right in saying that the Liberals under Paddy Pantsdown were the last party to propose this.
How about THIS report about Desmond adding to the £300,000 he has already donated to UKIP to the tune of £1million. What are the ethics in accepting funding from a man who will shortly be exiting from newspaper ownership (See P Eye this week) and whose main income comes from porn on the web......

[Tripps]

I was wondering what effect the fixed five year parliament period would have after May 7th. What happens if we don't get a workable arrangement, and we need a second election quickly?

It seems, after a quick look, that there are two get out clauses, but each involves there being a Government there to make the decision. The arithmetic of the outcome seems to be totally unpredictable, so maybe we will have Catch 22 - we need to get a government, in order for it to get rid of itself.

[Stanley]

Interesting point David but I think they might have foreseen that contingency. I heard a programme not long ago in which a retired Cabinet Secretary (Was it Armstrong?) was talking about the arrangements they had to hastily make in 2010 We often denigrate them, it's a national pastime. but there are some smart kiddies in the Civil Service and if allowed to get on without political interference they usually do a good job.
I'm always interested in the effects of the 'Law of Unintended Consequences'. There was an interesting Chatham House debate on R4 last night examining UK foreign policy. Speakers were not just Brits but Americans and Europeans and it was riveting. There were some telling home truths about 'the special relationship' and how the EU views us... Overall, the view was that the UK is getting more and more insular and in danger of becoming irrelevant. The unintended consequence I was particularly thinking about is the way Cameron has defended his leadership of his party by pandering to the anti EU elements and locking himself into the promise of an 'in-out' referendum. This is already damaging the view of us in the EU, indeed one EU insider said that the nickname for Cameron was 'The Alien' he is seen as coming from a different planet. There was a vox pop on World Service this morning on the same subject and although I regard such 'samples' as useless the shallow nature of the replies appalled me.
The management of delicate matters like our place in the EU is best accomplished by quiet rational contacts and discussion, not waving a big stick and threatening to take our bat home. We have to manage change whether we like it or not and in the end common sense dictates that we should be inside the EU taking part in the evolution not standing outside telling the members that they have it all wrong. Yes, there will be red lines and disagreement but in the end we shall have a relationship. One salient fact, leaving aside China and India, the EU is now the biggest trading block in the world and we can't ignore it.
One US speaker hit the nail on the head when he said that the joint incursion into Iraq and Afghanistan was the biggest mistake of the 20th century and the effect has been the reluctance of the US and the UK to 'interfere' in other country’s affairs even when it is obviously a mistake.
My own opinion is that, like too many other countries, we have allowed purely economic considerations to rule policies and abandoned principle. This has skewed our approach to foreign policy when higher considerations should be the foundations of policy.

[Tripps]

I've just had the Tory candidate - in person - ring my bell. Heidi Allen

I think that's the first time it has ever happened to me. I usually confront them in Tesco or Waitrose. She seemed impressed that I knew all about her, and we had a pleasant chat.

[chinatyke]

The management of delicate matters like our place in the EU is best accomplished by quiet rational contacts and discussion, not waving a big stick and threatening to take our bat home. We have to manage change whether we like it or not and in the end common sense dictates that we should be inside the EU taking part in the evolution not standing outside telling the members that they have it all wrong.

EU

To argue that by staying in the EU we can somehow 'influence' the rules is ludicrous. To be one of 28 nations with an equal vote is as good as having none at all. The advantages, however, of being an independent sovereign nation are overwhelmingly obvious, particularly as the rules that govern the EU's rules are made by the 'World Trade Organisation', at which, upon leaving the EU, we would have a voice equal to that of the EU as a whole.

It must be remembered that, whoever you trade with will have their own internal rules and laws. This is normal and makes no difference to the benefits we achieve from free trade.

We would benefit, however, from losing the external tariff barriers that the EU puts up in our name, when they are clearly detrimental; to China, for example.

So let us stop this nonsense that we will be worse off by leaving the EU. It is a 'No Brainer'.

No-one is seriously advocating leaving the European trading bloc, we have to belong to a bloc somewhere and the European one is logical. It is merely a question of whether we reduce our economic participation to EEA membership or EFTA membership, the latter being the cheaper, preferred, alternative. It is impossible to remain in the political union that is the E.U. we cannot manage our economy properly whilst we are restricted by Brussels representation and regulation; it is strangling growth, freedom and democracy in Europe and impoverishing many countries economically, in an unsuccessful attempt at socialist re-distribution of wealth to poorer nations. If the U.K. were Slovakia, we would see the situation differently, but we are merely being drained of our wealth and control over many key democratic, economic and in particular security factors.

PM Cameron has no interest in taking the UK out of the EU, as he has had the opportunity to hold a referendum during his present term of office. He keeps kicking the can down the road.

The politicians took the UK into the EU without the consent of the people. It was obviously a mistake and a clear violation of the democratic concept.

For a large segment of the UK to even be considering an out. It clearly demonstrates that there are serious doubts about EU membership.

Peking Pete

Peter Nigel Atkinson
4/19/2015

ps. £1,000,000,000 (that is one billion British Pounds): The cost of the new European Bank's head quarters.

[plaques]

in an unsuccessful attempt at socialist re-distribution of wealth to poorer nations.

I'm not sure that this is the case. To be a successful trading block you must have access to a reliable food supply all the year round. The USA can do this because it is a North to South country. Food crops are always in season all the year round. The old USSR on the other hand was West to East, the whole block being either summer or winter. Importing food was always going to be a problem. The EU has tried to emulate USA and become more North to South. Unfortunately, this has meant expanding southwards into less industrialized countries and having to bring them up to date. It is now evident that this move was too far too soon. The new entries are now paying the price through the IMF austerity programmes and the EU itself is wondering if it can survive the fallout. If "there are serious doubts about EU membership" its because its because the political and economic aims have never been fully explained. The overall logic may be sound but the implementation looks dodgy.

[Stanley]

The reason why there are such conflicting opinions in the UK about membership of the EU is exactly as P says, it has never been clear what it means. Not sure if explanation is the reason for this. The main reason is that the EU plunged into as many areas of integration as possible, notably the common currency but failed to get the political alignments sorted out. Even now nobody has admitted this fundamental flaw, it cannot work without a full federal structure. Churchill recognised this but hadn't fully worked out the consequences when he advocated a 'United States of Europe'. The plus side is that the threat of cataclysmic conflict has gone away. Some of us remember WW2.....
As for election politics, I have gone numb. The sooner we vote the better!

[Bruff]

Hmmmm,

Arguing that Brussels ‘regulation’ is stifling us but in the same paragraph suggesting we reduce our participation to the EEA or EFTA level strikes me as confused. Unfortunately, members of the EEA and EFTA have to comply with basically every single piece of EU regulation to access this market and they have absolutely no say, none at all, in the development of this legislation and its revision (all EU legislation is reviewed every 5 years). In addition, they all have to sign up in full to the free movement principles of Schengen, from which we currently have a significant opt-out. The very notion that the UK, having given the EU a massive ‘finger’, will get any special treatment in this respect is frankly fanciful and incredibly arrogant. To be fair to UKIP, they understand this and so would not join EFTA etc. seeking other alliances such as the Commonwealth presumably on the basis that, as many Commonwealth countries have the Queen’s head on their money, they’d genuflect before us as per times past. How quaint.

Slovakia likely does get a chunk of cash at the moment. But one might to want to ask the residents of Cornwall (one of the very poorest parts of the EU) and many fomer pit villages in England and Wales, parts of Scotland and other areas of the industrial North and Northern Ireland what they think about the EU’s Objective 1 funding given all have been in receipt of the largesse that is deemed a problem now it's going Slovakia's way. The flow is not one-way and never has been. Indeed, parts of the UK are one of the few parts of the EU outside the the former Eastern bloc countries that are so poor they still have access to priority funding. None of France, Germany, Holland, Scandanavia etc. do. One of the biggest beneficiaries of EU money, ever, has been Ireland and that has been hugely beneficial to us. None of Ireland now is in the highest priority area.

The argument that it is ludicrous to expect us to have a voice in a grouping of 28 is not borne out by experience and strikes me as both defeatist and a disservice to the very many capable men and women who do the hard negotiating on our behalf. The UK is extremely successful at getting Directives that meet their negotiating aims. I shall site just the one: The Framework Directive for Workplace Health and Safety, which has risk assessment at its heart as existing legislation here had/has, and which the UK negotiated hard for. The UK generally gets legislation it’s happy with, largely because we are not defeatist and work and negotiate hard.

Finally I would also note that if we do take ‘the UK’ out of the EU then as sure as day follows night this UK-exit would lead to Scottish independence (and who can predict the Welsh and Northern Irish response?). Almost every ‘no’ voter last time I have spoken to says this is the game-changer that would sway them to vote ‘yes’ in the referendum that would follow in months. Leaving the EU would I am sure, mean the end of the Union.

All in all, I think it’s a bit more complicated than a ‘no brainer’.

Personally, I don’t agree with referendums and prefer our Parliamentary democracy. Referendums are the tool of scoundrels as a ‘popular’ shield for their actions. You’ve only got to look at the ludicrously idiotic ‘question’ UKIP would like to see put to the country that they have usefully popped in their manifesto. This question would get a 13-year old a ‘fail’ in their first year of studying Social Science for Noddies and is as fine an example as you’ll ever see of why referendums are the despot’s tool, for which we must all be grateful. But…..I do increasingly think we need one on the EU simply because we will vote to stay in, easily. I’d pop my house on it. And then we can all just shut up.

It’s no secret I am a European federalist. I would much rather be a European Citizen than a British Subject.

Richard Broughton

[chinatyke]

Peter Endean, who is standing for Nigel Farage's party in council elections, re-tweeted an image with a caption that said: 'Labour's new floating voters. Coming to a country near you soon'. Quote from Mail-on-line 22/4/2015, said in reference to the 900+ people drowned in the Med.

How low can you get? Are we expected to respect and trust these scumbag politicians?

[Stanley]

China, I'm a bit confused. Are you quoting Peking Pete or is that post directly from you? It sounds too extreme for a reasonable bloke like you. Just one phrase irked me more than the general theme and that was that getting out of the EU is 'a no brainer', now that is ludicrous...
Richard, thanks again for a thoughtful and informative post. I might not be as committed a federalist as you are (we crumblies are too deeply infused with what could be described as insular qualities) but I agree completely with your general theme particularly the quality of the non politicians who actually do the negotiating. As for the 'floating voter' obscenity, that's just what it is and to repeat it gives it currency in our age of pollution of opinion by the LCD who tweet. No matter what the party or faction, one demented and ignorant comment doesn't set the standard for a group, even UKIP!
I am not as conversant with the nuts and bolts of EU legislation as Richard. I form my opinions from my experience and reading the history to try to identify the broad undercurrents. The thing that has always struck me is that the principalities and local power centres of Europe were not insulated form their dissident neighbours by the 'English' Channel and so had no choice, they couldn't be insular, they had to combat and if possible expand. It's an enormous subject but I'll give you one example. Poland is unique in that it was actually extinguished as an entity each time it started to develop into what we would recognise nowadays as a nation. Read Davies, 'Gods Playground' for the only authoritative account, it's a riveting story. My contention is that flawed though the EU may be, that could not happen under present conditions on modern Europe. This is the same basic benefit I see as that based on my own experience of living through WW2. Poland is by no means the only example.
In general, this same predilection towards subjugation, exploitation and control as opposed to mutual cooperation exactly describes the historic treatment of national entities like Scotland, Wales and Ireland by the dominant interests in England. It is no accident that with the exception of retaining a toe-hold in Northern Ireland the majority gained independence, they had the Irish Sea! The others have been treated, in affect, like colonies. In recent years we have seen 'devolution' which is in affect a move towards federalisation with more autonomy being given to the regions. Not the European Union but it has often been described as the union of 'British speaking peoples'.
This is why I am so incensed by the Tory negative campaigning on the 'dangers' of allowing the SNP to ally with Labour and gain control of their own destiny via the Westminster parliament. This is disgraceful. It treats the Scots as a malignant influence and is the worst kind of negative and insular thinking/campaigning. This is the same dishonest and self-serving negative thinking based on fear which characterises the right wing fight to reject the EU and any future referendum will be fought on fear and not enlightened assessment. This is why I agree with Richard in his distrust of any moves to by-pass rational debate by appealing to 'the common sense of the people'. I'm afraid that any no votes will be driven by ignorance and fear, not the best basis for any decision.

[chinatyke]

It was a quote from Peking Pete who does tend to be a bit negative. He is an Englishman who actually lives in Thailand although he lived in China for over 10 years.
Just posted it to balance the pro-Europe comments. I still call myself English, not British or European. I see things being produced in Asia that were traditionally stamped 'Made in England', manufacturing being transferred to the East because of the cost of EU legislation. This represents lost jobs and lost wealth to the community.

[Stanley]

Good, I was getting worried! As for relocating abroad, the general trend now is for key parts of industries that moved to be brought back home. There has to be a very clear economic/skills advantage for those that do manufacture abroad.
See THIS for Grant Shapps' denial that he had anything to do with altering Wikipedia content to flatter himself and denigrate other politicians. We know he's a web-savvy shyster and perhaps this is why his denials do not impress me.
10:50. The tsunami of vapid promises and claims from Andrew Stephenson does not diminish. How much is he allowed to spend?

[Stanley]

See THIS for this morning's news that at long last, retribution has overtaken the mayor of Tower Hamlets, Luftur Raman. Privet Eye has been pursuing this story for about two years detailing skulduggery in the borough. Everything they alleged has been proved correct. Well done for good investigative jopurnalism. Apart from the heavy fine and costs it looks as though the Met is looking into criminal charges....
See THIS for a very useful report from the independent Institute for Financial Studies. It lays out quite clearly the scale of the budget cuts proposed by the contesting parties and illustrates the fact that the Tory plan is for massive cuts in spending on 'social services', far greater than any of the other parties. This will ensure, if they are re-elected, that the Tories will further deepen austerity, increase the gap between the rich and the poor and continue to favour the large capital holders at the expense of the rest of the country. The message is clear, If you are rich, vote Conservative. If you are feeling the pinch already vote for another choice. Personally I favour Labour's balance of cuts and borrowing at very low interest rates to finance a recovery. The bottom line is that in order to achieve their plans the Tories will have to impose at least as great a cut to essential services as has been made in the last five years. Tin hats on Lads!

[Bruff]

I guess the message from the Tories could be framed as if you are rich vote for us, but I would add that not every rich person is driven solely by self-interest. With a couple of notable exceptions, no one of my acquaintance could be described of as ‘rich’ but more or less all, including myself, are what one might term comfortably off(at the moment as who knows what is round the corner?). But we all would rather saw off the right or left arm we’d use to hold the pen than pop our ‘X’ next to the blue candidate.

If my reading of the IFS report is correct, it seems the Tories would be slashing spending by 30B above that planned for 16/17 and Labour by 1B above, with the result that there would be a 5% difference in the debt as a percentage of GDP – that is, 5% higher under Labour than the Tories (I think the difference is all the ‘bungs’ the Tories have promised which come at a cost).

There is of course no reason at all to reduce the debt and never has been (Norway’s sovereign wealth fund could clear its debt at a stroke, but it doesn’t do it; liquidity of markets or something….). And it’s worth noting that as a percentage of GDP the debt now is at about average for the last 100 years. And, get this, when there was apparently ‘no money left’, the debt to GDP was only two percentage points higher than the average throughout the whole of the last Tory administration. The deficit was huge, but then when bankers cock up it costs the country a lot more than it does employing a cancer nurse or a primary teacher or road sweeper…

Richard Broughton

[plaques]

Part of the so called logic of reducing the deficit is that if a similar crash happens again then we may not be able to survive it as well as we have done this time. This implies that there is nothing we can do to control or wish to control the banking excesses. The recent case of someone in their front room manipulating world markets demonstrates how fragile the system is. The big boys must be doing this every day. Under normal circumstances if you enter a casino or join Lloyd's of London you have to demonstrate that you can cover any potential losses. The Banks do not play to these rules, any extreme loses are picked up by the tax payer. Hence the need for austerity and belt tightening so that they can continue to gamble without any true penalties.