Political incorrectness, or really time for a new honesty in politics?

Are we back to the bad old days of the ‘Rotten Boroughs’ where prospective Parliamentary candidates vie with each other to bribe the voters? Of course, politics has always been thus, but this time seems to have gone mad. It seems that Jeremy Corbyn has sold his ‘Magic Money Tree’ to Boris Johnson, but only because his mining prospectors have discovered a ‘Magic Money Mine’. At least he has established the first principles of economics – mining is probably more efficient than picking!

But where are we, and where are the lessons of the past? For me, the past 50 years comprise two different formats:

Spend, spend, spend; 

and

Cut, cut, cut

They follow each other as sure as day follows night. Labour trusts to the good old economic principle that you can spend your way out of a recession because it grows GDP and therefore there is more scope to borrow at the same margin of borrowing to GDP. The Conservatives, meanwhile, take over when the Labour bonanza has ended – in the 1970s we had IMF rules because the county had gone bankrupt and Jim Callaghan had gone cap in had to the IMF for a bailout, and the again in 2010 Gordon Brown (the man who had eliminated boom and bust) left the economy in tatters, not only with a debt that was unmanageable, but negative growth and a hidden debt of trillions in PPF deals.

So we have had the nice cuddly party that gives the country other people’s money and the nasty party that spoils all the fun. Now, they both propose to be the cuddly party, so who will take over in 5 years time when one or the other has completely buggered up the economy? On the one hand Jezza and his puppeteers Momentum will have thrown money about like confetti and the unions will be back running the country as they did in the 1970s; on the other, Borris, big-ears and Joe Ninety (sorry, the ERG) will have created a country in which there will be no manufacturing base and the fishing industry will have been sold down the pan to find some sort of Canada minus trade deal with the EU (don’t expect Canada plus plus without some HUGE concessions – and the ERG won’t accept those).

So where is the economic logic? Both sides would have you believe that this bonanza will be paid for by growth in GDP. Now, that is where the real problem lies. If I had my way, I would line all macro-economists against a wall and shoot them. For decades, we have been pushed one way or the other but essentially using macro-economic theory that is clearly wrong. On the one hand, it is clear that growth only works if it is accompanied by efficiency gains i.e. we produce more from less usage of everything from labour to energy. At the moment we are looking at borrowing based on growth fuelled primarily by immigration, which carries with it huge costs that wipe out the growth benefit. On the other, we see a reduction in controls over business in several forms – employment law, environmental law and borrowing restrictions. Both are proven failures.

On the one had we have almost uncontrolled immigration that is the fundamental cause behind today’s polarisation. A sizeable part of Brexit was indigenous voters not wanting floods on new people invading their territory as illustrated by that poor 'bigot' – [to use Gordan Brown’s phrase] from Rotherham who had the temerity to ask what was to be done to stem the tide. On the other, we have the explosion of white van men who work seven days a week, 12 hours a day, without holidays or sick pay and who both they and their employers pay the bare minimum, if any, into the social security system. Both are utterly corrupt and politics is effectively bankrupt.

Nobody (even the Lib Dems who are almost there) has the honesty to say – ‘we have sold you a vision in which you pay nothing and get everything’ – it was smoke and mirrors – you ‘don’t get owt for nowt’ and the only way that you will have more NHS, free university education, free prescriptions, better roads, more railways etc is by higher taxation. Not just ‘squeezing the rich ‘till the pips squeak’ (Denis Healey) - eventually the pips do squeak and the country goes down the pan - both the last Labour administrations proved that.

It is time for a complete change in the economic model – not one based on growth fuelling borrowing but one based on sustainability. Everybody, electorate, shareholders, institutions, Government thinks growth is unlimited, but the reality is that the growth of the last 40 years lies in the waistbands of the populus, the huge array of rubbish dumps, the volume of plastic in the sea and the CO2 in the atmosphere. Something will have to give, and at the moment the most likely result is a headlong rush to oblivion as the planet passes (has already passed) the climate change tipping point.

A letter to Boris Johnson

Dear Mr Johnson

I wonder how many others shared my depression when seeing the behaviour of Parliament last night? It was most unedifying on all sides and has sunk into a nasty slanging match that has exposed some of the true colours of the leaders and their supporters. I am afraid that far from healing divisions, you have deepened them, especially by using intemperate descriptions such as 'traitors'. Clearly, the 'will of the people is to create a society in which the once 52% rule the once 48% with a rod of iron - rooting out 'collaborators' and 'traitors'. I wonder where we have seen similar approaches? Putin's Russia? Vichy France? Syria? or perhaps Hitler's Germany?
 
The behaviour in Parliament yesterday showcased the worst of our Parliamentary democracy. It is nothing more than a public school slanging match where each tries to outdo the other in words of disdain. I know that Brexiteers will argue that there have been equally intemperate language from the opposition, such as accusations of racism and I don't doubt there is a case to be answered.

But, let us look at the different factions: those who favour Brexit are the 'Brexiteers' - a play on those wonderful and chivalrous 'Muskiteers' - hardly a derogatory term. Compare that the the term 'Remoaners' used by the Brexiteers. That started the problem because the Brexit debate rapidly descended into the use of derogatory language. I dare say there was an element of inflation of issues on both sides, but I certainly felt from day one that the Brexit camp was taking a bully-boy attitude by dismissing any argument as 'project fear'. So, if you are a reasonable, thoughtful individual with genuine concerns, some possible borne of specialist knowledge, you are simply wrong; but with no debate - you are simply wrong and should shut up! When you get perfectly reasonable concerns by respected medical professional howled down by the likes of Mr Rees-Mogg you know where the country is heading!

I remember a time in Natural England where the CEO openly described the technical specialists in Peterborough as 'a nest of vipers'. That spelt the end for the organisation in many ways; it has parallels with today's Britain. When you refuse to engage and listen to people with technical knowledge you are effectively opening yourself to danger on all fronts. It is like the platoon commander threatening his point men with the firing squad if they dare to warn of an ambush up ahead! The result in NE was that a lot of the technical specialists left or took early retirement as soon as possible. That denuded the organisation of its corporate memory and the respect that had taken 20 years to build.

In the case of the UK today, all I can see is increasing evidence that we are just like the nasty element of our football supporters - thugs with no respect or manners. Why on earth would Europe want to keep us in the club, and why on earth should they trust us again? Is that the image we want to present to the World? Once we were respected for our manners, but now we will be seen as we really are: boorish thugs that think we should still be masters of the World, but are actually a tiny little island that in the course of time will become a minor irrelevance!

So, please Mr Johnson, it is time to reflect on your effect on those of us who don't share your views or who would go along with Brexit if it involved an orderly process. I would prefer that we did not leave but now think we have no choice: we have so inflamed the relationship with Europe that it is in everybdy's best interests that we go. But, please reflect that being against no-deal Brexit is not being against Brexit, it is saying that we don't want to return to bombs and bullets in Northern Ireland and back in London. We don't want to see our aerospace industry, car industry and manufacturing base desert us. We do want to see an orderly and friendly departure in which we pay our debts, respect the institutions and customs arrangements of our neighbours and understand that once we have left the club we not only rid ourselves of those elements we don't like but we also lose those elements that we do like. If that is regarded as treachory then clearly it is time for the 48% to leave the country. If only we could!

In the light of this, I think one election pledge of the Brexiteers ought to be that they will negotiate safe passage for the traitors and collaborators plus the electorate that has any sympathy for their views. Those of us who don't have the option of an Irish or European passport are stuck in the same way as the Jews were in Nazi Germany.

A divorce with ongoing conjugal rights!

I am starting to question my intellect. I think I am missing the grey cells owned by the political elite. Why is it that I cannot see what is wrong with Teresa May’s deal apart from the obvious question of the Irish backstop (which I don’t think is an issue if we are genuinely committed to agreeing a sensible trading arrangement)?

As I am given to understand, triggering Article 50 started the race to create a divorce agreement with the EU, covering those obligations we have built-up in the course of 40 years of marriage. Also, the agreement should cover the many joint commitments we have – ranging from passport control to security and provisions for expats.

Unless I am mistaken, we also have financial commitments that we must meet (or we can renege on this and accept that we cannot be trusted by anybody ever again). The projected bill in 2016 ranged from zero (Brexiteer estimate) to over £60m (evidently a gross exaggeration). The UK and the EU have agreed upon £39m (or is it E39m?).

So, everybody has thrown a wobbler and echo’s what has emerged from the political establishment – it is a dreadful deal – but why? So far I have not actually heard any substance to these howls. I can understand why the Brexiteers dislike it - it gives a large amount of money to the EU when they had promised the electorate that there was no need to pay anything - the need to pay a divorce bill was 'project fear'. I fail to understand why Labour and the Lib-Dems find it so unpalatable other than opposing it is a good way to create internal strife in the Conservative Party.

Now we have Parliament voting on an indicative selection of options, most of which seem to me to be stage 2 (after the divorce agreement). I don’t think I can discern a single option other than ‘no deal’ that in any way represents the alternatives that the EU place before us. In the absence of a divorce deal the only option on the table is ‘no deal’ i.e. no agreement on travel, security, expats etc. Of course, that also means no money for the EU, which would be a real problem for us. If we fail to pay what we owe then why should the EU give us a ‘free trade deal’? The reality is that we will have to cough up if we want a free trade agreement, Norway Plus, Canada Plus Plus or whatever wishful thinking the politicians can come up with.

I fail to understand the political or economic sense of crashing out without a deal. I’ve heard prominent Brexiteers arguing that we should crash out and set UK tariffs at zero. What is the sense in that? Crash out and give away all our bargaining cards before going out into the world to seek ‘free trade deals’. If I was the rest of the world I would say – we don’t need a ‘free trade deal’ because we can export to the UK with no restrictions. 'That is great because we can restrict incoming UK goods with no penalty'.

It is the equivalent of unilateral disarmament followed by convening negotiations with armed countries to get them to disarm too. If I was in their position I would say to the UK ‘I’m reaaallly scared’! So, we then have to re-arm and ' hey presto' we have an arms race or a trade war. That is really bright!

Meanwhile, our manufacturing industry and agriculture will be cut off at the knees. All of this seems to me to be incoherent both in terms of economics and international relations. But then we have already lost it with BoJo and Farrage hurling insults in all sorts of directions whist others accuse people like me of treachery – an 'enemy of the people'.

The nearest analogy I can come up with is the weaker partner threatening to withhold agreement whilst expecting to negotiate ongoing conjugal rights! We are the laughing stock of the World and have shown ourselves eminently unsuitable for making any legal agreements with anybody!