Corbyn and May v Paxman

The pundits and spin-doctors seem to have decided on a "no-score draw" for the Corbyn and May interviews with Jeremy Paxman and a studio audience.  Neither party leader suffered a gaffe, and neither produced a triumph.

Although a dedicated Liberal Democrat I cannot claim to be an impartial observer as  my sympathies are much more with the principled Jeremy Corbyn than the vacillating and opportunistic Theresa May. In my opinion Jeremy Paxman’s Rottweiler approach, his sneers and constant interruptions when interviewing Mr Corbyn were  a  stark contrast the almost jocular interrogation of Mrs May. 

Yes, he probed Mrs May repeatedly on her change of heart from Remain to harsh Brexit, but allowed her, again and again, to get away with the facile response that she was loyally responding to “the will of the British people.”   

This is obvious nonsense. It cannot be said too often, but mainstream media hardly say it at all, that of the people entitled to vote, 27% didn’t bother, 37% voted to Leave, 34% to Remain, and 16 and 17-year-olds, thought to be overwhelmingly for Remain, were not allowed to vote. Taking account of those not on the register, only about 25% of the adult population voted Leave.

 The obvious questions would have been:

1.  why she, as a member of the responsible government, allowed into law such a shoddy referendum bill, with no super-majority such as is normally required for even a modest constitutional change in a golf club. 
2.   and why she is determined to pursue a policy which in the view of the overwhelming majority of “experts,” whom we deride at our peril, will make us economically poorer, politically culturally and scientifically less significant, and socially less secure.   

Maybe Paxman failed  to pose these killer questions because, as he confessed on his retirement from Newsnight, he is himself  a Tory

Brexit: handy doorstep quide for canvassers

Sadly the "pro-staying-in-the- EU from the 48%"  which was expected  to prduce a Liberal Democrat surge does not yet seem to have taken off.  There's still time.

Here's a simple guide  to enable canvassers to respond if the Brexit topic is raised, or to introduce it if it isn't.

Be it hard, soft or middling, if Btitain leaves the EU we shall be:

1. Economically poorer.
2. Politically less significant.
3. Scientifically and culturally more isolated.
4. Socially less secure.
5. and, if we trade with anybody at all, still subject to international jurisdiction, including the European Court of Justice (ECJ)

That's it.

QED.
or, more poetically:

Of that there is no manner of doubt,no possible, probably shadow of doubt,
No possible doubt whatever.  (W S Gilbert, The Mikado)

Supporting material.

I.  Economically poorer.  Even though we haven't yet left the EU we already are.  The 14% fall in the value of the £ means that we have to export more of our "stuff" in order to buy the same amount of "stuff" from other countries. This is already showing through in dearer foreign holiday, less foreign currency for your spending money £s, and higher food prices.  It will get worse as our trading relations with the EU and other counties become less advantageous.
2.  Politically less significant. In my childhood and youth (1937 onwards) we still regarded ourselves as a "Great Power,"  with Churchill sitting at the same table as Stalin and Roosevelt and planning the shape of the post-war World.  This was probably a delusion even then, and was blown out of the water with Suez in 1956. But we remained, as a government study put it, "a leading power of the second rank "  Our membership of the EU helps is to stay in the "big league" in relation to the US Russia, the growing significance of China and India, and South American counties.  On our own, despite the bluster of Boris Johnson, we fall to the third or fourth rank.
3.  Scientifically and culturally more isolated. Along with the BBC, our universities are still among the World's leaders.  This is recognised by the EU, and our universities receive in research grants about double our contribution.  Yet many researchers are already finding that access to research funds,  less welcoming.  And scientific research in particular is very dependent on international collaboration, and the free movement of personnel between universities.  At the moment we really do play a leading role, but if we leave the EU we shall gradually move to the periphery.
4.  Socially less secure.  Whilst it is true that most of the so-called Red Tape which the Brexiteers claim inhibits British enterprise, actually comes from the British Government, that from Europe is particularly concerned with protection of the environment (eg clean beaches), health and safety at work, employment rights and, yes, human rights.  Protection in these areas is unlikely to be as strong if a Tory government is left to its own devices.
5. International jurisdiction. Almost all international treaties, and particularly those regarding trade, have some "shared" mechanism between the partners for deciding on whether the provisions of the treaty are being observed.  For trade with EU this is the ECJ, on which we are represented and for which  we shared in making the rules.  If we leave the EU but still want to trade with it (and at present it takes about half our exports) we shall still have to obey the rules (even though we no longer have a say in changing  them and making new ones) and be subject to its decisions, (even though we are no long represented on it.)  New trade deals, with for example the US, will likely be subject to the corporate courts  made infamous in the TTIP proposals.  These courts meet in secret and tend to act in the interest of the multi-national conglomerates rather than the consumers.

Social care: the dementia tax

The conclusion of my previous post, written a  week ago, that


. . . . Mrs May, far from being strong, consistent and a safe pair of hands,  is  a vacillating opportunist, quick to change her statements  to the advantage of her  party and herself. . . ., and skilful in the "dissembling and cloaking" against which she was warned in her Prayer Book upbringing


is amply borne out by her volte- face  on payment for social care.  

 (For those unaware of the details,  the Conservative Manifesto  promised that people would have to pay in full, without limit, for any necessary social care, mainly in old age, until their assets were reduced to £100 000.  This meant that property owners would, if necessary, have to to sell their houses, thus preventing their children or legatees inheriting what could be considerable sums.  This produced outrage, mainly from the wealthy, and Mrs May decided that there would after all be a cap on the total to be paid for social care - and blustered  this was not a change in policy,  just a detail.  A master-class in dissembling and cloaking.)

When the policy was published it was quickly dubbed the "Dementia Tax."  Serve the Tories jolly-well right - when Labour introduced a similar (but better - more on that later) proposal just before the 2010 election,, the Tories were quick to label it the "Death Tax." Just another example of how childish our politics have become.

Happy this U-turn  has  put paid to the concept of Mrs May as a "strong and stable" pair of hand. "Weak and wobbly" has taken over and bears constant repetition.

Actually "Dementia Tax" is not a particularly accurate description  as there are many reasons other than dementia for needing care in old age.  For the moment my own potential problems appear to  relate more to the bladder than the brain. And it's not just old age.   As this article  in today's Guardian points out, almost half of council's social care spending goes on  adults below the age of 65.

I can't say that I'm particularly comfortable with the idea of the state shelling out squillions so that the already privileged offspring  of owners of mini-mansions can inherit yet further advantages. It seems to me that there are two problems to be solved.  

The first is paying for the care.  If it is to be "free at the point of use"  from the beginning  or after a limited contribution from those able to pay, then this will require an increase in National Insurance Contributions  (NICs) or general taxation.  If health and social care services are to be merged, which seems a popular and sensible proposal, then increased NICs seem the logical choice.  If the politicians are too frightened to attempt this, then Andy Burnham's proposal  (the above-mentioned "Death Tax") of a levy on of some 15% on all estates, first put forward in a White Paper of 2010 seems to me to be perfectly acceptable.  The important thing is to fund the service properly and ensure decent wages and conditions for those providing it. If the service were returned to public or "not for profit" hands then priority could  be given to the quality of care rather than than profit-maximisation

The second problem is that of inheritance. The present threshold for liability to inheritance tax (formerly Death Duties) is £325 000, but rich people with assets well above this can afford clever accountants to find ways of avoiding paying. Given that inherited wealth is a major source of inequality I should like to see a revival of the good old Liberal proposal that the  tax should not be on the estate but the recipients, and should be tax free provided the estate is bequeathed to different people in  small dollops - say of £50 000 at today's values.

Just to show how even handed this blog is, I'll but on record that I welcome the Tory proposal to discontinue the Winter Fuel Allowance for comfortably-off pensioners (which I'd define as anyone still paying income tax, which incudes me) and would take much the same view of the free TV licence for the over75s (which also incudes me)

Theresa the Misleader

I have received a large four-sided leaflet through the post.  It says   "THERESA MAY FOR BRITAIN" on the front page in very big letters, and devotes a second page to what purports to be a personal massage which concludes by urging me to "get things right by backing me, and voting conservative for my  candidate in your local area" (my emphasis.). A third page highlights  six debatable pieces of "progress" since 2010 (one is "WELFARE CAPPED to reward work") with the exhortation to "VOTE THERESA MAY ON 8TH JUNE."  The final page warns that the election may not be a shoe-in for the Tories (on that I hope she's right) so I should make sure I vote Tory to avoid having Jeremy Corbyn as Prime Minister.

The word conservative is mentioned only twice: once in modest print with a union flag at the side of it, and once in the very tiniest of print in the legally obligatory  "printed and published by " declaration.

This is by far the most blatant attempt in my lifetime  to turn our British parliamentary election into a presidential system: May v Corbyn.

Mrs May is not the Conservative Candidate in my constituency, but presumably by not mentioning the actual Tory candidate's name  the party can charge the leaflet up to national expenses, a trick  they used even more blatantly in the last election and sadly got away with.

The character of Jeremy Corbyn has been tested to destruction by the media, but Mrs May is routinely presented by the sycophantic press as some modern-day Boudicca well equipped to stand up for Britain against the wicked continentals.  This caricature does not bear scrutiny.

• Not once, but repeatedly, after her ascension to the premiership, she assured us, openly, unequivocally, without prevarication or qualification, that there would be no snap election:  the parliament would run its course.  It would perhaps be pushing beyond the boundaries of politeness to call this well brought up middle-aged lady a liar, but this was beyond doubt misleading.  Why should we ever again believe a word she says?
• There are increasing signs that coming to the decision after  clearing of her mind whilst walking in Snowdonia is a load of hooey, and that Conservative Central Office has been preparing for a snap election for some time.  All their plans seem to have fallen neatly into place whilst the Labour Party has been caught on the hop.  If this is the case Mrs May has been not just misleading but deliberately misleading.
• Before the EU Referendum Mrs May was an avowed Remainer.  Here's just one snippet from one of her major speeches: "Remaining inside the European Union does make us more secure, it does make us more prosperous and it does make us more influential beyond our shores." You can read the entire speech here.  So why is she now burbling the fantasies of her arch Brexiteers and insisting on leading us  to the harshest of Brexits?  Does she actually believe anything she says? 

This twisting and turning is not confined to the EU debate.  Whilst Home Secretary she gave the strong impression that she was sympathetic to an inquiry about alleged police malpractice  in the Orgreave confrontation with the striking  miners.  After similar malpractices were confirmed in the Hillsborough inquest she told the Police Federation that they must understand: "the need to face up to the past , and right the wrongs that continue to jeopardise the work of police officers today.. . . We must never  underestimate how the poison  of decades-old misdeeds seeps down through the years and is just as toxic today  as it was then.   That's why difficult truths, however unpalatable they may be , must be confronted head on." 

Now that she is Prime Minister the Home Secretary has been permitted to decide that that there shall be no enquiry into Orgreave becasue:"Ultimately, there were no deaths."

The evidence shows that Mrs May, far from being strong, consistent and a safe pair of hands,  is  a vacillating opportunist, quick to change her statements  to the advantage of her  party and herself, weakly submissive to the Brexit bullies in her party, and skilful in the "dissembling and cloaking" against which she was warned in her Prayer Book upbringing.

Hurrah for the Labour Manifesto

The Labour Party manifesto for the election has not actually been published but, but predictable scorn has already been poured on the leaked versions by predictable sections of the media (ie most of it).  But to the less partial eye there's a lot to like.  If the leaks are correct a Labour government will:

1. Resume council-house building and make private sector house building an infrastructure priority
2. Take the railway companies back into public ownership as their franchises expire;
3. Ensure there is at least one publicly owned energy provider in each region;
4. Guarantee the rights of EU nationals in the UK;
5. Make no false promises about immigration;
6. Establish a national and regional investment banks;
7. Scrap the bedroom tax and punitive sanctions regime;
8. Discourage short-termism and rocketing executive pay;
9. Scrap university tuition fees;
10. Adequately fund eduction, health and social care services.

This list is a breath of fresh air, and highly relevant to a country which has suffered too long from mistaken policies.  It is a list Liberals Democrats can work with.

Of course, we should like to see a less supine acceptance of Brexit, and in particular take with a pinch of salt the promise to "make retaining the benefits of the single market and the customs union negotiating priorities." If that's the case why did they whip their peers to vote against such a proposal in the House of Lords on 28th February?

Personally I'd like to see a full throated promise to halt Brexit altogether, and to ditch Trident rather than retain it but be equivocal about using it.  However I doubt if even the Liberal Democrat manifesto will have the guts to propose either of these.

But what we have to be clear about is that this is a perfectly sensible list of aims.   It is a far cry from the much quoted "longest suicide note in history" of the 1983 manifesto.  That one promised to take us out of the EU (oops, the Tories are now doing that anyway), nationalise the banks (oops 2, the Tories have done that as well with two of them), cancel the Trident programme (see above) and abolish the House of Lords (ah well, that's been tried and must go on the back burner for a while)

If the present manifesto is to be criticised I regret that it gives the impression that everything on the list will be done at once.  True that the Attlee  governments of 1945-51 took and largely achieved such an approach, but times, though economically much more strained, were different then.  People were less cynical and much more confident of what the state can achieve.  I'd prefer to see a much more " softly softly " approach and more use of "we shall try to" rather than " we will."  That last point is even more relevant for the Liberal Democrat manifesto.

The alternative from the Conservatives of:

1. Hard Brexit;
2. Continued austerity ;
3. Increasing inequality;
4. Further privatisations;
5. Bullying of the poor and disadvantaged;
6. Reductions in the size of the state;
7. Grammar schools;
8. Toadying to the US;
9. Endangered human,civil and employment rights;
10. Unachievable immigration targets, along with an inhuman and  even illegal attitude to migrants and asylum seekers;

just doesn't bear thinking about.

And if the issue is competence, remember that it's the Tory policy  of deregulation which brought about the financial crisis, their  policy of "right to buy" which is  is at the heart of the housing crisis,  their  policy of austerity which has delayed the recovery and starved and continues to starve the health, education and social services.

Only skilful PR and a sycophantic press keep them in the frame at all.

Competition taken too far

Yesterday I went to the audiology department of our local NHS hospital for a minor adjustment to one of my hearing aids.  After she had dealt with it  the technician told me  I was due for another hearing test in July, but would not be sent for.  It was up to me to "initiate the procedure" and "request a new pathway."  (Who on earth dreams up this management speak?")

I would then be advised  that I could go to the private sector for this.  It is apparently mandatory that his option be pointed out to me.

Labour, Liberal Democrat and Green  initiatives are often subject to routine ridicule, but we are expected to take this  nonsense in our stride

Clearly this requirement has been imposed on the NHS by some fanatical neoliberal obsessed with the virtues of market choice.

But it is ridiculous.  Like demanding that, before  selling you a book, Foyles must tell you that you could buy the same volume at Waterstones.  Or that before pulling you a pint of Tetley's the barman should remind you that you could get a pint of Sam Smith's at the pub up the road.

And I wonder if the playing field is levelled by requiring the private sector hearing aid specialists  to tell their customers that equivalent support is available from the NHS free at the point of use?

Those why deny that further aspects of the NHS are up for privatisation if the Tories remain in government should take note of this straw in the wind.

The myth of Tory economic competence.

I don’t watch Andrew Marr’s Sunday morning politics programme because I’m at church at the time it is broadcast and never seem to be able to find “catch-up” time. However I understand that  two weeks ago  (30^th April) Theresa May persistently evaded Marr’s questions about nurses having to go to food banks because they couldn’t afford to buy food, but three times referred to the need for a “strong economy” and a government which “understands the importance of the strength of the economy.”

Well, who would argue against the desirability of a flourishing economy?  But the impression Mrs May gives, and clearly intends to give, is that Conservative governments provide this strength and Labour governments don’t and won’t.

Sadly I suspect that most of the electorate accept this, but it is the triumph of slick PR and a lick-spittle press rather than an objective appraisal of the truth.

Simon Wren-Lewis, a professor of Economics at Oxford University, has attempted to provide such an appraisal   on his blog Mainly Macro.  I strongly recommend  reading the entire article at

https://mainlymacro.blogspot.co.uk/2017/04/economic-competence-revisited.html.

But in case you haven’t time here is an honest summary.  (My own additional comments in Italics in brackets). The survey looks at the major economic decisions by British governments over the past forty years or so:  1979 - 1997 (Conservative Chancellors of the Exchequer), 1997 - 2010 (Labour), post 2010 (Conservative)

1.       Geoffrey Howe’s (Conservative) 1981 budget.  Imposed tax rises in the middle of a recession.  Was famously opposed by 364 economists in a letter to The Times. Generally accepted to have delayed recovery by some 18 months.  (This was the period in which Britain’s manufacturing  capacity was reduced by a fifth, and unemployment rose to over 3 million, with the consequent  loss of skills and export potential – not to mention devastated communities and much human misery)

2.       The Lawson (Conservative) Boom in the late 80’s: a dash for growth (that produced little growth but lots of inflation).

3.       Joining the  Exchange Rate Mechanism of the EU (The ERM) in  1990 (John Major, Conservative chancellor).  (Most of us welcomed this as a good move. The problem was that we joined at too high a rate – almost 3DM to the £.  John Major was not necessarily to blame: Mrs Thatcher is said to have decided on the figure unilaterally, and imposed it on her cabinet. ) 

4.       Ejection from the ERM. Black Wednesday,16 September 1992,   Norman Lamont Conservative chancellor. ( The above rate proved unsustainable  Britain was ignominiously  forced to leave the ERM)

5.       The failure throughout  this period to use the revenues from North Sea Oil to set up a Sovereign Wealth Fund (as did, for example, Norway)  (Instead the bonus was squandered on tax cuts and the funding of the high level of unemployment)

The ERM debacle led to the loss of the Conservative's credibility on economic matters and,  eventually, to Tony Blair’s Labour landslide in 1997.  

 Wren - Lewis highlights three major decisions made during the period of the Blair Brown governments and  argues that all three were correct.  They are:

1.       The independence of the Bank of England (from 2^nd May 1997).

2.       The decision, engineered by Gordon Brown, not to join the Euro in 2003. 

3.       The fiscal stimulus (Alistair Darling Chancellor of the Exchequer) after the crash of 2007 which stabilised the economy and restored some growth.

Wren-Lewis excuses the Labour government’s failure to regulate the banks and financial sector more tightly, and thus perhaps avoid the crash of 2007, on the grounds that they were following the consensus view at the time. The Conservatives were arguing for even lighter regulation.

(Wren-Lewis does not mention  the financing of public sector infrastructure projects, especially hospitals and schools, by Private Financial Initiatives, PFIs, which I believe is a major mistake for which we shall be paying over the odds for years if not generations)

On George Osborne’s tenure as Chancellor, Wren-Lewis praises the decision to set up the Office of Budget Responsibility, OBR, but condemns the decision to embark on austerity from 2010 as a “huge mistake.”  He also points out that the decisions to leave the Single Market and Customs Union are not mandated by the Referendum but are “down to the Conservative government alone.”.

All in all, it is hard to argue with Wren-Lewis's  conclusion that "[The track records ] show clearly that Labour tend to get things right  while the Conservatives  have created a number of major policy induced  disasters."