Author Archives: grumpy

Slimy remain MP’s

Rory Steward, a vociferous remainer Tory MP,  is about as ‘establishment’ as it’s possible to imagine. Eton, Balliol, tutor to Prince William, and a diplomat before becoming a politician. It seems grossly unfair of Grumpy to pick on him to make a general point about May supporters, but it was hard to resist the headgear in the photograph.

Grumpy has always been confused where the representational aspects of  an MP’s job specification is concerned. Who do they represent ?

The answer is, of course, whoever it is that suits them to define  in some particular circumstance. They have plenty of choices; “I represent my constituents” / “I have to vote with my conscience” / “It’s incumbent on me to follow the policy of my party” / “MP’s should vote in the National Interest”.  This is just one of the many aspects of MP’s that give them their slippery, slimy aura.

So it is with the key upcoming Brexit  vote on Mrs May’s total capitulation to the EU mandarins. Suddenly MP’s who have in the past declared their immutable attachment for the first three have suddenly had a conversion to consider the populace as a whole.

Regardless of the merits (or otherwise) of the May agreement,  the good Rory and other remainer MP’s are now urging their fellows that accepting the plan unconditionally  is in the ‘National Interest’. ‘No deal’ is  deemed worse than ANY deal. “It’s been agreed” / “It’s too late now to do anything else” seems to be the mantra. Everyone now realises this was a  stitch up by Olly Robbins and his cohorts, managed by May to offer a fait accompli to powerless and spineless parliamentarians.

Grumpy’s take, whatever his views on the agreement per se, is that his innate reaction to ‘take it or leave it deals’ is to leave it. Time has proven it’s always the better way.

May will no doubt discover soon whether 318 MP’s share her view on what is in the National Interest.

UN on poverty

A United Nations  ‘rapporteur’ spent 12 days investigating the impact of ‘austerity  in the UK. The  Huff Post reported that he said

“During my visit I have spoken with people who depend on foodbanks  and charities for  their next meal, who are sleeping on friends’ couches because they are homeless and don’t have a safe place for their children to sleep. Who have sold sex for money or shelter, [and] children who are growing up in poverty unsure of their future” 

Since he clearly couldn’t have found these people on a random interaction with the populace at large, it is likely that he was shepherded from one scenario to another by people with an ‘agenda’, presumably selected carefully as being the worst examples they could find. Worse, the targets to whom he spoke have naturally every incentive to stick one  to the government and exaggerate their situation when being asked about their plight. This is what statisticians call ‘selection bias’; if you do a survey in the Sahara desert  for evidence of global lack of water, it’s likely that you conclude it’s critical. The shepherds in this case included  the Poverty Alliance and the Child Poverty Action Group, who are presumably not neutral in their views on the effect of austerity.

The rapporteur in question was Philip Alston, holder of both academic and UN (doubtless well paid)  sinecures.

Grumpy has issues with the type of exaggerated language  used by Alston, because, in spite of his being an academic it is (a) imprecise  and (b) as reported, is designed to confuse. As the Resolution Foundation acknowledges, being in relative poverty does not mean being poor by some absolute definition. Alston uses the tired but common trick of conflating these two things to inflate his message.

However, the main issue is that Alston’s apparent title is  “UN Special Rapporteur on extreme poverty and human rights”. Now, measured in quantitative terms of the percentage of a population living with an income of less than USD 5.50 per day on a purchasing power parity basis, there are 147 countries worse than the UK. Grumpy doesn’t know how many of these Alston has covered, but (even in Europe) if he has not reported on Macedonia (25% below this level) but has selected the UK (0.7% below this level) one starts to sense the reek of a political agenda with a strongly socialist bias. Presumably, he doesn’t get the same self seeking publicity from trashing the Macedonian government as he does from the UK, which just may have something to do with his choice of country if he hadn’t completed the other 147.

Compared with the billions of people round thew world living in utter abject poverty and with desperately short life expectancy, a very small percentage in the UK reach the limit implied by Alston’s title, and he could have better served his title by addressing himself more to their  plight.

Boris and May in bed

Boris Johnson (someone Grumpy cannot accept as a serious politician) got considerable flak from ever quarter with his red Boris bus, which suggested that leaving the EU would bring a 350m bonus for the NHS.

A key argument for ‘remainers’ and the second referendum loonies was that this was a deliberate and unsupported lie which swayed public opinion in the June 2016 vote. Journalists like John Lichfield, a Guardian hack and a French resident gone native, pilloried Boz with headlines like “There are lies, damned lies and Boris Johnson’s weasel sums” and  “The foreign secretary must find it necessary to distort statistics because the truth does not serve his case” ; and this sets the basic tone for the wrath of the EU-philes.

It was even suggested that he might face a private prosecution by Marcus Ball, who crowdfunded the finance to bring it.

On 25th November, May released a desperate begging letter to the populace  which contained the following

“Second, control of our money. Not a reduction in our membership fee, not a bigger budget rebate – but an end to vast annual payments being sent to the EU. That is what this deal delivers. Instead,we will be able to spend taxpayers’ money on our priorities, like the £394 million per week of extra investment we are putting into our NHS”

So May has doubled down on the Boris assertion, which was so comprehensively rubbished by his remainer Cabinet colleagues, most political pundits, and  the Europhile press.

Now May has aligned her thoughts with those of  Boris and got into bed with him, can we now assume the naysayers will now turn their wrath to her, and join those seeking to reject her ‘deal’ (the misuse of that word grates) – will they volte face and now trumpet the benefits foreseen by Boris ?

Gove states the obvious

On 2/11/18, Micheal Gove appeared on the Andrew Marr show, and offered a deep and incisive analysis for the potential future outcomes of the upcoming Brexit debate.

“If we don’t vote for this deal the alternates are no deal or no Brexit” he opined , before adding a few  moments later, “if we don’t vote for this deal there may be a majority in the House of Commons for a second referendum”.

So if Grumpy can interpret this, if May’s deal is voted out, then it might be ‘no deal’ … or again, it might be ‘no Brexit’ … or even it may be a ‘second referendum’. He left out an EEA type scenario, but presumably chose not to mention this outcome in case it was judged as being better than May’s sell out. Maybe not so deep or incisive as simply obvious, having simply enumerated all the alternatives.

Under Cameron, Gove wrote an essay about his reasons to support the Leave Campaign (yes, indeed). His objections were not about any aspect of a ‘deal’ (since there wasn’t one at that time), but on his deep seated, and carefully considered objections to to the  European Union as an institution.

Here is a very small sample of his thoughts; / the laws we must all obey and the taxes we must all pay should be decided by people we choose and who we can throw out if we want change / the European Union prevents us being able to change huge swathes of law and stops us being able to choose who makes critical decisions which affect all our lives / the European Union, despite the undoubted idealism of its founders and the good intentions of so many leaders, has proved a failure on so many fronts. The euro has created economic misery for Europe’s poorest people. European Union regulation has entrenched mass unemployment. / The EU is an institution rooted in the past and is proving incapable of reforming to meet the big technological, demographic and economic challenges of our time / As a minister I’ve seen hundreds of new EU rules cross my desk, none of which were requested by the UK Parliament, none of which I or any other British politician could alter in any way and none of which made us freer, richer or fairer./

Grumpy has news for Mr Gove. The May deal does not release us from any of these fundamental, structural, flaws in the EU, but places us in a worse position.  Simply look at the last of his beliefs in the foregoing; taking rules without any representation whatsoever is now baked into the future relationship.

Gove’s feeble and intellectually meaningless non-assessment shows him up as an apologist for May, and a desperately insincere turncoat on his own deeply held views on the EU.   However, his thinking may be more Machiavellian than flawed, in that he is gambling that, with the Brexiteers probably out of office in most future scenarios, and May heading for the exit, he at least leaves possibility of achieving some role  gong forward.

Rue the day.

Threats don’t work

Mrs May has now resorted to threats to ministers,  fellow MP’s, business and the populace in general to coerce them into accepting her shabby capitulation to Brussels.

In summary, it distils down to “my way or no way” or  “my way, or else…”. By the time these utterances are made, the politician in  question (and in such circumstances it is normally just one lonely person exercising their rapidly diminishing formal powers) is desperate, inward-looking, and unable employ the objectivity the situation demands. And so it is with Theresa, and her colleagues must make this situation plain to her  by submitting their letters to Graham Brady.

On a wider note, Grumpy is programmed to react to a threats of such a nature from politicians by

  • dismissing any validity to their argument  entirely, since they were unable  to persuade by a rational, balanced reasoning without threats
  • never again to vote for a party which resorts to such bankrupt tactics.

It is hard to envisage that, come the next general election, voters will tick the conservative box, as it still will be a bitter and divided organisation at that time. Two people bear the blame; David Cameron for calling for the referendum in the first place, and Theresa May for failing to have the courage to spell out at the outset the obvious  implications of her contradictory red lines, and resorting to sleight of hand, obfuscation and double dealing  to hide this, with the result that we now have.

 

May has failed

Recently, Grumpy wrote a post which contained mostly quotes from Theresa May’s Lancaster House speech, clearly setting our her goals for Brexit. (See  Lancaster House tests )

The fact is, that no matter which way it is spun, whatever obfuscations are used, or however impassioned the speeches about ‘no other choice’ are, May has abjectly failed to deliver every goal she so clearly set out in that speech.

  • “take back control of our laws and bring an end to the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice in Britain” –  FAILED
  • “to strike the best trade deals around the world” (meaning not being in a customs union – her words) – FAILED
  • “protecting the common resources of our islands” (meaning being on control of our fishing waters – her words)  – FAILED
  • “free to establish our own tariff schedules at the World Trade Organisation” – FAILED
  • “not mean that we will seek some form of unlimited transitional status, in which we find ourselves stuck forever in some kind of permanent political purgatory” (meaning having a time limit in the backstop – her words) – FAILED
  • “want us to have reached an agreement about our future partnership by the time the two-year Article Fifty process has concluded”  – make a mark on your calendar WILL FAIL.

The “national interest” threat should not cause leave MP’s to capitulate –  this agreement should be rejected.

Fustian Hain

Peter Hain, a convicted criminal and incompetent manager of electoral donations, named Sir Philip Green as being the instigator of one or more Settlement Agreements under the ‘protection’ of parliamentary privilege. This doctrine was established in 1689, 328 years before #MeToo came on the scene.

The disclosure led to the usual culprits (Frank Field, Vince Cable and other ‘has beens’) raising the prospect of sanctions such as stripping his knighthood etc.

It’s still hard for Grumpy to assimilate just how far the whole #MeToo move to dismantle due process has travelled. Hain’s self-righteous and egotistical disclosure shames him, but the real issue is the shift towards the wish to destroy the lives and careers of people who have had no formal allegations, much less charges,  made against them,  and have not, unless and until found guilty in a court of law, committed any criminal offence

According to reports, some of the “serious” claims against Sir Philip include calling women ‘sweetheart’ or ‘love’ rather than using their names. This is simply unbelievable, and shows the southern and upper class nature of the ‘accusers’; they should go to Derbyshire where every shop assistant and bus conductor will call them, ‘duck’, ‘love’, ‘darling’ and so on.

So as a result of Criminal Hain’s action, Sir Philip will suffer public disapprobation and substantive cost when he has committed no offence other than to upset a few weak minded women incapable of managing their own lives, and trigger opportunistic attention seekers like Field to try and salvage their already dead careers.

If anyone had suggested to Grumpy 5 years ago that someone could go to jail for a wolf whistle, ogling a ‘hint of stocking’ of a secretary sunning herself on the grass, or calling someone ‘duck’, he would have considered it a parody. Not so – this is the madness of issue prioritisation into to which a society which sees 120+ stabbings a year in London has fallen.

more #metoo whining

Jess Phillips MP raised the issue in Parliament (on 23/10/18) of the use of  NDA’s by companies to “silence” victims (presumably female) of abuse from speaking out. The trigger for this was a High Court order preventing the Daily Telegraph from naming a businessman who was the focus of the case.

Phillips whined “It seems our laws allow rich and powerful men to do pretty much as they want as long as they can pay to keep it quiet.” This has been the whingeing   moan of many ‘#MeToo’ victims, particularly in the US.

For example Zelda Perkins, a former  Harvey Weinstein aide, moaned that it was it was ‘ridiculous’ that she was prevented from reporting the information covered by the NDA she signed.

Why ‘ridiculous’ ???  She gave a binding undertaking to not disclose material. This is bizarre, but particularly so in the case cited by Jess Phillips.

If someone signs an NDA (a common commercial document of which Grumpy has signed maybe a couple of hundred) they give an undertaking not to disclose material which is the focus of the NDA. To do that, to give an undertaking and then claim it is ridiculous to be bound by the undertaking they gave, shows that the moaner is either very dumb or has no integrity.

However, in spite of reporting by the Daily Mail, other reporting indicated that it was  rather that victim signed what used to be called a Compromise Agreement and is now called a Settlement Agreement. This differs from a simple NDA in that (a) the document requires that the signatory has been instructed at no cost to them by a named lawyer independent of the other party  as to the implications of signing, and (b) generally allows for payment to the signatory in exchange for waiving whatever rights are given up.

If this were the case,  the victim was hardly bullied into signing; a lawyer had explained her options and the pros and cons thereof, and she accepted monies in exchange  for giving an undertaking to be bound by the terms. This was hardly a gun to the head.

In such cases, what we have now is that the #MeToo set want to take money for giving an undertaking of  confidentiality, and then whingeing about not being able to casually break this legally binding obligation for which they received an agreed recompense, and in spite of having being instructed by a lawyer as to the implications thereof.

Giving the drum banging that such people do about wishing the weight of the law to be brought down on an alleged abusers it is hypocritical in the extreme to simultaneously take money and ignore the legal agreement they freely entered into.  Apart from wishing to extract public revenge, some of them presumably gain publicity and further monies – e.g. Stormy Daniels. This is moving towards the exploitative, which is so damaging for genuine victims that Jess Phillips rightly wants to protect.