Category Archives: News and Politics

Current affairs, madnesses of government, politics and politicians

Ignorant EU apparatchik Hogen spouts sophistry

Once again an EU bureaucrat turns to misinformation (aka lies) to try and interfere with UK internal processes – the hallmark of the EU edifice. Again, in common with others (as cited in this blog recently by Grumpy) the theme is to repeat the spurious trope that BoJo has no democratic mandate to proceed with no deal on the basis that he is “an unelected Prime Minister”, adding “the backstop was agreed by a Prime Minister who was democratically elected”.

These are words used in the full knowledge that they are not correct. The difference between him and Trump in ‘fake news’ is only one of degree, and not of principle. To reiterate prior posts, Grumpy sighs as he seeks to correct the record once again (albeit that no-one will actually read it).

British Prime Ministers are not elected. Political parties are elected, on the basis of a public manifesto. The Prime Minister takes office with the mandate of MP’s (and in the case of the conservative party) party members. The labour party has generally skipped this latter element and leaders are put in place over dinner in restaurants qv Gordon Brown.

Contrary to Hogan’s assertion, Theresa May was not democratically elected per se – she took office with exactly the same process as Boris, so there is no difference in mandate. Hogan is therefore either ignorant or a pseudologue. He then tries to conflate the mandate for the Withdrawal Agreement with the (incorrect) assumed mandate of May. Wrong. May came back with an agreement which was contrary to the party manifesto, her own repeated statements, and, critically, contrary to the formal statements of policy such as that made at Lancaster House. Parliament did not delegate to her the right to agree anything, but to bring back a proposal. This she did, after being soundly out-maneuvered by Barnier on every point, and the result was (rightly) defeated by the biggest parliamentary trashing in history.

Hogan is simply wrong on every point he makes, and in doing so merely underlines why the UK needs to leave this bureaucratic nest of autocrats. He also needs reminding that the Taoiseach has no more democratic mandate from the Irish peoples than BoJo, being nominated by the President of the Republic of Ireland , in one of those opaque processes so beloved of the EU. [Where, in the latter case, the appointment of the most senior officials raises the notion of back room deals to an art form.]

Hong Kong hypocrisy and self delusion

Jeremy Hunt has been chiding the Chinese on issues of freedom and democracy following the June 2019 demonstrations which saw the seat of government in Hong Kong, the ‘Legco’ building, occupied.

In fact, the Chinese authorities response was very muted, and there were no broken heads amongst the protesters. Onc wonders how Hunt would respond if a group of Brexit supporters (or some other group) broke into and occupied the Palace of Westminster – one suspects there would have been a much more robust response by the British police.

However, that is merely incidental. The fact is that UK government has shown monumental gall and hypocrisy about the Chinese reaction (albeit muted) and given tacit support to the demonstrators, citing their right to seek freedoms, backed by reference to the 1997 agreement to return Hong Kong to the Chinese, and a 50 year commitment to maintain a ‘one country, two systems’ framework.

In 1840, the Chinese sought to prevent William Jardine, a UK business owner, from importing Opium and killing thousands of citizens. Jardine persuaded the then Foreign Secretary, Palmerston, to go to war to enforce Britain’s rights as a drug dealer on a continental scale. In the face of overwhelming odds, the Chinese capitulated and in 1841 Hong Kong became British under the Treaty of Nanking. In the later second Opium War – also fought to maintain drug dealing rights – Britain gained a lease to Kowloon and the New Territories which was to expire in 1997.

So check list the outcomes here. Jardine Matheson – founded by men who turned to drug dealing and war to grow their company – is now a 20bn organisation, with a board full of the great and the good. A win.

Hong Kong became a colony, with its citizens subjugated and ruled from afar by dictat; the very definition of a dictatorship. In 156 years of rule by the British, no Hong Kong citizen ever had a vote, or any means of democratic representation in the structure imposed by their masters. Big time losers in the game.

In the run up to 1997 and the handover, Britain then had the almost unbelievable shamelessness to lecture the Chinese on freedom and democracy and demanded to impose on the Chinese – regaining their own territory taken by force in acts of war – an English template for law, and at the same time sowed the seeds that the citizens should expect under their own countrymen precisely what the British had denied them for more than a century and a half.

There is an element of the old Empire which runs deep in the Civil Service, the aristocracy and certain of the ‘ruling classes’; a mix of arrogance, a sense of entitlement, and a belief in some ‘natural order’ amongst men. It is a mindset of the end of the 19th century. The reality is that certain old conquests will at some point (and quite soon) turn the tables in the global pecking order.

In his book ‘Empire’, Niall Ferguson (ISBN-13 978-0-141-00754-0) posed (and largely answered) the question as to why an archipelago of rainy islands of the coast of north west Europe came to rule 25% of the worlds population {Answer: mostly by a mixture of force of arms and greed} . However, the book is a history book, and it is now the 21st Century. With no material indigenous resources of its own (except maybe coal and intellect), perhaps Britain should look in the mirror to see what it now is, or it really will become just a small, rainy and inconsequential group of islands disconnected physically and in most other ways, from Europe and the world.

Shameless union opportunism

Manuel Cortes, the general secretary of the Transport Salaried Staffs Association, seized on the recent (August 2019) power blackouts to bizarrely take a Project Fear potshot at Brexit, by seeking to conflate the two. He ranted “As we face the growing prospect of a no-deal Brexit it’s reasonable to wonder if this is a foretaste of things to come”.

This was an asinine attempt to link two entirely independent matters – how is generator failure related to Brexit in any way? Cortes would like to paint the picture of this extremely exceptional event becoming common place as a direct result of a no-deal Brexit.

Cortes, has never added value to anything in his life, having never worked for other than a labour union, and therefore has a had a lifetime of honing the art of doublespeak and twisting words / situations to press home his left wing message. To take two examples, “having our rail network brought to a standstill in this way is totally unacceptable” is rather odd, as surely logically having the network fail in any way is undesirable. He also says “we now seem to be in a country where blackouts happen without warning”, seeking to sow a view that blackouts are now (as a result of threatened Brexit ??) common – union guile-speak. The statement is itself a non sequitur since a blackout is by definition unplanned – so how could there be a warning ? {Grumpy has experienced one short blackout in 20 years}

In October 2018, Cortes wrote an opinion piece in the Guardian lambasting Theresa May and stating that her actions were “no way to do democratic politics”. Ignoring the fact that she was in power (just) as a result of an election seems hypocritical when placed against the fact that Manuel owes his current position to an election in which more than 87% of the members of his union did not vote for him.

Cortes, who accuses the current government as being the ‘hard right’, is very much part of the ‘hard left’. He opposes capitalism (presumably implying adherence to communist ideals) and he is in favour of nationalising the rail network to ‘improve it’, something which history shows would be unlikely to happen. He no doubt thinks that ‘other peoples money’ is the route to funding an uneconomic vision, as Margaret Thatcher once pointed out.

Jeremy Hunt sets precedent

Jeremy Hunt has just created a precedent he may in time come to regret.

The BBC reported that he believed that Boris Johnson should “answer questions on everything” including details of a private argument between Johnson and his paramour, Carrie Symonds, which took place in June 2019, rather than ‘ducking very important questions”. This view was shared by numerous ‘stop Boris’ fanatics (mainly remoaners), not willing to accept the valid process which may propel him to Number 10.

The rationale for being exposed to interrogation about entirely private matters is that it goes to ‘character’, with the implication that anyone who has argued with their partner is somehow unfit to lead the country. Such a qualification would probably have removed most leaders in most countries and replaced them with either a domestic tyrant or feeble sycophant.

I suspect that Mr Hunt falls into the latter class, but there are much more serious questions on his previous track record that go to character than having spat with the other half.

He broke the law in 2018 because of not meeting filing rules at Companies House; like all politicians, he shrugged this off as an error / oversight / administrative slip etc. This is from a man who controls a £110 billion budget – let’s hope he takes more care with that. He has bragged multiple times about his business expertise, but that obviously doesn’t cover matters that a plumber has to comply with or get fined. Is he incompetent or cavalier?

As Health Secretary in 2015, he unilaterally imposed a contract on Junior doctors because pay negotiations with them had failed. Note, he is a failed negotiator. He also lied (which he admitted) about the monetary impact of this agreement on the doctors. So he not only is an admitted liar (back to character again) he is a failed negotiator. Yet he has been touting his (obviously flawed) business credentials as proof that only he will be able to renegotiate a deal with the EU. Not only would you not want him crossing swords with Barnier on behalf of the UK, it shows another flaw in his character – self delusion.

However, what Hunt may come to regret, if those baying to make prying into an MP’s private life a prerequisite qualification for office is the creation of a dangerous precedent. The very next time someone aspiring to office suffers some private matter inadvertently coming into public view, then dogs on either side should feel free to voyeuristically demand every salacious detail and brand them as unfit for office if they don’t comply.

So let’s start here; Jeremy Hunt – have you ever had a loud argument with your wife where subsequently regretted exchanges were made? Yes or No?

Jo Swinson is a confused, hypocritical, ‘flip-flop’

Jo Swinson, newly elected Lib Dem leader recently underwent an embarrassing ‘flip-flop’ by first announcing (conceptually, a least) that she’d rather have a three-some with John Bercow and Jacob Rees-Mogg than be associated with Jeremy Corbyn’s plans to take over as PM if / when BoJo loses the upcoming vote of no confidence, and within a few hours then offering to consort with said labour leader at his convenience. Not decisive, Jo.

However, the point of this note is however, to record her (not uncommon) dishonest and hypocritical stance on Brexit, and the transparent nature of her weasel words on the next actions.

Swinson pays lip service to democratic participation (after all, she’s leader of the lib Dems) but she is wholly intent on subverting the democratic process. The referendum was clear that the populace voted to leave the EU, and her goal is to prevent that from happening regardless of that vote or (importantly) the nature of any deal. Consider Swinson’s own words, reiterated in the recent leadership competition “We {Lib Dems} believe the UK’s best future is as members of the European Union, and that’s why, as your leader, I will do whatever it takes to stop Brexit”

It’s clear. Its not about stopping no deal, or using the EU ploy of asking the populace to think again. It doesn’t matter how they might vote, she will – read it again – “do whatever it takes to stop Brexit” . She is a committed European federalist and believes in ever closer integration (see their web site)

To obscure the pro-federal and anti-democratic goals of the party, she uses words which are sheer sophistry, which are also without any rational framework. The second referendum ploy will (as it is with Dominic Grieve) be binding if it goes to ‘remain’ and ‘advisory’ if anything else – one assumes her version of any new vote will not include ‘no-deal’ as an option (‘whatever it takes to stop it’, remember?

The Liberals were almost extinct in the early 1930’s, and in spite of their 1989 revamp and subsequent merger with the Social Democrats, have had no real electoral significance for more than 85 years, apart from the brief spell in the Cameron Coalition. (A rather rather shameful example of the lust for power over core principles by Nick Clegg ). This episode demonstrated the fallibility of consensus when strong leadership is required. Ms Swinson, by rejecting any overtures from Jeremy (and certainly from BoJo) , will no doubt consign the party to being an irrelevance in the future.

Confirmatory Vote mystery

Citizens of this realm are surely irritated that, having voted “leave” in a referendum which the then Prime Minister said would be honoured, a large number of Westminster politicians are seeking to frustrate that directive, citing variously that ‘people’ didn’t understand what they were voting for (but see
http://grumpy.eastover.org.uk/soubry-hypocrisy/ ), or that they may have now changed their mind, or (an old chestnut) it isn’t in the ‘National Interest’. To add further irritation, they are also regaled by a motley bunch of celebrities and ex-politicians, especially when it’s ‘Teflon’ Blair or ‘fake news’ Campbell.

The primary means by which they are seeking to frustrate the democratic will is by something called a “confirmatory vote”, which would give the option of reversing the 2016 decision. It’s presented as something logical and perfectly clear, and it is based on the fact that voters could give their opinion on a known ‘deal’. In fact, it’s no such thing, and they actually mean they want the referendum to be re-run (presumably on the assumption that the vote would change), but the idea that they are ‘confirming’ something is seen to weaken any perceived betrayal. Typical of the weasel words are those of slimy Emily Thornberry, who said “… that we say to the people, ‘Is this what you wanted?’ ‘We just want to check, because if it isn’t, let’s stay'”. As a piece of Machiavellian sophistry, this takes the biscuit.

Grumpy is completly confused. The confirmatory vote is always linked to be on ‘the deal’. But what deal ? The remainers use deliberate obfuscation, because the only deal agreed with the EU is May’s Withdrawal Agreement. However, this is merely a transitory arrangement, and dies when some final agreement is ratified. Since this hasn’t been discussed with the EU (except for a vague Political Declaration), nobody has the faintest idea what the final agreement with the EU will be – so how can people make a decision now on whether this is what they voted when they said ‘yes’ to leave ???

Tom Watson and others have defined this as a “confirmatory referendum on any deal agreed by MPs”, and said that is what their last conference voted for. This is nonsense. It cannot refer to the actual future relationship with the EU (as that cannot be discussed yet) and in any event it’s not in the gift of MP’s to agree to any other deal – only the EU can do that.

This is a naked confidence trick to lure the populace to reject Brexit on an entirely false premise. The Labour party conference referred to relates to a “deal” which is “a customs union, market access and rights protection within, with, the European Union”.

There is no such deal, and MP’s cannot alone effect it. The EU won’t negotiate further. The only choices are (1) leave with no deal (2) leave with May’s deal or (3) revoke article 50 and stay in the EU. It’s really this third option that is being pushed for, and Alistair Campbell, the ex-porn author and political lies maestro, should be justifiably proud of his Labour legacy.

Soubry hypocrisy

In spite of his old age, Grumpy admits he has always harboured a politically incorrect frisson when seeing old photographs of Anna Soubry. She has the look of a girl who, shall we say, enjoyed a full social life before marriage and responsibility called, if you get the drift.

That aside, the fact is that she is an unprincipled hypocrite who has recently turned her back on the constituents who voted for the party she the was a member of. Further although Broxtowe, her constituency, voted to leave in the 2016 referendum, Soubry has subsequently consistently disregarded party policy, the citizens who voted for her to represent that party – note, not for her – and the wishes of Broxtonians in the referendum. This in spite of having voted previously to leave the EU, for the 2016 referendum, and for the serving of the Article 50 notice.

Any principled politician would stand aside immediately so that her constituents could be represented by someone who subscribed to the policies they voted for – but not her.

However, that is almost a minor sin in comparison with her attempt to bend truth in her pursuit of frustrating a democratic process. This subversion takes many forms, but Grumpy will use just one, telling, example here.

To deny the results of the 2016 referendum and her voting record in support of leaving would be a step too far. So instead, she (along with Chuka Umunna and the other rattus rattus ship jumpers in The Independent Group), are promulgating the fiction that “people didn’t vote for…”, and “people will have changed their mind now they know what is involved”. Setting aside the arrogance of purporting to know what motivated ‘people’ (somehow lumping them together as a homogeneous set with the same motivations and beliefs) this is simply not true, and Soubry knows it.

David Cameron, in the throes of regret in having called the referendum, made a number of widely distributed presentations on exactly what it would mean. His final throw, two days before the referendum was standing outside Number 10, in a network wide broadcast. Here are just some of the statements he made to the nation as a whole:

“Expert after expert … have said it {leaving the EU} would shrink our economy . In the short term facing recession; in the medium term, enduring a decade of uncertainty, and in the long term, living with fewer jobs, lower wages and higher prices”

He went on “Remember, they {children in our schools} can’t undo the decision we take. It we vote out, that’s it. It is irreversible. We will leave Europe – for good. and the next generation will have to live with the consequences.“

Grumpy is of the view that all of this was not really relevant to a large number of the 17m. They were fed up with the EU. They were fed up with politician A saying something was white and politician B saying it was black. They gave no credibility to any of them. Further, they were repeatedly told by the establishment that they would be idiots to vote “leave”. Justified British bloody-mindedness reigned, and as a body they said ‘whatever’ and voted “out” to be done with it.

How was this picture of gloom not clear to the listener ? Read it again. Soubry said they didn’t vote to make themselves poorer – read it again ; they did. Soubry said they didn’t know what it wold entail – read it again; they did. Soubry would have us believe that they somehow disregarded this highly credible testimony and subscribed fully to a picture of the world offered by a buffoon like Boris?

The sad thing is that in spite of this, for 3 years the political establishment has been fighting their own partisan wars, and ascribing to the populace their own twisted and unjustified analysis (by telepathy?) to fit their own prejudices. Westminster should be hanging its collective head in shame. Remainers should careful of what they wish for – they are banking that a re-run would go to remain. Grumpy suspects that there may well be a shock if that happens – so back to square one.

Dumb Lords

The Intergenerational Fairness and Provision Committee is a committee comprised of unelected peers, with an average age of 67 years i.e. above official retirement age. Its function is to propose policy to the government where benefits and services are not fairly balanced between the generations.

Given the trend in such bodies is that the members (and particularly the Chair) reflect the function (As in a woman for anything relating to thee fair s*x, disabled person for the ‘otherwise abled’, and of course a person of colour for anything to do with racial matters), this group doesn’t really tick the boxes. Firstly, there is no representative of the younger generation to give that perspective. Secondly, and more importantly, they are hardly representative of the average pensioner; peers are probably not counting out coins before their weekly shop – they are maybe more focused on which cognac to get; the Tesseron Grande Champagne or the Daniel Bouju Reserve.

The underlying rationale is that pensioners have never had it so good, especially when compared with younger people and employees generally. Their recommendations to ‘re-balance’ include removing the pension ‘triple lock’ and free TV licences, and restricting free bus passes and Winter Fuel Payments. There was no mention of the travel allowances and subsidised restaurant facilities they all enjoy as pensioners in the House of Lords. Not much re-balancing there, then.

Labour governments bear a large share of responsibility for this. Anything which was ‘means tested’ has been anathema to the party, and hence when legislating for a range of benefits, they were made unconditional, regardless of circumstances. This was surely a mistake, even acknowledging the political and administrative dimension of this decision.

However, the undeniably bizarre aspect of the ideas proposed is the treatment of pensioners as a homogeneous set of people. This is clearly nonsense and repeats the error of the universal grant in the first place. Some pensioners have (unfunded) inflation proofed, public sector pension of up to two thirds of final salary; others have to visit food banks. Their recommendations to remove the stated benefits regardless of circumstances is surely as dumb as the decision to award them on that basis in the first place.

Founding such decisions on some notion of an ‘average’ pensioner on the basis of ‘fairness’ is surely irrational. The State Pension as of the time of writing is £6720 per annum, far below what is credibly necessary to live in an acceptable standard. Although they cite the ‘triple lock’, the concept of a well off pensioner has nothing to do with the state, and is entirely down to their personal financial history if they have a greater income than this. The inflation linked increment has more or less no impact on Grumpy’s income as a pensioner.

Further, at least the women, disabled persons and people of colour on typical committees normally have a direct connection with the issues they are seeking to address. Arguably, the members of this committee have little connection with the life style of the average pensioner (and certainly not with poor pensioners) and (based on the rationale of the typical committee composition policies) are ill equipped to pronounce on fairness from their red benches in a gilded edifice.

Footnote : As they probably all have residences in London and all (bar one) are eligible for free Oyster travel, any public transport (should they stoop to such) is paid for by the young rate payers of the city – something not mentioned in their deliberations.