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.

Law and sanction

Dateline March 2019: according to press reports, One dangerous offender was convicted 21 times for possession of a knife without being sent to prison. Another committed 33 assaults before being jailed for his 34th. One thug had acquired 17 convictions for assaulting police officers before finally being jailed last year for an 18th.
A shoplifter who had an astonishing 70 previous cautions and convictions for theft before being jailed in 2016. Last year, another career criminal totted up 65 previous convictions for theft before being locked up. Another offender committed 30 drug crimes before his 31st saw him put away, while a fraudster was convicted of 53 separate scams before finally being imprisoned for yet another.

Meanwhile, the medieval ‘pleading of the belly’ excuse is popular amongst female crooks. A 39 year old woman downed a bottle of wine and hit three cars. The judge (a woman, by the way) said that if she were a man she would have gone straight to jail, but she gave a sister 3 months to get clean.

White collar crime is alive and profitable. Natalie Johnson, a serial fraudster stole £168,000 from employers. She awaits sentencing as of the current data, but don’t expect a flogging anytime soon.
However, one of her colleagues at one company also put her hands in the tin to the tune of £16,000, but of course theft of this trivial amount didn’t justify jail time. The picture at the top shows her rejoicing at the beak’s generosity in a wine bar after sentencing.

The populace is concerned by the level of crime, and appalled by the perceived “softness” of the justice system. It matters not what the reasons for this are – ‘jail does’t work ‘ / ‘community sentences are better’ / ‘lack of jail places meaning non-custodial sentences are levied’ / ‘long term giving an offender jail time costs society more’.

As Grumpy has quoted before, as a principle which has held for centuries, ‘law without sanction is mere cipher’ . It’s a fact of human behaviour that, in general, people do what gets rewarded. After 20 times of getting away with it, a thug may well become cavalier about carrying a knife.

Unless and until this changes our society will neither be safe nor stable – and creating this environment is the first and primary duty of any government.

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.

Huawei leak – the US ?

Grumpy has heard rumours that the leak from the National Security Council that the UK government was to use Chinese company Huawei within the planned 5G phone infrastructure, originated from the Americans. They of course have the whole of the parliamentary estate bugged, and when they discovered the technology for a 5G roll out might be of Chinese origin from Huawei, they were concerned and upset.

Firstly, it meant that US manufacturers would miss out, and Trump was determined that that should not happen, both to protect his business buddies, but also because it was bad optics.

More importantly however, by getting US technology implemented for 5G, it would mean that (a) they could hold the UK to ransom and (b) it would be even easier to spy on the UK government, companies and citizens.

Trump thus authorised the leak, knowing that Huawei would be binned in panic and under pressure, and some poor cabinet minister or civil servant would get the axe, because even if the powers that be knew the US bugged the National Security Council, they couldn’t possibly admit it, and therefore a scapegoat would be needed.

This is fake news. I’m puzzled as to how the Department of Media Culture and Sport will, under its announced plans, be able to detect it and effect its removal. What law might Grumpy break? For him to be guilty, it would have to be proved that it was false, which in objective terms might be difficult. They say it’s false, Grumpy asserts it’s correct, and would use the “they would say that, wouldn’t they” (to quote Mandy Rice-Davies – qv, youngsters) defence.

Chilean hamburger mystery

Grumpy was recently in Santiago, Chile, and noticing the familiar golden arches close by, decided to have a lunchtime snack. He gave his usual a order of a hamburger, medium fries and zumo de naranja, only to be met with a blank stare with regard to the first named item. Mustering up his best holiday Spanish accent, he tried “hamburguesa”, but again this was followed by blank stares.

The server asked Grumpy in broken English to describe the item. Glancing at the sign above the counter to verify it was indeed a Macdonald’s, this was attempted, but finally it was mutually agreed this was useless from the barrier of language communications and the lack of recognition of the dish by the server.

How could this be? Grumpy has ordered hamburgers in Macs from Scarborough to Shanghai, Bergen to Boston, Bangkok to Talin and a myriad of other far flung locations, and never once has the server even paused.

Returning to his lodgings, the web was duly checked, and the headline pictures show the result. On the left is what appears on the Chilean Mac web site as an apology for a hamburger, and to the right is the item served elsewhere to the world’s other 7 billion inhabitants. No filling. No wonder Grumpy’s description of ingredients other than the meat patty drew blank looks.

A mystery indeed.

Footnote: Grumpy did determine later (following a repeat of this at another branch) that they did not even sell hamburgers sans filling. What ? How can it be a Macdonald’s ?? The world is getting too confusing.