Ukraine, Banking and a Pink Bus

I try to write a blog every week.  Usually I cover a single, topical subject but regular readers will know that I sometimes stray off of topic.  For regular readers I say thank you.  For me this is a way to scream at the world for the idiocies that we see around us.

This has been a strange week for news. 

We have Labour’s Pink Bus for women, the Ukraine cease-fire  and the HSBC Switzerland story.  I will try and bring these into a single narrative, please bear with me.

Running throughout the week, we have had the spectacle of the USA and the UK sitting on the sidelines, while Germany and their favourite European poodle-nation, France, negotiating with Russia and a ‘dragged to the table’ Ukraine in an effort to get a ceasefire in place.  The ceasefire would be between the Ukraine government and the separatist rebels.  You will note that these separatist rebels were not involved in these talks.  Don’t worry though, they were ably represented by Russia.  If nothing else, these talks and Russia’s seeming ability to make commitments on behalf of the rebels, lays bare the fact that these separatists are in fact fully dependent upon the Russians.  It is Russian arms and Russian artillery fired by Russian soldiers  that has made advances and forced the Ukraine government to the table.  That and the appeasers in the German dominated European Union. 

In case you have forgotten, Ukraine is, in large part, in its current state because they were led up the path by the EU.  They were sweet-talked, by the EU, into rejecting an agreement that would have pushed them towards Russia and then, when Russia flexed its muscles, the EU ran away.  They, and the US and UK then embarked upon imposing sanctions against Russia and certain Russians.  Commentators regularly tell us that these sanctions are really biting.  Coupled with the collapse in the price of oil and with it the Rouble, the Russian economy is suffering (unfortunately that then means its people as well!).

So, we have a situation where Russia has made a land grab (Crimea) and has been fomenting and arming secessionist activity in Eastern Ukraine, while at the same time, the essentially feeble sanctions are finally starting to affect Russia and what is the EU reaction?  Go to the negotiating table and concede territory and legitimacy to both the rebels and Russia’s land grab, cut the throats of the Ukrainians  and then congratulate themselves on a war averted!

And what of the USA?  Good old President Obama was in Washington and given the snowfalls hitting that part of America, he was unable to attend to other presidential  duties, such as golf, and managed to make some comment on the Ukraine.  His comments, strangely, had the potential to be helpful.  He was making noises about providing the Ukraine with a re-supply of arms.  Reverting to type though, nothing came of these fine words.  Maybe it is because America is broke and cannot afford to ‘fight the good fight’ or maybe it’s because it’s President Obama – make your own mind up!

And David Cameron?  He was in the difficult position of being in electioneering mode and having to fend-off accusations that the UK was becoming irrelevant on the world stage because the UK wasn’t at these talks.  Possibly, Cameron could see where this whole shabby exercise would end and the idea of being a party to the sell-out of Ukraine, was too much for him to stomach or possibly he was focused on home-front issues.

Home-front issues, for Cameron are now all about the General Election to be held in May. 

He received a boost from Harriet Harman, Labour’s equality obsessed, deputy leader (so obsessed that rumours abound that she planned to change her name to Harriet Harperson!).  I have to use the word 'harpy' to describe her because all other thoughts and words might breach this blog’s no offensive language rule.

Anyway, this harpy has hit on the wheeze of having a pink bus which will travel around the UK, visiting marginal seats and then opening discussions with women because she claims that Labour speaks to women’s needs and wants to listen to women and their problems.  In spite of all, I repeat, all polling data suggesting that men and women rate the economy, NHS, immigration and education as high priority issues for them and their families, Harriet is expecting to be chatting aboard the, immediately and appropriately named 'Barbie Bus’, about domestic abuse as the number one issue affecting women. 

Of course domestic abuse is awful but does Labour really believe that this is the key problem facing women today?   All women?

One of the first, all-women, conversations that took place was gate-crashed by, horror of horrors, a man.  He was politely indignant that his genital arrangements caused him to be not worthy of voicing an opinion or to be listened to. 

Not sure I understand this approach by Labour.  Will women flock to the Barbie Bus and abandon the key issues that they have previously told pollsters that influence them and talk about an issue which, at the end of the day, politicians can do little about – domestic abuse.  I mean that does anyone think that more laws, from Westminster, will solve this particular problem?  Yes it is awful but of national importance?  I am reminded of President Obama's and John Kerry's claim that the number one danger facing the USA is 'climate change'.  Not Al Qaeda, not Islamic State, not illegal immigrants, not Ebola, not a jobs-absent recovery - no, climate change!  And now this fool is posting selfies all over the internet!  Boy, when Americans go for tokenism and ignore Dr Marting Luther King's comments about judging people on their character and not the colour of their skin, you go all out!

How then will this sexism play with Labour’s male voters?  Will they feel excluded and desert in droves?  Will they head to UKIP or to the Conservatives?  Or will they maybe just stay at home?  We will see.

They say in politics that you need to be lucky,  Labour got lucky and managed to get the Barbie Bus behind themselves with the breaking of the HSBC story.  This bank has a branch office in Switzerland  and – cue shock! cue horror!  Some British people had accounts there.  Labour played a good game on this one, aided as always by the ignorant and biased BBC and other media.  Labour seem to contend that any Brit  with an account in Switzerland  only has one for nefarious purposes – as in, tax evasion.  It produces no proof that this is so, it just throws the mud and some sticks.  Millions in taxes are being dodged they claim.  Even if that were true, the amounts that are being spoken of, are but a drop in the ocean relative to the spending of the current government leave alone of any future Labour government (is there something smaller than a drop in the ocean?)

Labours problem with HSBC is that while they can bang on about it, they need to be careful.  Already there are rumblings and stones being uncovered about the careful inheritance tax planning carried out by the Miliband family, following the death of the father of Ed and David.  This communist died and left the family with property that would cause the boys tax problems - as in lots of it to pay.  So they arranged for something called a deed of variation, which, if I understand correctly, allowed their now dead father to change the will and gift them parts of the property such that taxes were much reduced.  All perfectly legal but as said before, hypocrisy is rankest at the higher levels of government!

I will be absent from the UK for much of the election campaign - but of course will be voting - so my comments and this blog will be filtered through time, distance and a biased media.  Caveat emptor!

Have a good week!

UK elections

I know that the UK General Election will not occur until May 2015 but things are starting to heat-up, so let's take a look at the current state of play.

The 'elephant in the room' many would suggest is UKIP (but see below).  I am not so sure.  I can see that UKIP will damage both major parties but perhaps the Conservatives a little more.  Can they though make a breakthrough?  In by-elections, as former MP Louise Mensch has pointed out, they have done well, where the UKIP candidate is a defector.  They won in Clacton and seem to be ahead in Rochester and Strood.  However, will they fare as well when they come-up against a sitting MP with a reasonable majority?  Especially if that MP is Conservative and an overt Euro-sceptic? My sense is that faced with such a choice, people will look beyond UKIP's headline 'out of Europe' and 'no immigration' policies and consider that there isn't much policy meat there.  And, what there is, has a distinctly socialist taste to it.

I accept that there is disillusionment with the main parties but I think that on the day, people will stand in the voting booth, see the Conservative or Labour incumbent and either vote for them or for their opposite number, if the opposite number has a chance of winning.  That is, in Conservative or Labour  seats, where the other of the two main parties were second, the voter will consider switching between those two.  Where there existed a large majority, at the last election, for either party, then they will consider moving their vote to UKIP.  So it is the 'protest vote' in such cases that is movable and not the core.

No doubt UKIP enthusiasts will say I am wrong and that Nigel Farage is 'breaking the mould' of British politics but I just don't see that happening.  The British are very conservative, when it comes down to it.  Those of you with a long memory will recall the same being said about the Social Democratic Party and the so called  'gang of four'  - much was written and said by the political pundits but come the day, people didn't fall in behind their SDP candidates and eventually the party merged or was subsumed, depending on your viewpoint, into the Liberal Party to form the Liberal Democrats.

So UKIP?  Good local MPs like Douglas Carswell will likely hold onto their seat.  Maybe Farage will be elected and maybe also a few others.  One problem that they have though, is that their most well known personalities are elected members of the European Parliament and so if they stand in the UK General Election, then they will be open to accusations around their having their noses firmly stuck into the EU trough or, if they resign and stand, as causing unnecessary expense for the British taxpayer, etc..

The Lib Dems?  Not sure that they are entirely in terminal decline but a post election merger with Labour wouldn't be too outrageous.  Many, some would say most, Lib Dem policies are very socialist.  Indeed, in some areas, the Lib Dems seem to outdo the Labour party in their interventionist, nannying kind of way.  The Lib Dems will suffer badly (and rightly in my view) at the next election and will lose significant numbers of seats, perhaps even, being wiped-out in Scotland.

So to the Conservatives.  They are very trusted on economic matters but there is a strong sense that on the very important issue of the EU, David Cameron cannot entirely be trusted (this indeed is a big part of the reason for the rise of UKIP).  On crime, the Conservatives have a good story to tell.  Similarly so on Welfare, where people see the 'welfare cap' as a good thing, (though still too generous) and other welfare reforms as long overdue, and on Education, where there is a quiet revolution underway - Trojan horse school scandals, notwithstanding.  On defence matters people are  trying to square the idea of defence cuts with an increasing need for military engagements around the globe.  The partnering approach to this is being accepted (grudgingly).  On the environment, there is not much 'clear green water' between any of the parties.  All slavishly follow the highly flawed IPCC reports and the fatuous EU Carbon Emission Targets, though I sense that there is a growing sense of scepticism within Conservative ranks - not least because of the economic costs involved.  You can expect that scepticism to soar if there are power outages during the coming UK winter.

All said and done, I believe that the Conservatives will be the largest party at Westminster after the next General Election.  Though they will likely be short of an overall majority and with a much diminished Lib Dem party, have difficulty in forming a coalition.  Given the passing of the Lib Dems favoured legislation on fixed term parliaments, this will present the UK with a period of political instability!

Which just leaves us with the Labour Party.  Prior to the Scottish Independence Referendum, Labour probably thought that the Conservatives were their main opponents.  Keep banging-on about tax cuts for the rich and so on and Labour would sweep to power.  The way of the UK system certainly favours them.  Notionally, they require just over 35% of the votes to be in Number 10.  However, that is much less certain now.  The SNP, who, in my view, are the real 'elephant in the room' are expected to make very significant gains at the expense of Labour.    To many Scottish voters, they are faced with a choice between a socialist Labour party that represents the whole of the UK and a socialist SNP that puts Scotland's interests, first.  Why would a Scottish socialist vote for Labour?

And that is before you take account of the turmoil in which Labour finds itself, in Scotland.  The Scottish Labour leader, Johann Lamont, has resigned and in the process lambasted Ed Miliband and the London-based Labour elite.  While Ms Lamont has lost a Christmas fraternal greetings card from Ed, she has done Scottish Labour (and the people of Scotland) a great service, with her exposure of Miliband's inadequacies.

It is not only in Scotland that Labour is coming apart.  On the economy, their solution of 'what we need is more debt and more borrowing' doesn't resonate.  People know that this is how we got into the mess in the first place.  And they don't forget who was in charge at that time!  On Europe, the charge is that 'Labour don't trust the people' and not agreeing to a referendum, indeed opposing the Conservative backbencher attempts to enshrine one in law, just reinforce the view that Labour are pro-EU.  On immigration, a very hot topic for voters and a vote winner for UKIP, Labour are seen as the architects of the current situation.  The Conservatives don't get off scot-free but immigration is a stick of rock with Labour written all the way through it!

Thinking about that - the  two big UKIP issues - immigration and the EU, see them diametrically opposed to Labour.  So if these are key issues for the electorate, one would expect to see Labour suffering more than the Conservatives.  The latter certainly lean more UKIP's way on these issues.

Back to Ed Miliband.  What a sorry excuse for a party leader.  One who owes his fratricidal elevation to union block votes and who is now in a continual sniping war with the very same union bosses who 'annoited' him and whose unions bankroll his party.

The silent support for Miliband, from his front-bench colleagues is deafening in its absence.  The buffoonish Ed Balls thinks he should be party leader, while ignoring his exceedingly close proximity to the Treasury, when Labour were in power and ruining the economy.  The Labour deputy leader, Harriet Harman, is fixated on pushing a 'feminazi' agenda by wearing slogan shirts in parliament.  When she is not seeing evil intent in every utterance by or action of, a male she must sit, in her quiet moments and ponder how foolish she and her husband, fellow MP Jack Dromey, were to push a Paedophile Information Exchange agenda, when they were on the executive of the National Council for Civil Liberties.  It is a sign of great concern that she would think how foolish they were rather than how wrong.  This alone should be enough to consign her (and him) to the rubbish bin of political history.

So while these Labour heavy-hitters are so otherwise engaged, Ed continues to flounder.  Some people say that politics is about policies and, they are largely right but don't discount the personality factor.   Nick Clegg came out of the 2010 Election debates so much better than Gordon Brown and David Cameron because of his 'niceness'.  Brown was seen as arrogant and less competent than he himself believed, and Cameron's message was delivered in a manner that was perhaps uncaring.

The 2015 General Election debates will see a personally confident Cameron versus a bumbling Miliband.  Miliband's speaking, the nasal and whiny delivery just grates on one.  Whatever message he is trying to put across gets lost in a general annoyance with the delivery!  Farage will do okay, in his matey, ' I might drink in the saloon bar but I am in touch with the views of those in the public bar' approach but I doubt he will have the breadth of subject grasp that will survive scrutiny.  Clegg?  He will be caught between a rock and a hard place - trying to defend the Lib Dems time at the top table and to differentiate.  (Incidentally, a much better analogy that rock and a hard place is 'being between the dog and the tree'!)

The issues?  The economy, immigration, EU and welfare.  Funded tax cuts rather than debt-funded ones will appeal.   I don't think the NHS will loom as large as in previous elections.  Labour will bang on about it but are very susceptible on the fiasco of Labour-run NHS in Wales and the truly shocking incidents at Mid Staffs hospitals and elsewhere.

So a hung parliament in 2015 and a further election later that year or early in 2016, once Labour have a new leader.  Oh and not forgetting a much improved Westminster presence for the SNP.

File this one away and come back and see how accurate I am!!



 

The V word in politics

David Cameron reshuffled his cabinet this week.  He didn't actually use the V word but his spokespeople made it clear that the key criteria for demotion was having a pair of gonads, while having a vagina, was a ticket to cabinet.

In an effort to try and 'con' women voters, Cameron and his key strategist, Lynton Crosby, decided to show their gender sensitivity by increasing the number of female members (no pun intended) of the cabinet.

This is gesture politics of the worst kind.  Right up there with Labour's all women candidate lists and other Harriet Harman (or is it Harperson?) inspired feminazi lunacy.

Michael Gove was an excellent Secretary for Education.  You don't believe me?  Consider the bile and vitriol heaped upon him by the socialists in the teaching unions.  Evidence that he is doing something right, surely?  Bear in mind, the unions aren't arguing about pay or pensions, per se, they are reacting to Gove's plans to dramatically reduce the power of the leftist education establishment.  That, and his plans to focus on having British children leave school, at least with the ability to read and write and understand basic maths. Come to think of it, maybe Cameron was right, what kind of an evil bastard is Gove?  Who does he think he is, raising standards and making teachers accountable? 

I do wonder though, what goes through the minds of politicians and political strategists when they propose such gestures.

Do they sit around running flags up flagpoles to see who, in a blue sky scenario, salutes?  How do we appeal to women voters, is the question?  I know let's appoint more women to the cabinet says the 'wet behind the ears' intern.  We can show the softer side of conservatism, he continues, spilling his soya, demi frappe latte, in the process.  He goes on, 'we can even get some pretty ones in and then some of the chaps will be happy at the sight, as well'.

The wizened old Central Office apparatchik asks whether the Conservatives just might attract more women if they had policies that appealed more directly to women?   Policies that left women (and men) with more of the money that they earned.  Policies that rewarded those women that worked for a living more than those that chose to live off of welfare.  Policies that put a value on married women that choose to raise a family or be a carer to family members and were appropriately recognised through the tax system.   ' I just wonder', she mused, 'if women might just see through the gesture and be angered by the attempt to so blatantly try to con them?  That women might say, " must be an election soon, the men are throwing some of the sisters a few scraps".

Crosby and his acolytes would listen to such and then politely (mustn't upset the women, you know) move on and push the fatuous politics that we have seen in the reshuffle.

I am a man but dare to posit how a woman would see this.  I suggest that women want to be considered on merit.  They don't need quotas or to make-up some 'reasonable' percentage of a cabinet or political party hierarchy.  They know that since this is still a 'mans world', they have to work that much harder to be considered as an equal (and they still better look presentable as well!!).  They also know that sometimes the effort isn't worth the reward (as do some house-husband men) and the alternative is more appealing.  They know that there remain an older generation of men and modern day neanderthals that haven't quite got 'it' yet but that doesn't bother them over-much.  Time is on their side.    They don't want preferential treatment just equality.  

I think they would tell Cameron and Miliband (Clegg and the Lib Dems are finished!) that rather than gesture politics where your genitalia matters more than your mind, they want policies that address issues that concern them.  

Not surprisingly those policies are also appealing to male voters. 

• Voters worry about taxes, which are too high - both relatively and proportionately.  
• They worry about debt, their own and the government's.  
• They are concerned about the future and what it holds for them and their children (back to national debt again).  
• They are concerned about immigration at the national level - fear of being 'swamped', if I can use that phrase - and at the local level, in some cases - no jobs available for their children.  
• I don't think people are overly concerned about Britain's position on the world stage - we've done our bit and look where it has got us - wounded veterans, increased debt and people that now target us on our on streets! 
• Talking of our streets, crime is always a concern.  Crime isn't about statistics it's about feeling safe and knowing that those that do wrong are punished.  And that especially includes those in high places who commit two crimes - the actual offence and then the abuse of public trust.
• I do though think that people are concerned about the EU and the erosion of British democracy - the sense that Britain and its people are getting lost inside the EU and that we, as individuals, don't count anymore - sort of 'what's the point of worrying about all these other things if I personally, can do absolutely nothing as an individual or as a mass collection of individuals (call it a national majority) about what is being done to me and the ones I love and care for?' 
• Education is a big issue but it isn't about the sex of the Secretary of State.  It is about educating children.
• The NHS is a huge issue.  This is a failing organisation.  We can see it isn't about money so politicians need to stop promising more and start thinking the unthinkable.

 I could go on but I think you get the gist. 

I prefer to use the word people rather than men or women as it is the lives of people, both men and women, that are affected by politics.  People don't need gestures.  They need government to shrink in size and let more things be decided by people.  They need taxes to be reduced and the money that is earned by the people to stay with the people.  They need debt to be reduced (smaller government) so as to reduce the burden on future generations.  And so on.

What people need is for the elite to understand that in the new iDemocracy people, or women and men, if you prefer, see through gestures, very quickly.

If not Ed

Following their less than sparkling out-turn from the UK local elections, there are mumblings from the ever fraternal politicians, in the Labour Party, that maybe leader, Ed Miliband, should be replaced.

The thought never seems to cross their mind, that maybe the message is wrong.

Anyhow, that got me thinking about who could replace Ed.  The job spec. would include phrases like 'must have more personality than a finger puppet', 'must have coherent policies that address the needs of the people and can be easily articulated',  'must not talk about concepts like pre-distributive', 'must not talk in a whiny schoolkid 'miss they're being nasty to me' kind of voice'.

So the candidates.

Ed's brother, David Miliband?  The nearly candidate who was defeated by Ed?  Don't think so.  This is the same man that led everyone to believe he was about to take on the deranged Gordon Brown and then chickened out and instead of bringing along an ultimatum or resignation and challenge,  to the 'Kirkcaldy kook' brought a banana, instead!

Ed Balls?  Hardly!  He, like Ed M himself, is still tied to Gordon's failed economic policies.  Indeed, he still spouts them.  He predicted doom and gloom,  if the very modest cuts initiated by the Conservatives, were enacted.  By all measures, he was spectacularly wrong.  He's an attack dog politician, that tries to hide his innate thuggery behind a very thin smile and only use his bully boy tactics, when forced to but the real Balls is never far from the surface.

Yvette Cooper?  The wife of Ed Balls.  Just the fact that she is married to Ed Balls, should be sufficient reason to discount her.  How could the Labour Party have a leader that makes such a poor choice in spouses?  Okay, so I hear you say, what about Tony Blair?  Well, yes but would Labour repeat the mistake?  Anyway, she loses on the whiny voice front as well.  She is the plain and mousy person that always did her homework on time and only associated with other kindred spirits.  As said though, poor judgement on the spouse front must exclude her.

Chuka Umunna?  The Shadow Business Secretary has certainly done everything to push his credentials.  He always dresses in sharp suits and speaks so moderately but I think that he just isn't up to it and he certainly won't have a big constituency among the leader electors.  There is something about Chuka that always suggests to me that, he is looking to move on to something bigger but mainly something that means he doesn't need or want  to mix with the hoi polloi and, heaven for fend, workers.

Andy Burnham?  I only include him as a joke.  Far too toxic given his association with the Mid Staffs scandal.  In any leadership campaign, he would automatically start with 1,300 less votes as that is the number of NHS patients that died, at that hospital, on his watch.

Harriet Harman?  She is so ludicrously 'right on'  that she just might change her name to Harriet Harperson.  No, she and fellow MP and husband, Jack Dromey, are seen as fools and hypocrites - not unusual qualifications for a politician but Harriet is just too 'nanny state'.

Jim Murphy?  This might be a possibility except that he is so outwardly 'Scottish'  He is from the Glasgow side of Scotland and so doesn't have that Edinburgh condescending approach but I am not sure Labour can risk putting a Scot in charge as the association, by voters, with Brown, might be considered to be taking too much of a chance.  Seems like a decent and grounded person though, and not so metro-elitist as almost all of the others.

So, not really much choice for Labour.  The obvious solution would be to 'cut out the middle-man' and go for Len McCluskey, the leader of the public sector union, Unite.  McCluskey controls the purse strings anyway, so why not let him be the actual mouthpiece for the party he has bought?

Says a lot for the dearth of quality, that these are the only candidates that might replace Ed

Money raising idea for the Treasury and The Justice Ministry

Thinking about how relatively easy it has been to raise £250K in the Julian Assange bail money situation, prompts me to wonder.  The over-burdened British taxpayer hasn't had to stump up this just those foolish enough to believe in Assange's integrity.

Since it is always those on the left that manage to get their right-on friends to finance their bail and write indignant letters to The Guardian couldn't we have a different way of financing the Ministry of Justice?

How about we arrest leading 'lefties' and then allow them to be bailed and then drop them off outside the Ecuadorean embassy, when they are released?  I have nothing against Ecuador or it's people but since you have Jules it would be 'cruel and inhumane' to not give him some playmates.

So, who to arrest?

I thought about Gordon Brown - crimes against the British people - tons of gold sold for a song - economic mis-management on an epic scale - that funny glottal thing he does when he speaks (must be a crime against the English language - but then I thought who would put up his bail?  No, I couldn't think of anyone, either.

But we could look at:

• Ed Balls - criminal lack of apology for his part in the economic mess - criminal lack of economic sense or a coherent policy, other than 'look if we keep digging we will all have a nice big hole'!
• Ed Miliband - same as Ed Balls but with the added crimes of near fratricide and also that weirdly adenoidal speech (what is it with Labour and speaking strangely?)
• Harriet Harman - criminally culpable for being Harriet Harman and for assaulting the rights of all women by assuming that need her interference and that of her government of nanny-staters to promote women's rights rather than letting women claim their elevation in any organisation is theirs by right and merit rather than because of some 'tokenism'.
• Will Self and Owen Jones - So right-on and up themselves that their own self-importance and certitude would ensure that The Guardianistas would be frothing at the mouth as they sign their surety cheques.
• Polly - don't even need to say the surname but the crimes are numerous and all involve self-righteous stupidity at the core - mind you, if there was the opportunity for a counter to bail, putting up money to keep her in solitary and us from her rants, that might raise more money.
• Lord Leveson and that Jay fellow - All of those leftie QCs would put up the bail since they can see he will be a godsend for their 'profession' .
• George Galloway - Surely his freedom would be worth something amongst the radicals that form his core support.
• David Dimbleby - criminally bad taste in ties on QT plus constant interruption of his limited range of guests and thinking that people tune it to listen to his opinion.
• Alex Salmond - deceiving the Scottish people for personal aggrandisement - an especially high bail to be set so as to see if we can prise some money from all those mouthy expat Scots who speak of independence but chose not to live in Scotland -  a kind of hypocrite tax..
• Nick Griffin - bail to be set astronomically high - we wouldn't want him to get out.  Crime - too many to mention but maybe 'just for balance would do?

 Feel free to suggest others but if this is taken up as an economy measure, I expect a share of the proceeds.
  
One worry though, who would the BBC get to run Britain down, if not the above?