Category: Politics

Journal, Politics

Israel and Palestine conflict

| admin

Israel and Palestine conflict

This a simple summary of a 75-year-old dispute over land from Vox Media. During this dispute, there have been numerous violent escalations between states and non-state actors.

The above video is 7 years old but gives the background to this ongoing conflict. The conflict has a long history, and I don’t know everything about it. I’m willing to listen and learn about it.

The heart of the conflict is a land dispute, violent escalations some by state actors and some by non-state actors. That cycle has been ongoing now for decades. Conflict at the moment is between Hamas and Israel. Politics within both Palestine and Israel is divided and deeply fractured. Extreme minorities on both sides have been corrosive to trust, destroying institutions and limiting the options for peace.

Palestinians are divided between Hamas and the Palestinian Authority, big divides exist within both. At the same time, politics in Israel is hopelessly divided and hardened against Palestinians due to terrorist attacks. A common tactic was firing rockets, often in large numbers. Two extreme minorities have gained power, adding fuel and making a two-state solution impossible.  An example is illegal West Bank settlements forcing out Palestinians by murdering and terrorizing. Another example is Hamas a terrorist organisation’s ongoing attacks against Israel using rockets. Both sides wished the other side did not exist.

Result peace talks have stalled, Gaza City is Hamas-controlled and West Bank pockets of Palestinian authority control. Thanks to the settler policies that have slowly reduced Palestinian areas in the West Bank. Palestinian civil war caused that split and terrorist group Hamas gained control of Gaza. Official policy was we couldn’t negotiate with terrorists. Therefore the Palestinians have been forgotten about and bypassed when it comes to resolving the conflict. This helps to explain why October 7th happened, lighting a fire and creating a regional war which ends the status quo. The status quo has slowly seen the Palestine cause forgotten about, and violence against them happening without consequence. With the West Bank seeing new illegal housing and Palestinians being forced out. Arab states have learned to live with Israel’s existence. The Arab world has started to normalize relations with Israel. Gone are the days when this turned into a regional war, the threat is now instability with terrorism spreading.

Benjamin Netanyahu has allowed Hamas to exist and it has benefited him. The threat of Hamas gave cover to the blockade of Gaza, and both Israel and Egypt placed heavy restrictions on the border. Building a wall, lined with cameras, sensors and constantly watching. Israel would be safe, and terrorist attacks against the people of Israel were a reason for settlement expansion in the West Bank. You can’t beat a group of militant religious zealots whose only aim is destroying Israel and who don’t care about dying. Both sides have committed violent acts against each other. Collective punishment of Palestinian people over Hamas’s actions is wrong. Or any terrorist group against Israel.

More of the same just breeding further hatred, breaking that cycle and rebuilding trust is key. The last point is challenging, repairing trust and offering an olive branch is required. Milality’s solution to political problems is a dead end. This has been building for decades and ideological non-state actors are difficult to end. Every single rival that could exist within Gaza has been pushed out. Changing the environment and conditions that have allowed them to exist won’t be easy. Pushing the Hamas leadership out of hiding and fostering a new political environment, Israel also needs similar change. That may prove difficult, the leadership of Hamas is in Qatar, Gaza and other places. For the past 10 months, the government of Israel has barely existed with huge amounts of instability. Plans to limit judicial power caused huge protests with military reservists refusing to serve.

Events of October 7th 2023, are truly horrific actions by Hamas. Launching a barrage of rockets into Israel, with an invasion of southern Israel.  Murdering innocent people, taking hostages, attacking police stations and military bases. This incursion was a terrorist attack against the state of Israel. This is nothing new for Hamas who has a long history of terrorism. The group has adapted, and changed tactics, October 7th shattered the sense of security the blockade provided. 

The Israeli response to the October 7th was a total blockade of Gaza. Nothing in or out, no food, no water or medical supplies or energy. Cutting off Gaza from anything and barely giving it enough to keep going. the humanitarian situation in Gaza is collapse on purpose and pure collective punishment.  The economy in Gaza before in permanent stagnation with supplies being limited. Now well everything is collapsing, it is total economic warfare. Gaza strip is only 45 miles long, between 4-7 miles wide with a population density similar to Hong Kong. 2.2 million people bordering Israel and Egypt. Most are children who currently live in the Gaza Strip. It took weeks before Egypt agreed to reopen the border for a small number of multinationals. Everybody else is trapped in.  It is impossible to avoid killing innocent civilians. Nowhere is safe, collateral damage is unavoidable. A desire for revenge on both sides is fueling escalation. Whatever sympathy existed quickly started to disappear due to the above actions.

A constant flow of air strikes over the last 5 weeks to soften up the Gaza Strip before a ground invasion. A ground invasion of the Gaza Strip, and now has cut it into two with Gaza City surrounded. With weeks worth of air strikes it is hard to believe anything left to target that and this is not mindless destruction for the sake of it. Dropping warning leaflets but nowhere for people to go. They have launched a ground invasion against a large civilian population with no food, water or fuel.

Worse still various groups have tunnel networks across the strip, some entering into Israel. Been planning for this day, stockpiled weapons and supplies to wait out any invasion. This is why water, food and fuel are being restricted. I can’t justify or support that, seems more like vengeance and fighting a losing battle. So far no sign of guerrilla warfare but with the internet access restricted and no journalists able to report we don’t know. Misinformation with disinformation with the fog of war makes the picture even harder to understand.

What happens next? A cycle of bloodshed that never ends. Netanyahu stated aim of the ground invasion was to destroy Hamas. Hamas has other plans like an endless war, into a regional conflict due to Israel’s overreaction in Gaza. Therefore breaking that status quo destroys the state of Israel in the process. So far regional conflict has been avoided. Israel’s lack of restraint is really putting pressure on avoiding that outcome. Hamas’s other goal of breaking the status quo has been a success. The reoccupation of 2 million people creates nightmares to deal with. Forced relocation would be repeating history. You can turn Gaza into ruins but against a foe who wants endless war that is a trade-off they are willing to make.

I condemn the terrorist actions of Hamas and don’t support them. My support for Israel is not unconditional. What worries me is no off-ramp for what happens next or plan. Medium-term thinking is needed and yet to see anything of the sort. The status quo can’t carry on but what comes next is going to need agreement between the Gulf states. Along with pressuring Israel into an agreement. A long-term peace agreement is required not a short-term stopgap.

Breaking down international norms, as chaos spreads with nobody enforcing the norms. Condemning is an easy action, but influencing is much harder.

Journal, Politics, Thoughts

Private schools and VAT

| admin

I have updated this post wrote it last night in a bit of a rush before bed and published it.

I’m against private schools in principle. Giving people an unfair advantage, entrenching that with a massive impact on the establishment. They are designed to keep people at the top, out of fear of people’s social class falling for their children. Will this issue shape how I vote in any future election no, other issues which are far more important to me. I would rather private schools were banned or any special treatment removed so they were no longer viable. Removing artificial social barriers is important to society. 

Rachel Reeves’s conference speech on private schools in 2021.

Right now, private schools enjoy charitable status which makes them exempt from both business rates and from VAT at a cost to the taxpayer of £1.7bn every year.

But conference here’s the truth: Private schools are not charities.

And so we will end that exemption and put that money straight into our state schools.

That is what a Labour government will do.

Two ways to interpret what Rachel said. Labour will remove charitable status or the exemptions. Two years later tax exemptions are being changed to reform private schools.

Opposition parties are reactive don’t have the ability to be proactive, and don’t have the power of government. Unable to control the narrative or pull the levers of the executive to their whims. What they talk about and give air time matters. Getting that message out is hard for opposition parties. Labour has focused on the sense of unfairness, and private schools are part of that push. Possible extra money going straight to state schools, parents have noticed schools having funding issues.

Labour’s argument is charitable status was shorthand for adding VAT to school fees. The media is reporting this as a U-turn, I don’t think it is. I do think it communication misstep by Keir.  With conference season coming soon, better to get it out with nobody listening. Not expecting voters to hear about this or notice it. I’m expecting it going be an important plank and talked about, with the Labour narrative driving the headlines.

The plan is to remove VAT exemption but leave that charitable status. Schools could get around this by lowering fees, and donations increase. Unless donations are no longer considered tax-free gifts. Therefore reducing potential VAT revenue. Changing the law can be a rather hard and time-consuming task. Simple quick fixes can leave an awful mess to clean up later. Watch this space this could join a long list. Maybe Labour plans to look at other tax exemptions.

My gut is telling me doing it matters more compared to how it is done. This is one way to implement adding VAT to school fees. They are sticking to their guns on the issue. I have a sneaky feeling voters care more about the action, the VAT tax break disappearing is easy to understand. One thing is clear this obvious difference between the main parties and Labour is sticking to it.

May not agree with final outcome. I do share deep-seated concerns about what Labour priorities are. Feeding into worse insights from a narrow group of voters and failure to control the narrative. Deeply unhappy and have not made up my mind about who I’m going to vote for in the next election.

Keir’s critics have been attacking him for ditching his leadership pledges and changing his policy platform. Some of that criticism is largely unfair, but this is another example they can use. A trade-off that leaves open an exemption, donations go up fees go down. Donations are tax-free, which helps elite older schools the most. If your ideology lean going much further you won’t be happy.

Part of me is willing to give him the benefit of the doubt. The other part of me is deeply worried that his priorities don’t align with my own. Never going to get a party that aligns 100% with your views and that’s something I’ve gotten used to. Britain won’t vote for radical revolution at the ballot box. To me seems people have yet to accept that and understand long term battle is required. Seems far too many people who frankly have not realised that and going to be disappointed until the end of time.

Path to general election has started we don’t know when.

Labour, Politics, Thoughts

Labour proposal changes to the gender recognition act

| admin

Labour proposal changes to the gender recognition

 

Anneliese Dodds shadow women and equalities secretary of the Labour Party. Writing in the Guardian plans to reform transgender rights.  Gay rights have largely been won, the queer community has moved towards transgender rights as the next campaign. Thus the opposition has moved to fight back against transgender rights. Voices have helped convince people to accept and support the movements. The trans community lacks mainstream voices but has slowly been getting heard. Often forget about when it comes to queer culture and history. The queer community has been winning the long war over social attitudes, still plenty left to do. Rolling back hard-earned rights is still possible and should be defended. Progress is slow but happening even during my lifetime the shift has been remarkable. Often we can forget just how far things have come. 

People have other priorities and don’t think about it or give a shit. One Labour MP in pink news. Labour has decided to try to neutralize the issue, to bring voters with it towards a compromise. You can disagree with that compromise but a positive first step. Instead of doing nothing, Labour has decided to have something to say. 

Conservatives’ plan is trying to divide and rally its supporters. 12 paragraphs and 3 making that point. A long history of throwing vulnerable groups into the dirt, both mainstream parties have done it. Rishi Sunak has nothing else to offer with a deeply divided party. 5 pledges looking increasingly difficult to achieve. 

Let’s go over what Dodds has written and understand the direction. Updating the Gender Recognition Act is a key plank, the wording used is important. 

 So we will modernise, simplify and reform the gender recognition law to a new process. We will remove invasive bureaucracy and simplify the process.

Modernise, simplify and reform it into a new process. Now we don’t know the details but that sounds promising. Thus removing bureaucracy and simplifying being mentioned twice is rather important.

The gender recognition act is UK-wide legislation, and updating it would apply to devolved regions.  Scotland tried last year unsuccessful update it locally, Scottish reform would impact England and Wales.

You can find my none expert summary here. I support self-ID and reforming the GRA to allow it. If the trans community wants it willing to support it. 

Highlighting the hidden constitutional truth Westminster holds control and devolution is a bit of a patchwork.  SNP purposed legislation was watertight and well-designed and had cross-party support. Dodds does a pot kettle-black moment doing the thing she earlier accused Lee Anderson of doing earlier. New purposed Scottish GRA slotted nicely into the safeguards and protections provided by the equality act. 

Disappointing hearing more misinformation, blocking the Scottish Act was on constitutional grounds. Worth keeping an eye on Labour plans for constitutional reform. 

We will not make the same mistakes. The requirement to obtain a medical diagnosis of gender dysphoria remains an important part of accessing a gender recognition certificate. That’s especially the case now that gender dysphoria is no longer classified – and stigmatised – as a psychiatric disorder. It can help refer trans people into the NHS for support services – nearly a quarter of trans people don’t know how to access transition-related healthcare. Requiring a diagnosis upholds legitimacy of applications and confidence in the system.

I don’t have experience with transgender healthcare or know how it works. Reads like a push towards easier to access healthcare, support along with training. Loads of questions here and detail will matter. However, this could be further restrictions on transgender people. With loads of mistrust about Labour’s true intentions, transphobic statements from party members.

The current process also requires a panel of anonymous doctors to decide something of momentous significance, based on reams of intrusive medical paperwork and evidence of any surgery. This is demeaning for trans people and meaningless in practice. A diagnosis provided by one doctor, with a registrar instead of a panel, should be enough.

More questions over answers here, including primary or secondary care. Waiting lists for certain specialists are years long already. The concern here is restricting care it is the real goal. Does this mean new training, advice and extra funding? Worth keeping an eye on Labour’s overall healthcare reforms. A push towards more self-referrals is part of it. 

Moreover, let me be clear: we are proud of the Equality Act and will oppose any Conservative attempt to undermine it. We will protect and uphold it in government, including both its protected characteristics and its provision for single-sex exemptions.

We need to recognise that sex and gender are different – as the Equality Act does. We will make sure that nothing in our modernised gender recognition process would override the single-sex exemptions in the Equality Act. Put simply, this means that there will always be places where it is reasonable for biological women only to have access. Labour will defend those spaces, providing legal clarity for the providers of single-sex services.

Changing how GRA works in the UK won’t impact the equality act and disinformation or misinformation to suggest otherwise. The language makes me uneasy reading it, complicated and subject full of fear on both sides. Leaves me wondering if this would be a positive step after all. I support self-ID, unsure if this would be a step towards it. Leaning towards it would be a step towards it. 

Stonewall statement

It is wrong to suggest that safeguards cannot exist with a de-medicalised model. The Scottish Gender Recognition Reform Bill was the most scrutinised piece of legislation ever passed by the Scottish Parliament and was passed by a solid majority of MSPs with support drawn from all parties.

Safeguarding was extensively considered by Scottish parliamentarians over the course of the Bill, including several amendments that were tabled and included to explicitly bolster protections. One such successful amendment was by the Scottish Conservative MSP Jamie Greene, which created a new statutory aggravation offence connected to fraudulently obtaining a GRC. The safeguards in the Scottish Bill go much further than the UK Gender Recognition Act, and are much stronger and more specific than a GP being involved in the process, as was suggested by Labour today.

Trans people’s needs and priorities along with input are required for any reform to be a success. Legal recognition is pointless without healthcare, anti-discrimination and education playing a role. The experience of the gay community shows the importance. 

Mermaids have this on GRA reform worth reading. 

Mermaids’ Manifesto for GRA Reform

Politics

Double election in May 2024?

| admin

Double election in May 2024?

I’m starting to think the next UK general election will be in May 2024. The date makes sense when you consider the current environment. A Conservative party is an unhappy place at the moment, drifting without any new ideas and doing the bare basics. Exhausted after 13 years of ruling, deeply tired after dealing with crisis after crisis. Party unity has broken down, infighting is common sometimes the party line is forgotten. The sniping between ministers or even briefing against the policy is common. Some people have their eye on the leadership of the party after the election.  It feels like a continuation of Boris Johnson’s just without the parties. Acting more like an opposition party.

May 2024 date makes sense for practical and political reasons. Holding both local and general at the same time reduces the pain from any local losses.  In practical terms, it allows you to focus the message on national issues and limits local issues. In political terms, major local losses would be painful. Thus heading into a general election would make you look divided. Conservative infighting would only get worse, forget about passing anything unpopular. Bills have already been dropped due to fears over the lack of support.

Energy supply shock has hit incomes, high inflation is causing further pain. Energy prices have decreased but remain higher by a significant amount. Largest hit to incomes in British history within the last 300 years. Looking doubtful things improve any time soon. Bank of England has raised interest rates to reduce inflation. That takes time and unclear without or not it needed to act. Rates are slowly feeding into the wider economy, and borrowing for a mortgage is much higher than before.  The average length is between 2 – 5 years majority ending in 2024.  Mortgage deals are ending with cheap rates forcing much higher rates onto borrowers. Small but highly concentrated group of voters about to get a significant income hit. Suffering from higher energy prices, inflation and much higher mortgage costs. The majority of the pain for mortgages is yet to come.

The latest date for any election is 2025, the government is already in campaign mode over running things. Rishi 5 missions look more like a campaign. Everything is pointing towards things that won’t improve by January 2025. The prime minister can pick the date and roll the dice, waiting it out could prove to be worse. Infighting within the government is looking worse every day. Some good news Boris Johnson has quit as an MP, the bad news is others are still pissing in the tent. At least that circus won’t drag on but a small number of by-elections are coming.

People are already quitting saying it has been toxic or exhausting. Tory rule has been one of crisis, far from fixing the roof been trying to keep it from flying off. The age of crisis and drama is coming to an end.

Journal, Politics

Iraq war 20 years later

| admin

Iraq war 20 years later

The US spearheaded invasion of Iraq, was controversial, happened on 20th March 2003. Completed US withdrawal from Iraq in 2011. The unwinnable war realistically was about regime change, oil supplies, and chemical/nuclear weapon security. Aim to forcibly disarm Saddam Hussain and end his active support for modern terrorism.

Saddam Hussain declared war on his neighbouring states and resorted to chemical weapons in the questionable past. Iraq’s direct invasion of Kuwait for the discovered oil fields naturally caused the Gulf War. Forcing regime change, by economic sanctions, was unsuccessful. After 9/11, it caused serious security concerns around chemical and nuclear weapons. Saddam continued to threaten to use them. Geopolitics is messy, alliances form based on common interests. Therefore, at times, rivals can be your useful friends. Global powers, like US and Russia, have as much influence as great regional powers. 

The Iraq war with Iran took place between 1980 and 1988. The war was fought over territorial disputes, religious differences, and political tensions. Iraq went to war with Kuwait over wanting to secure more oil fields. The Gulf War, which took place between 1990 and 1991, was a conflict between Iraq and a coalition of countries led by the United States. The war was fought over Iraq‘s invasion of Kuwait in August 1990. Following the war, restraint was the response, economic sanctions and inspections over weapons of mass destruction (WMD).

Western interventions helped foster a feeling they could achieve anything. A series of successful military interventions followed.

– Iraq and Iran war in the 1980s.
– Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait in 1990 caused the Gulf War. 
– UN mission to Haiti after a violent coup in 1991.
– Somali Civil War correctly saw a UN peacekeeper operation in 1992.
– Bosnian war massacres, NATO air campaign in 1995.
– Afghanistan in 1998 promptly attacking Al-Qaeda terrorist training camps.
– US-UK 4 day bombing of Iraq in 1998 over WMD concerns
– Kosovo War, NATO air campaign against Yugoslavia in 1999.
– Fierce US war against Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan, 2001

The US official policy after 1998 efficiently was regime change in Iraq. After 9/11 argument was Saddam Hussain supporting terrorists and supplying weapons. Any evidence was found linking Al-Qaeda to Iraq was weak. Any intelligence about weapons programs came from untrustworthy sources. Isolated, it was difficult to substantiate any claims. Political pressure overruled any concerns. Al-Qaeda had retreated to the mountains in Afghanistan. Americans considered this a victory. Focus switched from Afghanistan to Iraq. Liberate the Iraqi people from oppression and create a democratic state.

Americans believed the next terrorist attack would come from Iraq. Efforts were made to get support of the UN, but that failed. On March 20th, 2003, the US invaded Iraq. The aim was regime change and finding WOMD. In May 2003, Saddam Hussain’s hold on power was lost. The quick defeat of Saddam exposed lack of planning. Tensions began to raise, beginning of a civil war and insurgency. Saddam was promptly captured in December 2003.The search for weapons ended in January 2004, intelligence was completely wrong.

Clear the claims were based on faulty intel, exaggerations and lies. No WMD were ever found, no credible evidence linking Al-Qaeda to Saddam. Democracy did not bring a wave of freedom, but unleashed sectarianism and violence with chaos. Millions displaced in the years afterwards.US occupation faced fierce resistance from various groups. Creating a sense of resentment and alienation.

Trying to rebuild a society during that time full of violence outbursts. Arab enemies of the US funnelled money and weapons to create zones of influence in Iraq, turning Iraq into a regional proxy war. Iranian funded militant groups flooded into Iraq. Saddam‘s loyalists started an insurgency. Factional civil war in the shattered country, regional power vacuum allowed Islamic state to rise.

Consequences of the war include, strained relations between the US and its allies. Ended up destabilising the balance of powers, Iraq was a counterweight to Iran. The war helped fuel the rise of anti-Americanism and radicalisation among some Muslims.

As a teenager, I was against the Iraq war. I never believed the weapons of mass destruction claims and was sceptical about the claims being presented. Charles Kennedy debating the war and protests in London remains vivid memories. The Iraq war did make me question my trust in Westminster. It’s to recall what you were thinking 20 years ago.

I don’t expect the US or UK lied about the WMD. Therefore, groupthink combined with lack of critical thinking and analysis. Raw information was directly sent before any analysis or credible evidence could confirm it. The intelligence community obtained exaggerations and lies, and failed. Traditionally collecting valuable intelligence is difficult at the best of ideal times; if you demand a certain answer, you can discover it. It did reveal a fundamental weakness that has been addressed. 

Blair has argued intervention endures the valid thing to carry out, even without WMDs. That moral argument is rather weak considering various conflicts, civil wars and more the west ignored. Therefore, Iraq was much greater strategic importance due to fossil fuels. 

I however believe armed intervention merely provides a political purpose and should be used sparely. Upholding international law, typically helping properly defend independent nations from direct attack.  Does typically require a coherent set of practical aims and realistically be sole option left. Political peace can purely exist because of the offensive threat of raging war.

I don’t think the illegal war was proper. Alternatively, it has become bad a strategic blunder and moral failure. Ended up helping to spread terrorism and failed to spread democracy. Undoubtedly leaving behind an enduring legacy of considerable destruction and social division, empowered Iran in the middle east political region. 

Undoubtedly helped to merely accelerate waning American influence within global institutions. Merely demonstrating the political limits of global cooperation within regional institutions. Regional cooperation would be far better if you genuinely wanted regime change. Iraq in common was inevitably in the gradual process of forcibly disarming, and chemical weapons were old. The nuclear program had stalled because of international sanctions and attacks. 

A lasting legacy of Iraq has undoubtedly caused isolationists to typically warn against preventive intervention. It realistically was the possible start of much wider political trend, progressively weakening of global order in visible America image. Bunch more strategic failures due disunity. Creating strategic headaches, like Syria or Iran. Regional stability has been a decade old problem and it was made worse. Libya civil war did instantly see NATO-led armed action in 2011. An illegal Russian invasion of Ukraine saw a stronger response compared to Crimea in 2014. 

In conclusion it was an illegal war. Intervention has a place. 

Journal, Politics

Palace of Westminster

| admin

Palace of Westminster

The UK Parliament is in a state of disrepair. The majestic Victorian building requires major work. It was first built in 1016, current structure is Victorian 1840. Damaged during WW2, can find details about it here and here. Rebuilt after WW2, Victorian design remained untouched. Over time, it has developed many hidden dangers, such as asbestos, fire hazards and structural defects. Temporary fixes have kept it functioning, but they are insufficient to prevent further deterioration.

Members of Parliament know about the problems, but they have postponed. They have spent years considering the same options: whether to remain in the building while it is being fixed, or to relocate temporarily or permanently. During 2018 debated Restoration and Renewal Programme, voting to temporality move out. After five years of indecision, they scrapped the sponsor body that was supposed to oversee the project and decided to bring it in-house.

However, this could result in a delay that could inflict huge permanent damage on the historic building. Kicking the issue into the next parliament. Westminster’s design is deeply flawed by modern standards. It lacks adequate fire safety measures, ventilation systems and accessibility features. The whole process of repairing stone, art and basic systems is complex and expensive. Conservatives are destroying the very thing they claim to love. No desire to preserve the Victorian palace of Westminster.

One option that has been suggested is decanting Parliament, which means moving its functions outside the main building while it undergoes restoration and renewal. This would make the project cheaper, safer and faster than staying put. Restoration and renewal would involve replacing existing systems that are outdated or unsafe with more efficient and reliable ones. Maintenance at present is costly and only delays a more comprehensive solution.

My own opinion is that Parliament should move out permanently and find a new location that better suits its modern needs. The palace should be turned into a museum that displays its history and significance for the public. Westminster is an icon of London and a symbol of democracy. The building and what it stands for are well-known, but it does not have to be limited by its past.

Some of the factors that may influence this decision are: accessibility, affordability, availability, security and symbolism. Here are some of the potential candidates for a new parliamentary site:

York has been proposed as a possible location by Prime Minister Rishi Sunak. It is a historic city close to the geographic centre of England with good transport links to the rest of the country. It would require upgrading infrastructure to accommodate parliament and its associated functions. The city may lack the space and the estimated cost is £3 billion.

Manchester has also been suggested as a possible location. It is a modern city considered the capital of Northern England with good transport links to the rest of the country. It has hosted major events like the Commonwealth Games and the G7 summit. It has the infrastructure to accommodate parliament but may lack the space. The estimated cost is £2 billion. There may be competition from other nearby cities such as Liverpool or Leeds.

Birmingham is another option. It is the second-largest city in England with a diverse population and a reputation for culture. It is well connected to the rest of England and has hosted events like Manchester has done. It already has the infrastructure but may lack political support. A new parliamentary complex in Birmingham is estimated at £1 billion.

Need to offer local housing for MPs. Every MP has unique circumstances, families of different sizes. There could be other alternatives depending on feasibility, affordability, desirability and acceptability. The cost of the project is huge ranging from £3 to £77 billion. Until work begins we won’t know the real cost. Westminster’s decay feels similar to politics at present: unable to discuss policy instead focusing on division over problem-solving. Part of broader trend, lack of scrutiny.

The next government is going to have to deal with a crumbling parliament. Both mainstream parties have a consensus: something must be done. Parties are seriously thinking about devolution. Moving parliament would show they are serious about that. Devolution is going to play an important role going forward, aiming to decentralise the UK. There is a broad direction pointing that way, but no agreement on the fine details.

The next parliament is will be one dealing with crisis. Therefore would need to restore trust in British politics. Period of renewal not just Westminster but public service. Decaying palace is an reflection.

Politics

Nicola Sturgeon resigns

| admin

Nicola Sturgeon resigns

Nicola Sturgeon announced she resigning as first minster, along with leader of the SNP. Lifelong career in politics, she decided it is time to leave on her terms. Style was professional, measured and straight to the point. Sense of duty that sometimes is lacking from others. Able to switch between sounding human, giving detailed information in a clear way. During dark early days of covid she was a shining light on what to do. Compared to Boris Johnson he looked out of his depth.

One of the best communicators in decades British politics has seen. Sharp contrast to many other politicians, popular figure within and outside the party. I quite liked her for a number of reasons. I respected her, don’t fully agree with her politics.

Party crafted a space within left, centre left with centre of Scotland. Replacing Labour in minds of voters as being the progressive choice. Attracting a wide range of voters, some with social conservatives’ views. How she approached disagreement, creating bridges and finding common ground something that is often missing in English politics.

Scottish politics still had toxic elements but largely it was restricted to certain debates. Above all else Scottish parliament offers a blueprint for how politics can be done. Working with your opponents to help craft legislation. Even with SNP being a majority it still worked with opponents to create bills. Able to strengthen institutions and overall empowering Scotland. Westminster never really understood how to deal with Scotland or engage with it. SNP dominated the landscape during her leadership.  Longest serving first minster and first women in the role. Many reasons why it was time to leave, wanted to avoid being a divisive figure. Resignation statement makes clear just how draining and brutal it can be. History going to view her with kindness. 

Support for independence remains not a solid majority but has crystalized a minority. Nicola, understand you needed a majority not just a thin one. Independence being the core aim, she no longer believes she can carry the flag or deliver it. I believe in the union but understand it needs to change.

It would be foolish to believe the indepedence disappears overnight. I don’t think sudden recovery happens overnight for Labour. SNP are firmly now the establishment, that makes it hard to paint the party as outsiders. Record highs they enjoy are unlikely to remain forever. No party has a right to exist.

Now a new guard takes over, with no successor in sight process to select a new leader for Scotland begins.

Journal, Labour, Politics

Update: Outcomes of a general election

| admin

Last year in June I wrote, the outcome of the next general election has various scenarios.

First a quick recap on what has happened, the scandal train forced Boris out bringing down his govt and setting records. Liz Truss became prime minister and the Queen died, budget caused market panic and forced Liz Truss to resign after 44 days. Rishi sunak becomes prime minister after losing to Liz Truss, dealing with the mess and chaos. Internal and external shocks have battered the ruling party. Turmoil has been corrosive, with negative views about Boris soaking into the party brand. A trend that started a year before. Liz Truss’s short stay at number 10 just compounded what was happening. A slowing economy and high inflation added to the pile of unpopularity.

All of this has slowly been eating away at hard-earned favourable, now Labour is more trusted in everything. The golden goose that is economic competence is well now Labours. Soft leads that can harden with time. Even with polling leads and positive leaning favourable ratings, recovery for Labour would be remarkable. Labour has been declining from 2001 till 2019. Could argue the decline goes further back, with cultural link to Labour being weak. Labour needs more of every type of voter to close the gap. Tories have been able to reinvent themselves, transferring wealth to voters and keeping others indifferent.

Conservatives have created a cushion, a voter coalition built over the last two decades that deliver seats.  A base that is reliable, older homeowners and professionals. Labour on the other hand base is unreliable and not as evenly spread across seats. Suffering various forms of collapse, former safely reliable seats disappeared. A big problem is the volatility of voting patterns. Long-term trends speed up creating some wild results.

A general rule of thumb 6.5% swing against the current govt happens on average. Swing that size wipes out the current 80-seat majority, Rishi inherited. In the last decade, they have been gaining ground, and Labour has been losing ground. Keir needs a 15% swing or more needed for a majority of 1. It needs to gain 120 seats for a majority of one.  Therefore, we are about 3-4 cycles away from the new govt. You would think but the 2020s have been defined by disruption.

Blair was able to achieve 10.5% but needed 55 seats for a majority. Target seats during 1997 were far easier to pick up compared to today. A mix of indifference towards Blair plus an average swing of 14% towards Labour saw 150 seats gained.

Right now, the key points are the following

  • Labour in 2024 is fighting from a low point
  • Tories in 2024 are fighting from a high point
  • New seat boundaries
  • Voter ID laws
  • Polling leads between 14% to 22%
  • 16% swing from Tory to Labour
  • 20% / 30% won’t vote or unsure
  • Indifference to a labour govt

The trend against the Tories started back in 2021, volatility has only increased. Near universal increase in support for Labour across all age groups. Holding a majority with voters under the age of 50 now. Over the 50s are moving towards Labour, and those over 60s remain firmly Tory. Based on an average vote of 35,000, any seat with 15,000 majorities is within reach for Labour. Swings can be widely different between areas. Universal swings can only tell half the story, sometimes local swings can be much bigger. Once safe seats become way less safe overnight.

Here are the 8 outcomes, volatility in recent elections means they are all possible. The first four options are looking unlikely now.

  1. 80+ seat Tory majority
  2. 40+ seat Tory majority
  3. Small Tory majority
  4. Hung parliament another election
  5. Minority government
  6. Formal coalition
  7. Small Labour majority
  8. 40+ Labour majority

Trends at the moment make it impossible to see a Tory majority being returned. Party is unpopular and votes feel worse off. Labour has a mountain to climb, hung parliament or minority administration is possible. Massive recovery makes the party more competitive but unable to win enough seats. Seat totals mask a great set of results and major recovery. Some positive signs but still remain sceptical about current large poll leads. Huge levels of volatility within polls, something else could happen. Been here before unpopular govt big poll leads that disappeared. However current deficit makes it look unlikely Rishi can see a recovery. Loss of trust across a wide range of issues and feeling change is required. This time it could be different, voters as a whole are feeling the pain. Therefore I’m starting to think that the hung parliament and the big majority are being underpriced. Possible that after almost 15 years, collapse happens with Tories taking a big hit.

Anything from the 4th to 8th option looks likely.

Politics

ID cards compromise for a liberal immigration system?

| admin

ID cards compromise for a liberal immigration system?

Immigration and migration are signs of success economy. A small number of people migrate, moving for work or looking for a new home. The vast majority of people don’t move that far from where they are born. Big cities draw people in for work before they settle in urban areas nearby. Education opens up opportunities, others stay closer to home.

The movement of people even at an internal level is small. External populations don’t move on mass unless they are forced to. Nobody questions people moving from cities to towns, but they do question foreign-born citizens coming here. The reason is simple people don’t like the unknown. In reality, you have more in common with them than billionaires or millionaires who own various media platforms.

The political establishment has made legal routes, costly plus time-consuming. Basically, creating a system that incentivizes the rich or middle class to use it. Crafting an impression that they want to reduce migration, but in reality, no desire at all to do it. A shrinking labour force is never a good thing. Restricting the supply of labour even further would be terrible news.

Using every single lever possible to undermine the immigration system. Reducing resources for the asylum seekers, dehumanizing the legal route. Creating unsafe routes only real way in. At the same time created a toxic system that treats people badly. Gangs exist due to a lack of legal safe easy routes for many people to take. Most people crossing channels in small boats are asylum seekers. Taking the risky deadly trip, doing nothing wrong. Highly driven people who you want in the UK.

Speaking of the asylum system has slowly been degraded. The number of people applying is static, compared to others smaller than average. Therefore, current problems are a due backlog of cases not being decided within 6 months. On-purpose delays are designed to push people away. We could let people work as cases are decided but we don’t.

Sometimes problems are complicated, often lacking any solutions. As it turns out-migration is one of the problems. You can create a system that is safer, and easier to use with lower barriers. Or could create a system that treats people like animals and a problem. I rather treat people how I would like to be treated because one day, the UK could find itself at the other end of the stick.

The unique thing about the UK is the lack of a universal identity card system. Have a patchwork system with certain services restricted already. The state is already powerful enough can oppress citizens or none citizens if it wanted. Therefore, the tools already exist, for an authoritarian regime to abuse the tools. Already a push at the moment for voter ID checks to come into force.

Could create a card system that allows for an amnesty to happen. Easier enforcement at the cost of civil liberties, not a fan but would help. Given the scale of identity, checks don’t think civil liberties are the problem here. Created a society that outsources most of the functions of government to private businesses.

I have slowly changed my mind about ID cards. Why I think it could lead to a more liberal and sensible immigration system. The issue is less important and most voters feel the UK has restored control. Vibe-based policymaking has been powerful in recent times. Recent newspaper highlights have not helped with the idea the govt is incompetent, painting the picture of an uncontrolled mess. ID cards can help reassure voters, govt has a grip. Opening up the way for a more flexible and liberal system. Possibly you could see freedom of movement return in a future labour govt policy mix.

Voter ID does come to pass ID cards could help stop discriminating against some groups. I do recognise that most voters are more authoritarian than me. Simply dismissing the idea can lead to some horrible outcomes. The price worth paying for a kinder approach. Without losing the ability to implement a more liberal policy.

Labour is trusted, ID cards could seal voters’ trust in the party on immigration. Could end up being a compromise worth considering. Labour caution so far is worrying me but I can understand why.

Politics

Age of disruption

| admin

Age of disruption

Legacy of GFC and Thatcher reforms

After the great financial crisis, the UK has underperformed and never fully recovered. Many parts of the UK have never recovered from repeated shocks. Failure to address the imbalance has created deep scars. Nations around the world share similar problems but tried to fix them. Economic inequality has major negative outcomes. The UK is looking at two lost decades of wage growth, and dozens of structural problems that are hard to fix. Deregulation with light touch regulation has created low competition. State intervention has become a sticking plaster for fundamental problems.

Margaret Thatcher’s early years saw unpopular reforms first before sharing the benefits later. Of course, the reforms she did, caused huge amounts of pain. She accelerated trends against unproductive industry and sold off public owned assets. Took years before the fruits of the reforms took hold. Therefore Thatcher benefited from the business cycle returning back. She did however cause a massive set of problems for future prime ministers. She created a class of income poor but asset rich workers. Thatcher did create regulators that went with the light-touch approach.

A dream turned nightmare with unproductive vested interests returning. Markets have become dominated by small groups of companies with little or no competition. Public-owned companies have become private unproductive companies with no competition. Weak labour market regulation did create cheap labour by the backdoor. UK workers on average are poorer than European workers. Globalisation saw many benefits, cheap goods created a wave of low inflation. Central banks believed they had control over the levers of inflation.

New Labour riding the Thatcher wave

New Labour decided to ride the wave Thatcher helped create. Economic boom allowed for lower taxes, Blair did some unpopular reforms. Labour did however invest into public services, day to day spending funded by tax increases. Brown like many others had fiscal rules to help guide policy. Party did loads to help the poorest. Leaving in place the fundamental changes that allowed more homeowners to exist and inflate the asset prices further. Some of the more difficult reforms ended up being to scrapped. Blair and Brown funded infrastructures projects to boost growth. Much of new Labour legacy destroyed outside handful of reforms. Brown supply side reforms like minium wage have stood the test of time.

Open secret the conservatives wanted to cut spending, blamed New labour for the great financial crisis. Brown allowed Cameron to craft a narrative Labour spending was to blame. Financial crash was caused by bankers, inflated assets with high risk borrowing. Bubble burst with assets falling in price, banks cut lending due lacking the cash to cover the losses. Financial sector was bailed out before it would seize up. Reform came to reduce the risk in the system, patch work but better than nothing.

Cameron / Osborne ideology debt rules

Cameron / Osborne solution was cutting public spending. Poorest in society ended up taking the bulk of the burden. The pair reduced the size of the state to kick start the economy. Not exactly kicked started the economy, helped to stall the recovery until they slowed down the pace of cuts. Various economic numbers have stalled or failed to meet the historic trends.

Conservative’s self-made rules have been changed before,  no reason why debt-to-GDP could not be stable. The choice was made ratio of debt-to-GDP has to come down. Rules are designed to create some stability and credibility behind a political choice Tories have chased from 2001 onwards. George Osborne’s office of budget responsibility has highlighted the choice before. Osborne decided to promote tax cuts for the middle class and wealthy when he could get away with it.

UK like many other nations enjoyed record low rates on borrowing for over a decade during a period of low growth. Failed to invest during this perfect time, much needed reforms got ignored or kicked into the long grass. The UK is set to have lost two decades of economic performance and face huge drags in growth. Result is public services without capacity or resilience needed against shocks. 12 years of pain for no real benefit. Client journalists have repeated the lie that things must be this way. Alternatives do exist but nobody must be informed about them.

Boris Brexit size hole and Truss gone

Cameron failure over party management, ruined his career and caused brexit to happen. Three prime ministers in a row grasped the brexit mandate. Briefly Cameron held an EU referendum, lost it and quit. Unable to control eurosceptic flank, too a gamble and lost.

May flirted with eurosceptic flank, tried create internal coalition within the party that could support brexit. She took a gamble for an election and lost her majority.  Once again failing at party management after crafting hard red lines making any deal impossible.

Johnson came along with Irish sea border deal nobody could support before and passed it. Clown was crippled by crisis, poor at party management. Party animal that was Johmson, lied and cheated his way to the top. Defeated by his own hubis, whole government resigned and forced Boris to quit.

Truss quickly came to power and quickly resigned. One budget promising growth without hard work, tax cuts for the rich. Helped to cause market turmoil pushed up borrowing costs and caused mortgage rates to skyrocket.

Rich Rishi has come yet another Oxford graduate who has his fingers over this mess. At the time of writing he still prime minster.

Age of disruption came from with the conservative

Various choices therefore, the result is a shortfall of about £35 to 50 billion, extra money is wiggle room.  Just in case the magic growth fairy fails to visit. Structual weakness UK has underperformed and never fully recovered. Moron risk premium has now been applied to the UK. Goverment job is lender of last resort against shocks that happen, things like covid or recessions. More growth means less tax revenue is required. Brexit created trade barriers helping to fuel already poor growth of the UK economy has resulted in a bigger shortfall. Increasing growth means more tax revenue but supply-side reforms like a more liberal planning system are badly needed.

British politics has created a toxic trap, incentives against doing painful but much-needed reforms. An endless cycle of cutting just means worse public services that cost more in the long run. Big failure over last couple of decades have been not building enough. Anti growth coalition Liz Truss talked about includes Tory voters, mainly older homeowners who block things getting done. Older voters dislike doing what is required to help younger workers who fund their retirement. Poorer workers now is storing up poorer retired pensioners in the future. Older voters who are insulated took a gamble on brexit. Breaking that cycle is important and necessary.

Question and answer

Current drags on UK growth are dysfunctional housing market, poor infrastructures and planning system.  Liz Truss was right to focus on the UK poor performance and lack of growth, Tories have helped fuel that.

Housing market has become an asset that sucks money from more productive things. Bursting that bubble requires slowly decreasing prices, needs bold tax reform and changing incentives.

Infrastructure like roads, homes and other services needs to be built. In order to sustain the current growing population or even aging population. At the same time

Planning reform that allows stuff to built takes forever to build anything in the UK due locals blocking. Cities unable to expand due green belt or locals blocking developments. Sometimes good reason for delays, like environment issues or flooding concerns.

Politicans are reflecting what voters tell them they want. Often that is dangerous and contradictory. Leaving many good set of policies in the bad sell pile. Channelling Cameron here with some hard truths that are unpopular could allow us to break that cycle. Does mean breaking the long term hold certain groups of voters have over politics. The planets sake rebuilding the system is needed. Otherwise the planet may give us giant shock and even bigger disruption.

Dysfunctional British parliament is a symptom of the British voters contradictory desires. Liz Truss asked the right question but gave the wrong answers. World is growing older and UK won’t remain attractive problems remain.