Category: Politics

Labour

Post-election thoughts – 2017

| admin

Post-election thoughts – 2017

Okay, so GE2017 happened, time to address why we lost. Conservatives are weak won’t remain that way for long. Future campaigns won’t be fighting on the same battle lines as now. Rules could have changed we won’t know yet. Party needs to look at what we did right and wrong. Many non-Corbyn supporters are willing to join the tent. Both sides must stop calling each other names creating real unity. From my own experience this already the case at a local level.

Corbyn now has to beat this result and towards a majority. Created a list of potential challenges standing in his way.

  • Daily politics duties – Bringing the energy from the campaign back to Westminster. Effective opposition picking smart battles and being nimble. Opening up the tent listening to criticism.
  • Looking competent – Looking like a government in waiting.
  • Start treating the British people as grown-ups – Case to be made about popular things and unpopular choices.
  • Brexit something has to give.
  • Winning over Labour to Tory voters

Look forward to answers Labour brings to the table.

Politics, Thoughts

Brexit freedom from?

| admin

Freedom of choice, freedom of speech, an interesting concept.  Many want freedom but freedom from what? How much freedom can one person gain?

According to Micheal Caine leaving the European union was about freedom.  Freedom from the European Union. Unknown what he meant by that statement.  Requires him to defined what he means by European union. Many Brexitterers want free trade with Europe by adding barriers.  Certain that goes against the definition of free trade. Protectionist trade policies do not equal free trade.  State aid won’t save jobs or create new ones.  Worth pointing out that global rules in place on state aid. For all it faults capitalism markets have not destroyed jobs without creating new ones.

Trading requires considerable confidence in each other. Unfortunately, bodies are required to oversee any deals plus deal with disputes.  Legal standpoint it impossible to be free and trade with Europe.  An outdated inaccurate concept which has not been possible for 400 hundred plus years. The legal system does not work based on feeling less sovereignty.

Which why the current solution exists in legal terms.  European court of justice is that body which deals with trade disputes. United Kingdom government red line is European court of justice acting as that body.  Unknown why this position was taken, red line limits what the United Kingdom can achieve. Forces the creation of new body independent of the European court.  Funny enough adds more red tape many claims they want to remove.

Paradox can’t have absolute legal sovereignty if you wish to trade.  Trading requires you givve up some sovereignty. Which begs the question freedom from what? Freedom from trading with the rest of the world?

Journal, Politics

Britain not feeling so good right now

| admin

Britain not feeling so good right now.  General feel things are not good. General public voted to leave the European union.  Based on polling data largely driven by feeling.  Term generation snowflake looks like it has spread across various generations. Inconvenient truth democracy only works if you can change your mind with freedom of ideas.  A far bigger act of bad faith not to open the door to stopping Brexit. Valuable lesson people are not rational and driven by feelings. The government should not hold referendums.

Something sounds too good to be true, it probably is, if

United kingdom has yet to fully recover from 2008.  Many people are still feeling the effects of the 2000s. Not hard to understand why many voted for unicorns and rainbows.  Feeling things are bad why not take a gamble to improve things.  Why the idea of change can be so powerful. Not all leave voters are the same.  The majority was created from a range of groups/ages.

Some want a bigger state or more state control.  Expecting the state to do a better job compared to the free market. Some feel like the United kingdom was powerless within the European union.  Yet support the United kingdom being in other global groups.  Some leavers who wish protect certain industries. Some who want a return to the past.  Some wanted less immigration.

Rainbow coalition, however, feels worse off now compared to before. Unclear rejection of whatever has made them feel worse.  Misdirected anger towards somebody.  Obvious now that decade making Europe a key issue with immigration would cause this.  Combined with a stupid fiscal policy which made people worse off and feels worse off.

Still, view Brexit as a pointless act of self-harm to make you feel better.  Burning the house down due not liking the carpet you picked out. Great depression which has clouded the greatness of the United Kingdom.   Everything that was built is now at very serious risk for no gain.

A50 was sent 4 days ago, goals the Government wanted are ruined.  European union has signaled won’t budge on any of them. Destroying two successful economic/political unions because you feel bad.  Removing freedom to work/live/travel in Europe because you feel like immigration is the problem.  Won’t be silent over this.  Now it time to find a way unite people back together and make them feel better.   Living in the digital age of feelings.

Labour, Politics

10 questions for Corbyn supporters – Labour

| admin
  1. How do you rebuild bridges within the Labour party?
  2. How do you rebuild trust within the Labour party?
  3. How do you build bridges with Tory-leaning voters?
  4. How do you rebuild trust with Tory-learning voters?
  5. How does Labour gain trust on the economy?
  6. How does Labour gain trust on Brexit?
  7. How does Labour change the conversation?
  8. Do you see Labour winning next GE?
  9. Have you done any canvassing?
  10. How involved are you with the party?
Economics, Journal, Politics, Thoughts

Sovereignty and trade thoughts

| admin

Time to talk about sovereignty and trade. The concept of sovereignty causes some rather big problems with trade. Binary version has not existed for hundreds of years.

Hundreds of years nations have transferred sovereignty, allowing standardisation. By doing this allowed nations to trade with each other.  On much smaller scale nations have done the same thing. Towns can trade with each other, reducing barriers causing freedom of capital or labour.  The relationship which has become a permanent feature.  Trade is very closely linked to distance.  Towns miles apart deal more trade with each other.  Local companies trade with each other more over international trade.  Opening up markets have provided them with more opportunities.  Small towns have followed rules set by bigger towns in order to trade. A core principle is required to trade. Standard is set everybody follows that standard to trade. Not by accident can order 10Kg worth of cocoa butter from Japan. Ultimately providing massive wealth to everybody.

Recent years has been calls to restore sovereignty.   Which must mean people want the breakup of the United Kingdom.  Towns split up into groups implement their own parliaments.  Standards disappear due voiding sovereignty.  Trade between towns stops, as a result, everybody gets poorer.  Sovereignty like that is rather outdated, incompatible with any economy.

White paper on Brexit covered the subject of sovereignty. United kingdom just like every town already has absolute sovereignty.

2.1 The sovereignty of Parliament is a fundamental principle of the UK constitution. Whilst Parliament has remained sovereign throughout our membership of the EU, it has not always felt like that.

Government just admitted it straight to the point in absolute certainty. The goal has already been completed yet is included in the aims.

Nobody is calling for the breakup of United kingdom apart from some nationalist parties.  Impact on trade would be massive due to more barriers.  Imagine having to visit customs office every time went into a town. Moving the economy towards the more protectionist model. Many Brexiters claim it would result in a freer trade policy.  Reality would not result in more free trade but less of it.

A couple of questions start to appear.

  • What do people mean by sovereignty?
  • How do people seek to restore sovereignty?
  • How can this policy result in freer trade if we put up barriers?
  • So what do people want to achieve?
  • What does more control mean?

Leaving the European Union seeks to reduce United Kingdom influence.  Transferring sovereignty back reduces direct influence. General public wanted more control, the United Kingdom is getting less. An analogy would be one council leaving a large council group for more funding.  Yet that won’t happen due being a smaller voice. Expect vast majority of people voted with hearts over brain. Obvious that you gain less power/influence. Barriers to trade would cause long term damage and reduce economic growth.  Great act of self-harm which undermines your own desired outcome.

Indicating take back control argument is an emotional cultural response.  Voters wanted to take back control many would be calling for constitutional reform.  The massive amount of mistrust means many don’t trust politicians.  War of misinformation around Europe with over one decade of focus has not helped.  Blaming policy decisions taken in Westminster, on somebody else avoiding blame. Angry at the system lacking trust, that people don’t share the same values or goals.  A massive amount of vision helped create the world around us now many want to set it on fire.

Transferring sovereignty has helped share British values.  Creating wealth for many opening up many opportunities.  Don’t think we need have a debate on the subject. Tackle the problem at its roots. Dealing directly with any grievances.  Requires dealing with the problem not, the symptom.

References

White paper

Journal, Labour, Politics, Thoughts

Brexit – more thoughts this time on the white paper

| admin

The political landscape, defined by a single issue.  Europe has now taken centre stage thanks to David Cameron. Leaving European union likely have major negative consequences.  United kingdom is deeply entangled with European union. The task of leaving won’t be easy or simple.

A single policy defined landscape twice in a row.  The fiscal policy took centre stage defined the decade. Deeply the tight fiscal policy caused long-term economic damage.  Twice the Labour party lost trust on the single issue of the day. Twice Labour lost as the result.  Politicians are betting heavily to be rewarded for supporting this single issue.  History shows us that many are walking into the same traps. Blamed for failures not sharing any success from the policy.  Supporting it but failing to move the overton windows more towards their view.  Ultimately failing to do their job correctly.

MPs who support are faced with explaining negative consequences away.  Voters may not take kindly to falling living standards.  Could end up blaming you for the decision. Being told you voted for it, we knew of the damage it would do but vote for me.  Another side of the table many who support European membership, may take revenge later down the line. Both mainstream leaders could face serious battles over the direction.  Remain supporting MPs in areas voting to leave could lose seats.  Regardless if they support article 50, being blamed for a poor exit.  Future leadership candidates could be defined by how they voted.  Leave supporting MPs could be rejected due to the negative consequences. Iraq war leaves a similar mark on the landscape.

Iraq war was given far more scrutiny.  Misinformation drummed up support, a majority supported the war.  Now that majority has disappeared with many unwilling to challenge the decision.  General public began to mistrust the Labour party as a result. Helped put the Labour party back in opposition. Defining the Labour leadership contest which gave Corbyn power. Conservatives likely suffer the same fate. Conservatives have avoided negative consequences due to fiscal policy. Remains to be seen if the party can repeat that over Europe.

Britain representative democracy elected to make decisions for people. Sometimes going against what popular opinion but is the right choice. The general population are not asked about every single issue. Following an advisory referendum undermines this relationship.  No longer in favour offering any referendums due to volaite natural of them.  Deeply concerning appears populist politics has hit Westminster.  An advisory referendum on capital punishment with the same margin would Westminster be rushing ahead with approving it?  Remember no white paper until after you voted, no overseer of the plan.  The government has published the white paper after the vote. Unknown how prepared white hall is on the subject. Prime minister having full power and control being unchecked.

Against triggering of article 50 for these reasons.

  • Artificial timetable
  • No white paper until after MPs voted
  • No committees debating the white paper
  • No committee overseeing the process during and after
  • No cross-party overseer
  • Lacking answers on various issues around A50. Can it be stopped can we rejoin.
  • Bypassing normal policy creation
  • Advisory referendum
  • Plan is unknown won’t be seen until a deal is made
  • White hall is unprepared and understaffed/funded
  • Devolved administration are excluded n the process
  • Alternative ignores

Artificial timetable done for domestic political reasons.  German/French elections are due to happen this year. Makes no sense to rush ahead given that information.  End up wasting one-quarter of the time given to you. Control is taken away from Britain not given to it.

Sovereignty argument is destroyed by the white paper.

2.1 The sovereignty of Parliament is a fundamental principle of the UK constitution. Whilst Parliament has remained sovereign throughout our membership of the EU, it has not always felt like that.

A goal is already achieved, how can be core principle set out in the white paper. MPs elected represented, decided not use these rights have some say. Not been given further say in the process.  Process on the table excludes them from having any impact.  MPs are running out of time have any real say at all.  Further undermining Britain representative democracy.  So much for giving control back to the people.  Claiming blocking article 50 is undemocratic should look at the undemocratic process ongoing.

Hold out little to no hope that Britain moves towards the fairer better system. Why I expect no social revolution due leaving the European union. British like to kick things down the road no matter the cost. Possible we’re moving closer towards leaving the European union in this case.  Would take decades given deep connections made across institutions. A legal system has become deeply bonded together. Major constitutional problems facing us which we kicked down the road.

Constitutional problems ahead here a list.

  • Devolved administration unequal partners.
  • Lack of check/balances on executive power
  • Process is not clearly defined or strong enough
  • Institutions are not fully independent
  • Margin is not required to rule
  • Advisory referendum can impact policy decisions
  • United kingdom union is at risk

The whole thing looks like one giant political/economical disaster, waiting to happen. Fail to understand how any rational person can support it. Reading the white paper majority of issues, now subject to discussion. White paper fails to offer any real solutions.  Note the united kingdom wants to trigger article 50 in march.  No real scrutiny is being applied to any of this.  British have great habit kicking away awkward questions this no different.

Now time to ask some awkward questions over my support of the European union.  I support the European union due thinking it the natural conservative choice.  How much do I value the union? Unsure of the answer being honest.  Like united kingdom union don’t give it blanket support.  Feel it is important just like Christian values. Not practising Christian for anybody who is curious.   A concept is deeply important to me along with the process.  Unhappy with current European union but current structure does work.  Likewise unhappy with current united kingdom structure.  Yet don’t desire to break up the unions.  Both have been successful even with some poor policy choices. Don’t see how further centralization by leaving the European union would help us.

Looking forward things don’t look so bright.  I see no answers on the table no reason to push ahead.

 

Journal, Labour, Politics, Thoughts

Brexit same deficit trap again

| admin

Keir Starmer holding government to account over Brexit. Showing how the real opposition would do it.

The whole opposition should be focused solely on Brexit. Not against it, tearing apart the choices made. Turn Brexit into a single issue like the deficit. Can’t discuss anything else until you know about Brexit. Start doing that can rebuild voters trust in the party.

Don’t believe Corbyn is capable or interested. Instead of party making deficit same mistake twice. Leadership including Mcdonnell and Watson should share the blame.

Weakness won’t be rewarded.

Journal, Politics

Thoughts on inheritance

| admin

IThoughts on inheritance

Earned income subject to taxes, unearned income not taxed.  Not strictly true yet latter is historical less taxed.  Work is a rather modern invention,  income linked to work.  Taxes have been around for hundreds of years.  Bringing us to inheritance tax. A high amount of resistance to the idea.  The moral point of view no entitlement on wealth.  Inheritance is unearned wealth.  Political inconvenience to talk about taxes.   Political language turned taxes into the negative thing.  Taxes fund items society wants or demands.   An application can have major positive/negative impacts.

Personal wealth is fine, therefore inheritance.  Inheritance like any wealth should be subject to taxes. Social care costs should be taken from any inheritance.  Wealth is fine but funds any extra costs.  Some people want to keep inheritance does not pay any tax.  Letting the state subsidized the inheritance. Increasing children’s future tax bill, paying for tax-free inheritance gift. Living beyond their own means passing the cost to somebody else.  Do have a big problem with refusing to pay taxes.  Yet claiming all the benefits.

The moral duty to pay taxes when gained wealth from the system.  Inheritance is not a human right. Not everybody is capable of gathering wealth together.  Creating some form of inheritance.  The only small group can gather enough to form any sort of inheritance.  Did nothing to earn that wealth. Reject this not just on moral grounds but deeply irresponsible.  Reinforcing structural imbalances hurting social mobility. 

The biggest source of unearned income is housing.  High yield investment many don’t want to pay any tax. Did nothing to earn that wealth. A debate is required on nature of work at some point.  increase in value should be taxed.  Political impossible to talk about this hidden truth.  Must be addressed at some point. No evidence unearned income is productive.   Some evidence heavy focus on housing has negative impacts.

Politicians unwilling to challenge newspapers.  Claiming inheritance tax is deeply unfair. The mainstream center won’t reject this populist nonsense.  Right wing pundits claimed left wanted to tax/spend.  Left has been the unable challenge this in face of right spending without taxing correctly. Some on the left been willing to challenge this thinking. Turns out it was rather responsible thinking. Given the fiscal arguments presented by some.  An argument against inheritance tax breaks down when talking about fiscal responsibility.

Brief note on fiscal responsibility. Makes sense during a time of fiscal constraints.  Seek out sources of wealth/income. Money can be found to pay for public services.  Society has a moral duty to offer certain services.  Society faces a choice what wants to spend money on.  Down to the Government to provide for these voices. Questions should be asked about everything. Including how these programs are funded who paying for it.

Fiscal responsibility is code for irresponsibility. So-called fiscal constraints have driven certain spending choices. Unable to question certain choices. Avoiding the debate hoping it would pass. Willing to give away billions without questions.  Increasing tax bills for the future. Transferring wealth reinforcing structural imbalances.  Claiming debt is a problem yet willing to increase future tax bills.  Passing the cost towards somebody else. 

Inheritance tax is a necessary thing.  Social care costs deducted from any inheritance.  The right thing to do during a time of fiscal constraints. Seek out sources of wealth/income. Redistribution between haves and have-nots. The argument against inheritance tax breaks down when talking about fiscal responsibility.  Comes down to political choice over fiscal responsible.  

Should challenge the choices made over-demonize the system.

Brexit, Journal, Politics, Thoughts

EU referendum day after what would you do?

| admin

EU referendum day after what would you do?

June 23rd 2016 Britain voted to leave European union.  Months later still no clue what leaving means.  Time for uninformed opinion on what politicians should have done.

  • Britain voted for change,  now in hands of politicians.
  • Leaving is complex would take decades.
  • Leaving completely is not possible.
  • Should be reviewed with politicians asking the public at every step.
  • Running commentary should happen.
  • Negotiations should be made public.
  • No fixed timetable, no sudden change in policy.
  • Can’t leave Europe due how gravity works.
  • Process should be started should not take over Government policy.

Brexit, Journal, Politics, Thoughts

Dealing with Brexit

| admin

Dealing with Brexit

Politics is all about choices.  David Cameron made couple choices, regarded as major mistakes. Policy failures having major negative consequences.  Not allowing civil servants to plan for Brexit. Letting Europe dictate party policy.  Theresa may have mishandled Brexit. Making similar mistakes which destroyed David Cameron. Fixed timetable forced both to follow not lead.  Europe could make or break her. 

Regardless if you support in, out reviewed.  Alternatives reviewed seeking ease any concerns.  Subject to scrutiny from institutions designed to make decisions.  Policy rushed or based on public opinion is incorrect.  Public could turn on Theresa may.

What should Theresa may have done?

  • No fixed timetable on article 50
  • Answer questions about article 50 in detail
  • Answer constitutional questions
  • Setup the process about leaving, correct level of preparation.
  • Begin preparation letting civil servants do their job.
  • Have clear plan for every stage

Any speech Theresa may should stated support for Brexit.  Conditions around this support, letting institutions begin work. Stating the Government position review European relations, no changes to relations at the moment.  Realistic rushing would be major mistake.   Theresa wants the Government fully ready. Major preparation required before process can even be started. Preparation required during the article 50 process.  Stability required with public opinion favouring that.  Unwilling to support the process without preparation.  Stating just how difficult the process would be inviting others to join.  

Leading Brexit becoming voice of stability she could be rewarded.   Blank cheque support can see voters turn against you quickly.