Brexit – more thoughts this time on the white paper

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.

 

Brexit same deficit trap again

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.

Thoughts on inheritance

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.

EU referendum day after what would you do?

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.

Dealing with Brexit

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.  

American presidential election

American presidential election

I’m an outsider when comes to American politics.  Here my opinion on Trump for anybody who cares.

Donald trump won the american presidential election.  Painted as anti establishment candidate the outsider business person.  Trump became the vehicle for that.  Laughable as the establishment put forward, two candidates including Trump. Businessman who would be a fixer.  Trump success came down very clever campaign.   Emotional arguments which captured people. Republicans told a story, democrats defended a record.  People wanted change democrats did not listen. Politics is never certain, voters change direction.  Values may stay the same opinions change constantly.

Government is corrupt close to business not the people.  Rather large paradox many, voted in people they so-called despise.  More about many disregarding past statements. Yet judged other candidates more harshly.  Media did not challenge any cognitive bias.  Failed in own role informing or educating.  Displaying it own cognitive bias as reality.   Expert in all things, impossible dream. Making informed decisions about the future. Nobody expert in all things or everything, to make an informed decision.  Why we choose politicians to make decisions for us. Politicians should follow the will, of the people is nonsense.

Populist politics now here, weak politicians unable to listen or challenge it.   Many politicians have willed to ride the wave.  Unwilling to own up to policy mistakes. Unwilling to defend policy success viewed as failures. Avoiding that difficult thing listening, finding compromise.  Inconvenient truth certain demands are impossible to meet.  Executive failed to deal with concerns.

Negative impacts many feel are result of poor policies, driven by politics over globalization bogeyman. Inconvenient truth populist politicians, caused this mess. Concerned for what this populist wave has in store. Frankly we don’t know what Trump wants to do.  Makes his brand of populist rather damaging/dangerous.  Trump’s campaign material went against American values, liberty, equality, democracy, individualism, unity, and diversity.  Disregarding the rule of law, sounding deeply authoritarian.

Both sides must learn to listen.  Finding a compromise which removes some politics from it.  Clear voters real answers to concerns. Ignoring concerns calling people bigots or racist won’t help. Pitching pie in the sky ideas won’t help.  Retreating into comfort zone, does not help.  Voters want real change which is positive.

Outsiders wonder how can this happen.  Same process currently happening around the world.

Brexit means what?

Conservative government outlined, legal procedure for leaving European Union.  Conservative government failed, explain what leaving means.  Procedure is simple to do.  Task of leaving is not simple, complex task.  Difficult containing many challenges. No answers to any questions leaving presents.  No information what leaving looks like.  No vision what leaving looks like after.  What we do know Conservatives want to ‘leave’.  No clue what any of this political positioning means.  Unclear what politicians mean,  no substance.  Failing to say anything at all.  Failure to explain what leaving means.  What any future relationship may look like.

United Kingdom future European relationship now changing.  Conservatives have yet to start Brexit, still major questions to be answered.  Labour now needs serious intellectual debate on the subject.

 

Labour’s Way Forward

Labour’s Way Forward

Vision for Labour required don’t feel the party has any ideas.  Rather massive mountain, party polling is terrible.  Major mistake to underestimate the battles ahead. Honest Labour now can’t win, faces managed decline.  Creating new heartlands with no hope of power. Labour vs Conservative is not David vs Goliath firmly believe we can win.

Is the glass half empty or half full?

My answer half empty but can see world which glass becomes half full. However can see glass being half full, just requires serious change in thinking.  Slow reply to populist corruption on genuine concerns. Failed to listen genuine concerns instead swallowed up populist nonsense.   Created vacuüm which populist actors have taken hold. Worse still populist policy has been terrible for average voters. Serious lack of accountability,  major failure to hold politicians to account.

Hidden truth Labour lost in the past do one key reason.  Labour did not look like government in waiting. Party appeared deeply incompetent failed win over hearts.  Failed without clear message that connected to voters.  Average person still feeling chaos do earlier years wanted stability, faced with uncertainty.  Party must play the election game.  Can’t win without getting conservative voters to vote for us. Party needs to think differently when comes to exploiting narratives.  Not enough to attack conservatives must have clear vision behind it.  Accepting their values, speaking to hearts over minds.

Question time Labour leadership edition

Question time feels more like shout time. Politics now more about sound bites on TV.  Art of politics most people don’t care just want the job done.  Voters don’t care about lies, only care if they find out.  Opinion on leadership candidates after question time debate.

Watching question time feels like mum and dad fighting. Bringing up various points not mentioning the children [voters].  Ignoring past results house [party] is burning down in the background. Unwilling think about tackling, party burning down.  Mum and Dad both offer different viewpoints to problems ahead. Neither are right or wrong both could work with clever executions. Putting all your eggs into one basket is not wise [non voters].

Corbyn

Corbyn is deeply incompetent, reports that leaders office is dysfunctional. Hundreds of examples have pulled together at this point. Can’t do politics just day by day your opponents exploit that. Demanding he steps up his game or face the music.  Corbyn supporters holding the leadership to account. No confidence vote against Corbyn.

Corbyn has no plan for conservative swing supporters who rejected Labour.  Worse still no plan for Labour supporters who may reject Labour. Thinking more about rallies over how to win in the future.

Politicians have to do unpopular stuff to get things done.  Corbyn avoided doing unpopular things every time.  Left now has the courage fighting for what it values.   Unfortunate it has no idea how to go forward.

Smith

Smith biggest problem is trying to convince Corbyn supporters and non Corbyn supporters at the same time. Plan was simple Corbyn supporters were right but execution has been iffy. Smith own execution has been iffy guess that down no experience.  Rather hard to beat Corbyn with limited resources. Many ways seen the difference between both candidates.   Willing to show leadership by doing unpopular decisions like second european referendum.  Get the impression Smith willing to compromise to get things done.   Striking a balance between what we value and irrational demands.

Thinking more about winning over conservative voters over just rallies.  Vague idea how to do that compared to Corbyn.

Until Labour has plan to win over conservative voters SNP with Tories can rule.  Don’t believe the centre is dead just populist nonsense is here.  Centre faces major problems in how combat the problem.  Unable to speak to disillusion who been taken in by populists message.  One side has exploit it, concerned what happens next.

Solutions and problems

Solutions are based on my perception of reality.   Firmly believe we can find compromises which everybody likes.  Compromises are required in order get your own way.  Should exploit how current narrative is pitched.  Restarting the conversation finding compromise we desire.  Focused on three problems coming up with solutions.

Problems

  • Brexit
  • Immigration
  • Selfish narrative

Brexit

Should respect the vote to leave the European Union.  Some have been peddling this narrative. Ignoring Britain’s relationship, European Union over 40 years.  Displaying massive amount of ignorance,  over just how complex leaving would be.  Britain does not have resources required to leave.  Unpicking deep relationship with European Union won’t be easy or possible.  Not even possible to avoid the truth Britain must become real European nation. Britain is intertwined when comes to the European Union.  Nobody wants to admit this truth even eurosceptics avoid talking about it.

Labour unable to ignore European Union referendum.  European Union referendum was about many factors.  Vote was largely about personal values, how you see the past or future.  Arguments put forward from leave, exploited this to great effect.  Remain lost due undermining it own arguments.  David Cameron was unable to use something he demonized.  Debate was framed as being black and white. Simple task of divorcing, your partner for 40 years. No mess no problems, just sign the paperwork be done with it.  Divorces always messy never simple. 

Simple message take back control won for leave.  Non interest in European Union with sudden interest.   Exploiting voter ignorance on the subject.  Strong untrapped desire to take back control from politicians.  

Solution

Answer is simple Labour should focus on transparency.  Labour must take control of the debate, should not fear it.  Conversation should be changed, interest in politics demanding control. Party should demand whole process should be transparent.  Allow voters to see the truth something politicians never do. What people wanted was unclear we should exploit.   Painting picture that current compromises, best option on the table.   Requires switching the conversation.

Need to talk to voters hearts over minds, not sure how to do that.   Firmly believe should exploit narrative painted by the leave campaign.  Once the heart is captured we can to talk the brain.

Immigration

Politicians lied about immigration, for the longest time.  Historically natural concern about immigration stable for decades.  Minority 25% of people have concerns over immigration. Listen to voters see they care more about flow over levels.   Care more about whole communities changing to different cultures.   People haave problems with flow over numbers.  Don’t like large scale community change.   Unspoken truth only way reduce immigration is making the economy smaller.  No way reduce immigration not without doing serious damage.  Don’t want to do damage to the economy,  reducing future income potential.

How can we deal with this paradox.   David Cameron downfall partly due some of the lies. Small vocal minority who have turned the debate toxic.  Labour should not fear, immigration paradox. Party should be champions of immigration, restarting the conversation.  Time for Labour to take back control on the subject.

Solution 

Answer is simple let communities take control of local immigration policy.  Conversation needs to be reset, can’t offer the impossible.  Allow communities to take control of local immigration policy.

Selfish narrative 

Society has become more selfish sense of entitlement.  Politicians must speak to the comfortable and uncomfortable.  Serious lack of empathy within society these days. Selfish narrative has destroyed any sense of empathy.  Voters want more spending yet don’t want to pay for it.  Somebody else to pick up the cost.  Britain has become more selfish, lack of connection to society.  People want pay less taxes yet gain the benefits.  Yet strong desire for public sector spending on you.   Many feel left behind like nobody cares.  Serious sense of entitlement pay taxes should get something back.   Sense of entitlement when comes to housing.  Connect dots between recent events see people thinking won’t impact me.  Selfish desire is driving British culture. Time for new social contract between everybody. Solution would be exploiting the message take control.

Time to take back control, welfare state should not be an entitlement.  State should not pick winners or losers instead provide support.  Providing support with opportunities, should be investing in everybody.  Welfare should be about supporting people. Letting them take control providing them with necessary resources to do that.   Everybody in society should work together, strong social safety net.   Welfare should be highly flexible for modern life, providing you with support.   System should be designed to support you in whatever way you need.

Solution is simple time to take control.  Once again conversation needs to be reset. Willing to admit not sure how push this argument or paint it.

Unreadable did not read it!

Labour requires a clear vision, don’t believe the party has any ideas.  Failed to listen genuine concerns instead swallowed up populist nonsense. Here my ideas for how Labour should go forward.

Brexit

European Union referendum was about personal values.  Answer is simple Labour should focus on transparency. Painting picture that current compromises is best option on the table.

Immigration

Answer communities take control of local immigration policy.

Selfish

Britain has become more selfish, lack of connection to society.  Welfare should be about supporting people. Letting them take control providing, necessary resources to do that.

All three problems require conversation to be restarted.

Conclusion

Tried to change the arguments by changing the conversation.  Won these arguments in the past by thinking differently.   Not enough to tell voters just how rubbish Britain has become.  Let our opponents explain what they mean twist the argument.  Turn the conversation around looking like government in waiting.  Pragmatism is required getting things done.  Compromise needed does giving up what we value.  Must be willing to fight for what we believe in.   Forcing change in the conversation only way we can win.   Vague buzzwords which ignore reality won’t get you far. Need to be willing listen, take the conversation in better direction.   Hope you enjoyed reading my way forward for Labour.

Like to apologize for unreadable the post.

Labour Question Time

Turns out some people did watch here some thoughts on question time Labour edition.

Question time feels more like shouty time. Many ways feels like art of debating has died more about shout bits. Voters don’t care about lies only care if you get found out.

Watching feels like mum and dad fighting. Bringing up various points not mentioning the children. House is burning down in the background. Unwilling think differently tackling the house burning down and children who rejected them. Both offer different perceptions to the problems. Neither are right or wrong both could work with clever executions. Putting all your eggs into one basket is not wise [non voters].

Corbyn is deeply incompetence, reports that leaders office is dysfunction. Hundreds of examples have pulled together at this point. MPs who voted no confidence did so for this reason. Corbyn voters should be holding him to account if he wins. Demanding he steps up his game or face the music. Corbyn has no plan for children who rejected him. Get the impression thinking about the now not the future. Can’t do politics just day by day your opponents exploit that. Worse still politicians have to do unpopular stuff to get things done. Leadership under Corbyn he avoided doing unpopular things every time. Given Labour courage stand up but lack rest of the package.

Smith biggest problem is trying to convince Corbyn voters and non Corbyn votes at the same time. Gameplan was simple Corbyn voters were right but execution has been iffy. Smith own execution has been iffy guess that down not having whole staff team behind you. Rather hard to beat the leader with limited resources. Many ways feel Smith show difference between him and Corbyn. Willing to make unpopular decisions like second EU ref. Benefits Labour more than some people think it does. Get the impression that Smith does think about the future. Willing to listen come up with something in the middle.

Biggest problem needs have vision for children and house. Until that happens SNP and Tories can run wild. Don’t believe the centre is dead just populist nonsense is here. One side has been willing to exploit it, question is what happens once the wind blows the other way….

Do have some vagues ideas how tackle this problem.