Let's talk about money money.

A new lock down is being thought about.  Apparently.  And once again it is being touted on the basis of if we don’t, more people will die.  And the rather banal, and questionable mantra, it will save the NHS.    

The problem with that statement is that you could also argue that if we do go into lockdown more people will die.  And the NHS will not survive.   

 
There is one simple question to ask.   If businesses cannot open, where will the money to fund the NHS come from?    

Everyone knows that if you work in the public sector you never pay enough tax to fund even your own salary, never mind the infrastructure of the public sector.  The hopsitals.  The police station.  The roads.  The schools.  The parks.   

So, let's assume a nurse pays 30% of her salary in tax, she in effect is paying 30% of her own salary.  And she doesn't contribute to paying other nurses salaries.  Nor for the hospital where she works.  Who pays for the other 70%?  And the hospital?  The private sector.  And that is a good thing.   But it must be remembered, that is how it works.   

Funding the infrastructure of, for example, the NHS, comes in two ways.  It is 100% funded by the taxes on the private sector and the people who work in the private sector and borrowings.    

It is obvious if businesses do not trade because they are in lock down, they do not pay taxes as taxes are levied on the profits the business makes.  So that is one area of funding lost.  The other key area is the people who working the private sector.  They are taxed.  So if they are not working there is no tax coming in from them either.  A double whammy. 

With a lot less tax coming in how can we continue to sustain the public sector?  Two ways.   

One is to borrow more.  But your parents probably wisely told you not to borrow money to pay for the weekly running costs, only for things like a house or a car. The infrastructure.   So we should not be borrowing money to pay for salaries.

The second is to look at the public sector payroll and ask, what is essential?  Nurses?  Essential!  They work their socks off.  Teachers?  They generally work their socks off.   

But unless they provide a full education service just like nurses provide a full healthcare service, their salaries should be adjusted appropriately.  After all, that is what is happening in the private sector, the sector that pays for a large percentage of every public sector salary.   

Indeed, anyone in the public sector taxpayer funded payroll who cannot deliver their full service then salaries should be adjusted appropriately.   

If someone is working from home and cannot provide a full service when they are working from home, then they should not be working from home.  The very fact that someone is a public sector employee should mean they are essential.  Essential work should be done.   

If money is too tight to mention, everyone needs to take the same hit.  Not just the private sector that pays for everything.

Lockdown vs Time

There is a brand of watch that few can ever hope to wear.  PatekPhilippe.  Swiss owned and made. Their brand slogan is disarmingly simple and emotive.  “You never actually own a Patek Philippe.  You merely look after it for the next generation.”      

You could create a similar PR slogan for Covid19.    Lockdowns don’t stop Covid19.  They simply postpone infections till the lockdown ends. 

Wonder what the fuss about the Withdrawal Agreement is all about?

Well, former prime ministers, well-known Remainers, John Major and Tony Blair give the game away in an article in the Sunday Times last week.  It is their view that if our democratically elected parliament passes the Internal Market Bill, then the UK is ‘bound to end up before the European Court of Justice’ because ‘under the Northern Ireland Protocol, [the ECJ] retains jurisdiction over EU rules’. 

Yes, you read that correctly.  The UK could still be taken to court by the EU which we have actually already legally parted from in January, for decisions it takes in its own sovereign territory.    

Well, we have to say a big thank you to Messrs Major and Blair for putting this in crystal clear language.  And telling us exactly why they don’t want the Withdrawal Agreement to be replaced.  But there is nothing new here.  They are simply reminding us that they reject the largest vote in the history of this country. This is their last throw of the dice to impose their views over those of the majority.    

We know Messrs Blair and Major are as determined to retain EU oversight in the UK as they ever were.

One amusing, but scary part of their article is where they argue that adherence to international law is ‘just as important’ as adherence to domestic law; that internationally drafted treaties should be viewed ‘in the same way’ as the laws drawn up by the elected parliament in the UK itself.      

Bingo!!  In print (or online if you are digitally minded), the Brexit battle summed up. 

As Brendan O’Neil, the editor of Spiked writes, “There are those who believe that international laws, rules, regulations and treaties, whether drawn up in the EU or the UN, should have the same authority as laws drawn up in a democratically elected national parliament, and there are those of us who believe that the parliament we elect should be sovereign over everything else, including treaties we signed and have now changed our minds about.  A parliament bound by international treaties it cannot change, and threatened by legal action from a foreign court, is not a free parliament.  There is only one problem with the Internal Market Bill: it doesn’t go far enough.  To defend democracy in the UK, the Withdrawal Agreement must not only be tweaked – it must be torn up.”

Borders and Good Friday

Let’s just look back a few months, or is it years, this is so long and drawn out after the people voted to Leave the EU.     

In summary, post Brexit, the UK wanted to keep the current Irish Border open.  I think we are all agreed on that.  But so the Republic of Ireland also wanted the border open.  I think that too is an agreed position   So far so good.      

But then the EU basically insisted that, in order to preserve the integrity of the EU internal single market, keeping the border open was not possible as there was no current electronic solution acceptable to the EU – and what would be the EU’s ‘hard’ border, would be a threat to peace.  Of course, the feet dragging EU will quite possibly never find any solution acceptable in spite of similar situation existing around the world where there are “hard borders”.    

But here is where the EU are being cynical.  Having similar (electronic) EU-UK border solutions at the Irish Sea, where the Britain – N.Ireland 200-year old internal market must now have (EU imposed) barriers, is to Brussels/Dublin ‘peaceful’, despite several times more trade passing over it electronically than at the current Irish Border.    

And by the way, the EU putting obstacles in the way of an open current Irish Border border does not contravene the GFA as there was no mention of keeping the Irish Border open within the Good Friday Agreement.  

But moving the Irish Border to the Irish Sea and setting up EU customs/tariffs between Northern Ireland and the rest of the UK, without the consent of the Northern Ireland Assembly, does contravene the GFA - as a 3rd party (the EU) is attempting to control north-south affairs – and EU member the RoI would clearly beneficially gain from that 3rd party.

The GFA is an international treaty.  The WA international treaty does not overrule the GFA.   The EU and the UK agreed within the WA, via the Irish Protocol, that Northern Ireland is in the UK’s customs territory, and no customs duties will be within the UK.  This is now what the EU apparently now disputes.

So it is very clear to anyone who cares to look that it is the EU looking to knowingly contravene the GFA.  It is not the UK.   Nd the stooshie of the Internal market Bill?  Well it is there, if needed, to protect the integrity of the UK’s single market, and the GFA.  The only people who could possibly not agree with the UK having such a back up are those who still refuse to accept the will of the people.   

Just a final point, 88% of our GDP is generated by activity within the U.K., and unless you think that the other 12% will just disappear, (which of course it won’t), you need to stop being such a pessimist and doom monger.

Do your homework, Mr Potential President.

Presidential hopeful Joe Biden and U.S.A. Senate and Congress leaders need to do their homework.  For example, Nancy Pelosi says that there will be no deal if there is a border put in Ireland between the north and the south.    

Or as Joe Biden, the man who would be president warns, any trade deal between the US and UK "must be contingent upon respect for the agreement and preventing the return of a hard border."     

How depressing that the man who aims to be the so called leader of the free world can be so ignorant. There has never been a hard border.   The border has been an open one allowing free passage of people since 1923, just after Ireland seceded from the UK, and of goods since 1993, long before the Good Friday agreements.    

On a wider point, I think even the most ardent pro EU advocate would blush if they stated the EU wasn’t a bully.   We have seen then break agreement after agreement when it suited them.   And if they can bully the UK with all its strength, wee poor African nations desperate to sell into the EU have no chance.   The EU don’t respect democracy either.    

And if you think I'm over the top, just remember Ireland (yes dear old Ireland) being told by the EU, think again.  Just keep voting till you get it right.    

On the trade issue, I’m really quite staggered by the remain voices that simply haven’t the slightest idea of how trade works.  I make something. You want to buy it.  I sell it to you.  

That was what we did before we joined the EEC as it was.  And there is absolutely no reason why we could not just go back to that.  Anyway, the UKs business are ready to leave the EU.  Not that the CBI were not aware of it. 

But of course, in Brussels we have elite that really is not interested in democracy or free trade.  They want any trade to be wrapped up in their political ambitions for a European Super State.  The UK is now being a bit of a spoke in the wheel for progress towards that.  And they don't like it.  

The UKs problem is that under Cameron and May the EU were not relieved of their belief that the UK would roll over.   Perhaps it is late in the day but now they hopefully realise that leaving the EU means we are not subject to their courts of law.  Japan, Canada, USA, Australia, Brazil et al.    None of them as independent nations would allow such a situation to happen.  So why should the UK?    

On a final point, the EU has one of the most fearful PR department able to produce propaganda like never before.  This video is an example.  The less than subtle Message?   EU good.   Everyone else bad.   Classic. I’d hate to ever be on the wrong side of them.

Historical negationism. Pravda eat your heart out!

Seeing the statue of Edward Colston lassoed, hauled down, dragged through the streets and thrown in the docks at Bristol was very theatrical.  But it was also disturbing.     

Here’s the problem.  Mr Colstons ships were used to transport enslaved people from Africa to the USA.  But how did these Slaves find themselves on ships crossing the Atlantic?  And it here we are reminded of an uncomfortable truth.    

Nat Amarteifio (left)

 Let’s be clear, challenging the past and seeking to never repeat it is a good thing for any society to do.  The trading of human beings can never be right.  

But either through deliberate amnesia or ignorance, what the protestors in Bristol did on Sunday says something very disturbing for two reasons.  

One was obvious.  It's not up to a mob to take unilateral action.  We elect councils to make decisions and implement them.  Indeed Bristol City was debating what to do with the said statue.  What we witnessed was deliberate anarchy. 

The second, less obvious.  Neatly forgetting what respected historians like Nat Amarteifio, a former mayor of Accra, Ghana, have well documented, the Bristol Mob forgot that the suppliers of these Slaves were African ethnic groups that went into the business of trading their sisters and brothers to the USA.  Of course, they were already running their own internal slave trade in Africa.  But the profit motive took over their senses when the opportunity to trade with the USA came up.  Amarteifio says the Europeans weren’t going out and capturing Africans. They couldn’t — they got sick and died from illnesses like malaria.  Some African ethnic groups went into business, warring with other groups so they could capture prisoners they sold as slaves to the Europeans.  Amarteifio says they were organised and intentional about it.  

“To pursue slavery successfully, you need a highly organized group because somebody has to go out there — somebody has to locate the victims; somebody has to lead an army there; somebody has to capture them, transport them to the selling centers; all the time, keeping an eye on them to make sure they don't revolt,” he said. “And then sell them, and move on.”    

So the Bristol Mob was not seeking to right a wrong.  They were not demanding that African chiefs apologise for their involvement in the slave trade.  They were not standing alongside the Nigerian civil rights group that demands tribal leaders whose ancestors sold people to slavers should say sorry like USA and Britain.    

No, Sunday's crowd wanted to hold up one part of history and condemn it all the while trying to forget and erase from the libraries the other part of the story they don’t like.  The classic tactic of dictators down the generations, from Vladimir Lenin to Kim Il-sung and his successors.   

The Bristol Mob doing what they did, seeking to erase all views of history except the one they like, is frighteningly reminiscent of the days of the Soviet newspaper called Truth.  Aka, Pravda.

Smile. It's ok, you are allowed to till next year.

Media vendeta? You decide.

Until yesterday when Mr Cummings appeared in the Rose Garden at No 10, the fundamental question was, did Dominic break the law.  Or the guidelines.   

On listening to Mr Cummings, I think only the harshest interpretation of the advice that accompanied Stay at Home (full details on Govt and NHS web sites so everyone could read them), would begrudge Mr Cummings and his family the latitude to do what they did.  

But of course, that is not enough for the braying pack of wolves.  They want blood.  So today we have Ms Kuenssberg, BBC Political editor, taking the story on  with her a statement today “Dominic Cummings' press conference did not answer fundamental question”.   

I re-read what Mr Cummings said yesterday, and the answers he gave and struggle to see what fundamental question he had not answered.   

You might not have liked or agreed with what he said, but answer the questions he did.   

So what is this fundamental question Ms Kuenssberg is referring to?  Actually, it’s nothing to do with what Mr Cummings did or didn’t do.  Her fundamental question has moved on to this.  “Is his continued presence in Downing Street more of a hindrance than a help to Boris Johnson?”   

Seriously, that is what she said.  Nothing to do with the journey.  Nothing to do with the virus.  Her article, by shifting the target, shows this really has absolutely nothing to do with Mr Cummings journey but part of the media vendetta to get rid of Mr Cummings.

Who said what? Back to politics as normal.

Statement one.  We want “a controlled points-based system to support the migration of skilled workers for the benefit of the economy”.   

Statement two.  Our system “will ensure people can come to our country based on what they have to offer, not where they come from”.   

It is interesting that the authors of the first statement are decrying the authors of the second as “reckless”, “draconian”, and “unforgivable.”     

The author of the first statement was Nicola Sturgeon.  The second, Prit Patel.  

So remind me, what did Nicola and the SNP in 2014 campaign for in an independent Scotland promise?   

Yes, to implement an Australian-style points-based system.   The SNP’s 2014 ‘Scotland’s Future’ manifesto for a separated Scotland promised that the newly independent government would deliver.  

Read the SNP promise here.

Don't blame Ministers for PPE mess.

You do have to admire successive Government Ministers standing accepting criticism in relation to the lack of PPE on the front line when they could so easily point to the public servants tasked to buy all the gear and lambast them for their failure to acquire the right kit and get it to the right place at the right time.  

It’s not that the NHS procurement side of things haven’t had the time.  

I think the first instruction by a Minister to “do what is necessary” must be at least two months ago. 

We are now beginning to see the real failure of the centralised bureaucratic nature of the NHS compared, for example, to Germany’s largely non state owned and decentralised system.   

Our NHS procurement system can’t even supply basic kit to the people we clap every Thursday evening.

A misleading headline from the BBC.

On the BBC website this morning, as per usual, there is a section, Newspaper Headlines.  The headline in today’s Newspaper headlines is: “‘No 10 ignored warning’ and ‘PM takes back control’”.  Well, Boris back in control, there’s a thing.  And sure enough, the Sunday Telegraph has a banner headline “Johnson Starts To Take Back Control”. 

So I then go hunting for the other headline it flags up. ‘No 10 ignored warning’.   

Sunday Times? Nope.  They run with “Ministers plan for to reopen schools in three weeks’ time”.   
Mail on Sunday?  Nope.  Their headline is “Get Britain Moving Again”.   
The Observer? Nope.  “Don’t bet on a vaccine to protect us”.   
Sunday Express?  Nope.  “Hard Work Is Paying Off”.   
Sunday Mirror?  Nope.  “Doctors Fear We Will Run Out Of Oxygen”.   
Sunday People?  Nope.  “Too Scared To Hug Their Kids”.   
Daily Star?  Nope.  “Gogglebox Dad Fights For Life”.     

Now, am I missing something here?  Not one headline said “No 10 ignored warning”?  So why did the BBC put a headline on its article that clearly was not true?   

Answers on a postcard….

First cuckoo of spring

Just because there is a Pandemic doesn’t mean it’s time to down tools in areas where tools could quite easily be picked up and used.  And in the spirit of getting things done one has to pay tribute to the two appointed negotiators for the post leaving EU trade negotiations.  Michael Barnier and David Frost, both who have had Covid-19, are keeping things moving.    

But then, out of nowhere, the IMF decides to stick their nose into something that isn’t their business.  That happens a lot these days. I think the UK and the EU are grown up enough to not need hand holding by the IMF which has got so many of the big calls wrong over the past ten years.  Perhaps it should go into isolation for a period.   

But it’s the general thrust of this thinking.  The Labour party are asking for extensions too. 

All I’m waiting for now is the first cuckoo of spring to emerge, a deranged Remainer, and demand that with so many elderly people dying we need another referendum as the people who voted Leave are no longer with us.   

Believe me, it will happen sooner or later.

“NHS has saved my life, no question"

You can understand why Boris said that.  But it’s simply a misrepresentation of the reality of things.  The NHS has never saved anyone.  It never will.   

As Boris generously continued by naming the people who actually did save his life we can be thankful that they did just that.  People saved his life.   

But there is more to it that that.  He might well have said "Government policy saved my life, no question".  And he would have been right.   

For 70 years successive governments have poured taxpayers money into the NHS.  It is their decisions over these years that have created the current system of healthcare called the NHS.   

So we really could stand on the rooftops on Thursday and clap Labour and Conservative governments for continuing to support healthcare they way they have done.   

But as they say, if things go well, praise the NHS.  If they go badly, blame the government.

Ideology over national interest.

So Jackson Carlaw has faced criticism for speculating on the impact the coronavirus pandemic will have on next year's Holyrood election.   The Scottish Conservatives leader said it would now "look ridiculous" if the SNP pushes for independence at next year's poll.  Bad boy.   

And it was well reported on the BBC web site with the SNP calling out the remarks as inappropriate with a party spokesman saying "the last thing any Scottish politician on any side of the constitutional debate should be doing is trying to use the appalling crisis we all currently face as an argument for or against independence".  How neat, they still manage to get independance in to their response.  Although one actually suspects Ms Sturgeon is glad it won’t be this year as she in all probability would have lost.     

But hold on, one of Keir Starmer’s new shadow cabinet has just done the same thing in relation to connecting the virus with a political stance.  Perhaps hardly surprising given it is packed with hard-core EU Remainers.   

The BBC headline. “Brexit: Labour warns against 'chaotic' no deal outcome” finds the new shadow chancellor Anneliese Dodds feeling confident enough to urge ministers not to put "ideology over national interest" because of the Corona virus.   

Of course she was just trotting out what MEPs had been demanding. Or as the BBC headline put it “Delay Brexit deadline amid coronavirus, say MEPs”.  

I always find ideology over national interest an amusing phrase.  What they really mean is don’t put your ideology ahead of mine.  Ms Dodds ideology is Brexit is a very bad thing.   

But there are three things she seems to have forgotten.  Brexit has already happened; we legally have left the EU.  Secondly, there is no such thing as no deal.  The EU and the UK both know that unless an agreement is reached the deal will be WTO.  Everyone knows that.  That is the legal position passed by parliament. One does hope the shadow chancellor does too and she was not just having a forgetfulness moment.   And thirdly, how come when Jackson Carlow gets a rollicking for commenting on something that is constitutional while Sir Keir and his team don’t get a similar going over in the media?