Something EVEL This Way Comes…

It always stuck me as odd that it should be MP Douglas Ross to take over the leadership, unopposed, of the Scottish Conservative Party in 2020. There are perfectly capable Tory MSPs in Holyrood who know the parliament and the lie of the land far better than Ross, who has only been the MP for Moray since 2017. So why didn’t they through a hat into the ring when the unfortunate Jackson Carlaw stepped down? In May 2021, Ross also added the title of MSP to his list, so currently he is taking on the leadership of the Scottish party, MP for Moray and MSP  - Western Isles roles as well. Aren’t his constituents lucky!

That is all very well but the thing that caught my attention this week is Michael Gove’s declaration that the Conservatives will do away with EVEL - English Votes for English Laws. EVEL was seen as a solution to the famous West Lothian Question - why should a Scottish MP from, say, West Lothian, be able to pass a vote on something that did not affect his / her constituents? The question became even more keen since the reformation of the Scottish Parliament in 1999.
It is therefore strange to me that Michael Gove should be moving to reinstate the voting rights of Scottish MPs over English matters. True, it can be argued that EVEL was a bit rubbish to begin with. Previously the Conservatives were quite happy to rule as a minority government with the support of the DUP, which rather sinks the entire concept. But, with Douglas Ross now astride both parliaments, there is more to the situation than double-bubble paydays.

Even back in 2010, I noted that the Conservatives were already pretty relaxed in the face of the rise of the SNP. Events seem to have proved the case. While the SNP is still the government in Holyrood (since 2007 an even longer run that the current Conservative government), the Conservatives have replaced Labour as the main opposition party in Holyrood. The SNP have been wielded as an effective meat-shield in the destruction of Labour, both here in Scotland and across Britain. Remember the SNP promise to “supercharge Labour” in 2015? This was effectively used to damage Labour in that election with Conservative cries of “The Scots are coming!” It was almost like 1745 all over again. 

Like 1745, only one battle has to be won to enable final victory. In 1746 this was Culloden, where the Duke of Cumberland felled the flower of Scotland’s clansmen on Drumossie Moor. For the SNP, the hope has to be a single victory in a second independence referendum. If the next referendum also fails, then another and another will be fought, until just one win gains Scotland’s political independence. Unless that is there is no way to call for that referendum, no body capable to rival the democratic authority of Westminster.

Labour is one the ropes and it will take a lot to get them into shape ahead of the next election. I am not saying they cannot win, but it will take the Conservatives to lose as heavily as the effort it will take Labour to win. On Newnight last night (14th of July 2021), former MP Anna Soubry was right to call the current Conservative Party the new Brexit Party. In order to keep the political Right of UK politics together, the Conservatives effectively engineered a reverse takeover by the Brexiteers. The Conservative Government is, in reality, a Brexit Party government trading under the old brand name.

So there we have it. As the SNP was used by the Conservatives to destroy Labour, the next phase of the operation is to destroy the Scottish Parliament, reducing the SNP to a regional party of North Britain and without any democratic means to call for a referendum.

Now I have no love for the SNP or for the Conservatives. I am rather fond of democracy however and despite the rise of nationalism, regional and local government is a good thing. Devolution will be ended and night will fall. I cannot help but see this in the context of Brexit and the ongoing destruction of British democracy at the hands of the Far Right.

So we return to Douglas Ross MP, MSP. It is of importance to the plan that the leader of the Scottish Conservatives is in Westminster and backs the destruction of devolution. It avoids any nasty splits. Lucky Doug.

Britain: Junior Partner and Authoritarian Future

 I am heartened that during the Liberal Democrat Spring Conference, held on the weekend, that both the party’s dedication towards the European Union has been reaffirmed, and we have come out fighting against the Government’s current crime bill that severely curtails the right to peaceful protest. Note the peaceful emphasis though. As I write this I am waking up to news from Bristol about riots as right-to-protest demonstrations turned to violence. There can be no excuse for that and I am very surprised to learn that there have been no arrests made overnight. What has led to such protests though was the Metropolitan Police’s heavy suppression of the vigil following the death of Sarah Everard. Peaceful protest is justified: burning of police vehicles and the infliction of injuries cannot be. 

The little bit of bright news that the party is still pro-EU is set against the big fat raincloud of the future as outlined by the current Conservative government. Unfortunately, what I have previously predicted is proving to be correct. Since the UK has left the European Courts of Justice*, the government is bringing about legislation that basically gives free range to police to ban any form of protest on the grounds of it being “deeply annoying”. Both Steve Bray (he of the top hat and megaphone outside Westminster fame) and Greta Thunberg (who on Twitter has since adopted the label "Deeply Annoying") would have certainly attracted the maximum fine of £2500 (or a year in prison) for solo protesting under the proposed law. Steve would have had an additional £5000 fine for directing a megaphone at parliament. Larger demonstrations, such as the one I witnessed in Aberdeen in January 2020 by Extinction Rebellion, are the main target of the legislation. Now, I don’t back ER’s aims (which involves a complete socialist takeover of all aspects of life) but I do support their right to peacefully protest. Did they disrupt business for the day in Aberdeen? Sure, but so what? Their message is important even if I do not approve of their proposed methods to save the planet. I think that the breaking up of the vigil in memory of Sarah Everard is exactly what current Home Secretary Priti Patel would love to see being used against ER’s Red Brigade. 

Extinction Rebellion in Aberdeen, January 2020

Another example of suppression of rights is embodied by recent criticism of BBC television presenter, Naga Munchetty who, along with fellow presenter Charlie Stayt were accused of making derogatory comments about the flag being used by Tory minister Robert Jenrick. Naga was later forced to issue an apology and there were calls online by at least one Conservative MP, Richard Kemp, who said on Twitter “The BBC must stop employing those who despise their own country.” I can assure Mr Kemp that mocking the Conservatives for waving bloody big Union Flags in the face of the public at every opportunity is not the same as despising one’s own country. Nor is opposition to this government, no matter how much one might indeed despise it.

The creation and crackdown against dissidents at home match the proposals for military expansion elsewhere. Although the Army is facing further cuts in numbers, the proposal to increase military spending by £80 billion should be seen as aggressive expansion of overall capacity and global power projection. The focus seems very much of the greater mechanism of the forces, with drones and similar remote vehicles seeing heavy investment, as well as the Royal Navy. To my mind, combined with our leaving the EU, means only one thing: the UK has picked a side and that side is with the USA, against everyone else. Remember that these plans were being prepared during the Trump administration and many on the right of US politics sees the EU, not as an ally and partner, but as a rival. So while the headlines are full of opposing Russia and China, ultimately they will be pointed at whoever the USA thinks is the greatest threat. Leaving the EU clarifies the UK’s ultimate loyalties, and they are with not with our nearest neighbours. As I write this blog, I am listening to an American admiral who while is bemoaning the proposed cuts to the Army, is very happy with the news that the UK’s number of Trident nuclear warheads will be boosted by forty percent. Wouldn't it be weird if representatives from other nation's military were to be invited on Today to comment upon the UK's future military plans? But it is perfectly normal for the Americans to do so and be given space on the BBC to air their opinions. 

There have been calls to adapt to these “new realities”. I don’t think I can. These are the exactly the types of developments that I predicted before leaving the EU. In fact, they are the only logic I can see to Brexit. Certainly there are political battles to be selected (and God knows, there are enough of them: poverty, handling of COVID19, jobs, the NHS to name but a few) but I cannot see any middle ground existing between those, like me, who are opposed to the UK’s current path towards being a junior partner in global superiority at the point of a missile launcher, and the government's path which will see continuing suppression of human rights, both at home and across the planet; spawning a plethora of minor wars and continuing the cycle started by the 2003 invasion of Iraq. 

It is therefore important that the United Kingdom reengages with our near neighbours as quickly as possible. By reengagement, I mean rejoining of the European Union. At home there has to be agreement among those who oppose this militaristic path to find common ground against the Conservative right who are pushing through this agenda. It is no coincidence that the Conservatives want to see a return to First Past The Post for all elections held across the UK. It is the most undemocratic method of voting possible short of actual vote-rigging, allowing a government voting in on a minority an overall majority in parliament. 

2019-20 Westminster Representation under FPTP

The previous justification for FPTP was that it keeps the extremists out of power. That has now failed: the extremists are in office. I am certain that the Conservatives are banking upon Labour in their continuing support of FPTP but really, Labour has to step up, support a genuine system of proportional representation and take a bullet for democracy on this one. Otherwise with the Conservative FPTP voting majority in England, we are effectively facing the prospect of a single-state party for the UK, just as we currently have with (the slightly more fair voting system) has delivered power to the SNP since 2007. The key to both is the use of identity politics: independence for Scotland and freedom from the EU for English nationalists.

This blog post can be summarised with this: our democracy is in grave danger. It is vital that no further ground be ceded to the right and that ground lost is rapidly recovered. I genuinely fear for the future for the UK if this Conservative government win a further term. Don’t shoot the Lib Dem messenger Labour, but the country does need you to step up and provide genuine opposition and reform. We cannot carry on having our nation’s path set by those on the extreme right. That outcome will be too horrible to contemplate but we are now on the path to authoritarianism. 

*This blog has been updated on the 24th of March as I previously stated that the UK has left the EHCR. The Brexit agreement allows for provision to leave parts of the EHCR but this has not yet actually occurred. 

"Boris Johnson Is Unwell"

This morning (14th of June, 2020), a deliberate statement by Paddy O’Connell on BBC Broadcasting House (at 11:45), “Boris Johnson is unwell” went unchallenged by Conservative MP Tobias Ellwood. This caused a fair stir online in the Radio Four Facebook sites.

Instead of joining with the usual sniper shots, I have decided to stand back and consider the trail. 

Boris Johnson is certainly a vote winner. Westminster and London mayor elections confirm this. On this basis, the Conservative Party membership chose him over Jeremy Hunt to replace Theresa May. Johnson delivered a thumping majority in reward of their faith.

Since then, the honeymoon was brief. As Johnson took over, the Coronavirus crisis was already brewing. To be fair, the UK government was not the only European government to be caught short. What does mark us out though was while others were taking lessons from what was occurring in Italy and Spain, the UK government chose to turn Nelson’s eye to events. According to The Times reports, it wasn’t until the 12th of March that the full magnitude of events struck home. Even then though, the government continued to dither. Many companies and bodies had taken their own initiative long before the lockdown on the 23rd March.

Meanwhile, by following their own advice, many individuals in government had been exposed to the disease, the worst affected being Boris Johnson himself. Among the others was Dominic Cummings who, instead of self-isolating with his immediate family, decided to ignore lockdown instructions and remove to Durham.

What has burnt Johnson more than anything politically was his steadfast defence of Cummings’ action in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. The upshot of all this is an immense amount of credibility destroyed, with scientists being banned from the daily briefings as very few of them would be willing to defend Johnson’s top aid.

Johnson has never been a master of detail. He is a dreamer: bridges being a particular favoured theme. He was hard hit by the virus (male, middle-aged and overweight [bit like the author]) and might well be still suffering. Add to this an innate aversion to hard work, and a possible case of alcohol addiction and, for an individual it is a perfect storm. The man is unfit, literally, to be prime minister.
In addition to this, because Johnson determined to choose his cabinet based upon ideological purity towards the cause of Brexit, rather than any form of ability, the team around him are unable to defend their own positions, never mind cover for their boss. Word is that Matt Hancock was going to be the scapegoat at the end of the day but, with over 40,000 dead and in global terms the worst performing nation, exceeded only by the USA and Brazil, the rap cannot stop with a single minister. Boris has created a government in his own image and, while that may have worked in normal times, in this crisis it is a disaster for us all.

Brexit: A Warning from History

Cavalry armies were famous for fooling their opponents through a manoeuvre known as the ‘feigned retreat’. For instance, during the Battle of Legnica in 1241 a combined force of Poles and Moravians fell into the trap of charging the Mongolian cavalry lines who, apparently, fled the field. Except the didn’t. The western horsemen were now separated from their supporting infantry, the Mongolian heavy cavalry turned and light horse archers enveloped the confused knights, now on tired horses. While they took some casualties in the ensuing fight, Mongolian victory was complete. 

What has this got to do with current UK politics, one may reasonably ask? Possibly nothing, possibly everything. The Johnson government has yet to win a victory in Westminster and seem to be in full retreat. Their first feint of going for an immediate election has be spotted and foiled. It seems the opposition is on the verge of victory and the Conservatives are in disarray. 

It is probable that the combined opposition, Labour, SNP, Liberal Democrats and assorted independents and minor parties, will get the legislation through to stop a no-deal Brexit and force a further delay to leaving. Only then will a vote of confidence be called and an election ensue. Job’s a good’un, one may think. One may be wrong. 

The key manoeuvre which alarms me is the apparently suicidal move of Boris Johnson to eject all those MPs who oppose his government’s Brexit strategy. Let there be no mistake: this was a real night of the long knives. Theresa May worked bloody hard to keep her party together so it was a pre-announced and premeditated move of Johnson to purge his parliamentary party of any Remainers, or even people who genuinely want a deal with the EU. This has been achieved so it is doubtful that the Conservatives will leak any further MPs. While now a minority government, this group still are the most powerful unified force in Westminster. 

The battle is about to enter the most dangerous time. Now the Conservative Brexiters are in retreat. From whence are their auxiliary forces to come? If they can be won over, from Nigel Farage and the Brexit Party. 

At the moment, the Brexit Party appear to be the final nail in the Conservative Party’s coffin, as they threaten to split the Leaver vote. Since there are no longer any Remainers in the Conservative MP ranks, can Farage be tempted to ally with Johnson before the next general election? 
If the answer is yes, then the Remainer opposition will be in serious trouble. A united extreme right could well win with about thirty five to forty percent of the popular vote. 


What can be done to prevent such a disaster? To be forewarned is forearmed. If there are signs of Farage and Johnson either uniting their parties or forming pre-election pacts, then the best the English parties can do is either do the same (a doubtful preposition with a Corbyn-led Labour Party) or advise strong tactical voting of the Remainer vote to identify the Remainer MP most likely to win in their constituency. If on the other hand, the Brexit Party and Conservatives fail to unite: all with be well. Where they stand, Brexit candidates will split the Leave vote, Conservatives will fall and a Remain-dominated parliament will be returned.  
Note though I said English parties. In Scotland the dynamic is different. With the standing down of Ruth Davidson, it is unlikely that the Scottish Conservatives will survive the next Westminster vote. With the Brexit Party not a hugely strong force in Scotland, the main battle of the EU will be fought over the towns and fields of England.

Everything hinges on whether the Conservatives can be stopped from unifying with the Brexit Party. Stop that and the Battle for the EU will be won. There is now a majority for Remain across the United Kingdom so a second referendum should deliver this. But if a united Conservative-Brexit Party gain a majority in the next parliament, forget it. The barbarians win.

Why are the Liberal Democrats Back?

To the outsider, to those who do not pay attention to politics, the reason why the Liberal Democrats are back on the political scene is pretty obvious. Both Labour and the Conservatives are failing as parties and people are turning towards alternatives: be it Greens, SNP, Alliance, Plaid Cymru or Farage’s Brexit “Party”. Or even, *shudder*, the Liberal Democrats. On one level that is true. On the night of the EU elections, the Lib Dems came second. This could, and is being dismissed as a protest vote. A view from the inside of politics offers a different perspective.

The worse years of being a Lib Dem activist was not with the election disaster of 2015. I remember walking home from the Edinburgh count on a bright sunlit morning, smoking a cigar I had saved for the occasion. My emotions were mixed: sad that Nick Clegg had led the disaster and had stepped down. Sad for the many good Liberal Democrat MPs who had lost their jobs. Irritated that the (understandably jubilant) SNP had swept all but three of the Scottish seats before them. Angry but not surprised that the Conservatives had targeted all Liberal Democrat seats, even the ones that they knew they could not win – like Edinburgh West - in order to be rid as many Liberal Democrat MPs as possible. The Conservatives would rather have opposition MPs like Labour, or SNP here in Scotland, than someone they had to risk working with. My main emotion though was one of relief: the axe had finally fallen. Even the folk of the television show Gogglebox had called it: “Nick Clegg, dead man walking.”

It is the popular position to slight Nick Clegg but in reality he is a good guy who, while in government, made some bloody awful decisions. During his campaign for the leadership, he promised to get the Liberal Democrats into government within two elections. He did it first time, and subsequently we paid the price. 

I did not feel sorry for myself though. When I stood in 2015, I knew it was with no hope of winning. In the weeks running up to the 2010 I had written a blog, predicting the outcome of entering a coalition as junior partner with either party. The hardest thing for me to bear was being proved right, so soon after the 2010 election, and to continue campaigning for the Liberal Democrats knowing that we were stuffed. It was difficult to keep motivation up during those years. It felt perverse: Liberal Democrats are in power. We are making a difference: getting a lot of policies though and keeping at bay the worst excesses of the deep-blue nutters on the right of the Conservative Party. Why wasn’t I happy? Because no good deed goes unpunished and so it proved. 

It is natural perhaps that a lot of opponents, especially on the left, were gleeful on our downfall. Poor President Trump if he feels he is being victimised by the press and public opinion: try being a Liberal Democrat. I believed even our own esteemed former leader, the late Paddy Ashdown, described the party as “roadkill”. That should have been that for us. And yet. And yet…

The green shoots of recovery started instantly. As most jeered as they shovelled earth over the Lib Dem coffin, a small section of the UK public looked on with both horror and compassion.  Some of those people joined us and, for the first time in five years, the membership numbers of the Liberal Democrats soared. To the grizzled survivors like me, it felt like a miracle. It was Nick Clegg who later summed it up with a story. A few days after the defeat, a woman shouted across the street at him.  

“Nick, I’m sorry what happened to you and the party.” 

“Thank you. Thank you for your support!”
“Oh, I didn’t vote for you!”

In Edinburgh we had a large number of new folk join us. Most of them stayed and quite a few of our new (and high quality) activists that we have now, joined us since the rout of 2015. Even from the first days, the Liberal Democrat recovery was underway. 

Still, during the years 2016 and 2017, there was no breakthrough. Liberal Democrats campaigned and, slowly slowly, we started to regain lost ground. Although we did not gain many seats during the 2017 snap general elections, I think that one of the unintended consequences that it turned a lot of the new Liberal Democrat activists from raw, if enthusiastic recruits, into campaign-hardened veterans. What was just as important, there were some victories to show for the effort: we got three seats back from the SNP, including Edinburgh West. We Liberal Democrats took the opportunity given and in many areas, continue to campaign on the ground long after the other parties had packed up. The evidence for this was the start of local council victories in unlikely places such as Sunderland. Which, of course, leads us to consider the next reason for the recovery: Brexit.

Brexit is, and always has been, driven by the schism of the right. Although there was part of the Left (as personified by Jeremy Corbyn and before him, Tony Benn) who always objected to the EU on the grounds that it is a capitalist club (it is), the main political force against European Union comes from the economic right of the Conservative Party. It is their implacable hatred of EU regulation upon free market economics that led to the formation of UKIP. By itself, the freedom of billionaires to rip off the public is hardly a vote winner, so in order to gain popular support, the real flavour of the party was disguised by a heavy dose of nationalism and bigotry. Like all disasters, the reason for outcome are multiple. One was the foolishness of David Cameron, who thought that a bum’s rush of a three-month Brexit debate would be followed by victory, the death of UKIP and a return to business-as-usual. Another was that those backing Brexit had done deep preparation for the day that the referendum was called. New techniques of big data were used to target the electorate that felt ignored and did not usually vote. The SNP had used similar techniques for the 2014 Scottish independence referendum but, as I have stated previously, they had given a two-year-long debate so that people had an opportunity to discuss and understand the issues. With Brexit, that opportunity for public contemplation never occurred until after the vote. By heck, it has happened since though.

It is the Liberal Democrat consistency in stating the obvious: before the referendum and afterwards, that Brexit is a terrible idea, which has finally given the party its public identity. Before, the question before was “What are the Lib Dems for?” We have always had well-thought through policies by the container-load. We have always valued human rights over the power of the state. Our focus was upon the individual and families before power-blocks, be they unions or corporations. By itself though, that message is always too nuanced. Now, for good or ill, we have a clear identity: Liberal Democrats are the party of Europe. 

By ourselves though, Liberal Democrats are not yet strong enough to break through the first-past-the-post voting system. The last stage of our return requires the failure of the two main parties: Conservatives and Labour. They are both obliging in a most unexpected way. I do not have to run through the arguments: on her deal, Theresa May failed to consult with the whole parliament until it was far too late. What is truly amazing is the complete and utter failure of Labour to capitalise on the Conservative disarray. Corbyn simply had to say “We have tried: the government is unyielding and Parliament is deadlocked. It has to go back to a second referendum.” But no. Corbyn has steadfastly failed to move on Brexit and instead is sitting on the fence, much to the chagrin of most Labour activists. At the recent EU count of May 2019, held in the same venue as 2015, I was speaking to several senior Labour activists. I was told that Corbyn’s stance made it “like fighting with both hands tied behind your back.” Unlike previous counts, only a handful of Labour people bothered to turn out.

The largest parties to win that night were the nationalists, although neither the Brexit Party nor the SNP got anyway near fifty percent of the vote, important since both are claiming the vote is overwhelming support for their respective versions of nationalism. There is a map of Great Britain doing the rounds which shows that the SNP came top of the vote in all but a handful of Scottish constituencies, and Farage’s vehicle for self-promotion, the Brexit Party came top in most parts of England. An SNP supporter asks “Can you see the border now?” Frankly I cannot. Both the SNP and the Brexit Party are nationalist, popularist movements. I will give the SNP credit in being more decent that Farage but both are very much on the nationalist spectrum. 

The real border is now in people’s minds. Are you a nationalist or are you an internationalist? Do you want to define folk in terms of “us or them” or is there only “us”? The world is facing very real problems: can those problems wait until we have gained our freedom, put our country first, or do they need addressing right now, globally?

Owing to the Liberal Democrats putting people first, not insisting that the nation-state is the greatest good and wanting to address global problems right now, that we find ourselves being defined as anti-nationalist, and in a way that the Conservatives and Labour, with their old conflicts being built on wealth and class, can never do.  The popular nationalism has brought to the fore those who are internationalists. This movement is called social liberalism. The party for liberalism in the United Kingdom is the Liberal Democrats. 

Along with our own hard work, the ineptitude of the main two parties, it is the rise of nationalism and Brexit has brought us, the Liberal Democrats, back from the dead. 

Party Reaction to The Independent Group

First the Seven, then plus One and, at the time of writing, now joined by the Tory Three. Brexit has made strange times for politics is highlighting the flaws in our current political system. From both Labour and the Conservative sides, the emphasis has always been on “broad church politics”. What does this phrase really mean? It means that each of the larger parties are a coalition of views: a group of sub-spectrums within the larger political continuum. The latter is often described as horseshoe-shaped, as the extreme ends of left and right bend in towards each other. It is clear now that both main UK parties have moved so close to the respective ends of the horseshoe that they are shedding members, and now MPs, who are still in the middle zone. 

I was not at all surprised that it was the Labour members that broke first. Since taking leadership, Corbyn and his private party of loyalists, Momentum, have been moving the Labour Party from being mainly a social democratic party, operating policies of wealth redistribution underneath a capitalist liberal democratic framework, to that of being a democratic socialist party who want to break capitalism. If you doubt me on this, the evidence is on Corbyn’s views on the European Union. Like Tony Benn, Corbyn considers the EU as a capitalist club and, to be fair, he is right. There is no way that he is going to build socialism under EU rules and hence his supporting of Brexit. Hence also the hostility of Momentum to social democrats within their own party. It is also no surprise that as soon as the Eight broke with Labour, there were calls for by-elections from Corbyn, Labour and trade union leaders. This is predictable but what is amazing is the speed at which Labour has announced plans to make public deselection of MPs an easier process. Famed for his lethargy as an opposition leader, Brer Corbyn can certainly move rapidly when the faced with internal opposition.

Labour’s approach is certainly different from the Conservatives who, more wisely, are not seeking to distance themselves from their dissidents. Philip Hammond is certainly holding out the olive branch and there are few calls from the right for by-elections. I am not sure for the reason for this. Perhaps it is part party culture, perhaps it is early days and the figures are not clear enough to base a decision on. 

It can be argued of course that it is the Conservative desire to keep the right wing of British politics within a single part that has led to the whole debacle of Brexit. If they had simply let UKIP mutter in the wilderness, yes, they would have been weakened as a party but at least the country is not suffering as it is now. With about a month to go, there is only chaos in Westminster. I have previously written several Brexit blogs and this is not going to be another one. 

What Brexit has shown though is that both the Conservative and Labour parties are too big. The Conservatives are split along the fault lines of regulated capitalism and the unregulated marketplace. Labour, as previously described, has moved from social democracy to democratic socialism. The extremes of both parties are united in seeing the EU (regulated, capitalist and often social democratic) as the enemy of their respective ambitions. Both have also engaged with popular nationalism in order to gain support for their positions, with the right almost hiding their dreams of unregulated capitalist society behind the flag-waving and yellow jackets.

The independent group (I have seen the acronym TIG being used) are not, as yet, a political party. If they do form into one, a major hurdle with be the first-past-the-post voting system. FPTP is acting like a clamp, holding the two largest parties together. If it is ever unscrewed, Labour and Conservatives will fragment into the smaller parties that they really ought to be. 

What of the Liberal Democrats? Perhaps with some justice they are like the girlfriend in the meme: upset, confused and a bit outraged that TIG (here the girl in the red dress) is getting the attention of the media and public (the boyfriend). The Liberal Democrats have been here in the centre all along, telling whoever will listen that UK politics is broken and, unsurprisingly, being shouted down from right and left. While there is a certain satisfaction in being proved right, I don’t think we should worry for now. Certainly we should work with TIG to gain a People’s Vote. There may well be other areas of cooperation and mutual values. There are also areas where values will not overlap, especially on civil rights. That is as maybe.  The members of TIG will need time to adjust to being outside their respective two-party system. 

For now, let’s wait and see.

Blue - on - Blue Brexit

There are some cheerleaders, such as Jeremy Vine on BBC Radio 2 who is using his show to call the public to get behind Theresa May and her deal. The same deal that on Monday the 10th of December the Prime Minister decided to pull rather than face defeat in the Commons.

That analysis of defeat was accurate when, following the motion of no-confidence in the PM from within her own party, it transpires that 117 of her own MPs failed to back her. This may seem a small number when compared to the 200 that did but, this exact ratio, 200 - 117 was identified, prior to the vote, in Conservative Home as a problematic victory. In order to be safe, they reckoned that 215 MPs would have to back her. The degree of the victory, with over one third of the parliamentary party failing to back her, keeps May in the danger zone and her authority over the party is only partially recognised. 

The no-confidence vote was called by the members of the European Research Group (ERG) on the basis that if May can be deposed, the resulting process of selecting a new leader would run down the clock on Brexit, in turn leading to their desired outcome of a no-deal exit. This has always been the aim of the economic right wing, as it is only the start of the complete deregulation of British society. Certainly this is what billionaire backers like Arron Banks and James Dyson really want out of all of this. With the overarching regulation on health, safety and working hours, the EU stands as a major barrier to their dream of unregulated corporate rule. 

Theresa May has at least been smart enough to realise that no-deal will be a hammer blow to the UK economy. Her deal addressed this by keeping industrial standards tied to the EU, thus simplifying trade. Her own intolerant views on immigration, as displayed while Home Secretary, is also displayed insofar it does away with freedom of movement. Naturally May and her supporters argue that this is what the people of the UK (well, mostly England) voted for but, in reality, it is very much a deal in her own image. Trade, yes. Immigration, no. Deregulation, some. 

The problem is that if May listened to anyone at all, it certainly was not those who still backed Remain. My initial response to the 2016 referendum outcome was that some form of Norway deal, that being keeping in the Single Market, some form of customs union and keeping Freedom of Movement would have been an acceptable compromise, while acknowledging that it is inferior to full membership. It works well enough for countries like Norway and Iceland and, in different ways for Switzerland too. It would have addressed the issue of Ireland’s border and backstop. New deals over agriculture and fishing would have been possible. Of course, the UK would have had to pay membership and keep EU regulation for goods and services, which make it unacceptable to the economic right. Those opposed to immigration would have been unassuaged too and it is this issue that keeps public support for Brexit relatively high. As already mentioned, it is an issue that is close to (what passes for) May’s heart too. 

Remainers were not consulted however and it is only this week, after nearly two and a half years, that Labour is making any real noises in this direction. Rather too little and too late. Theresa May attempted to railroad her deal through, even keeping the cabinet isolated at Chequers in order to get it through at that level before signing with the EU. When it came before Parliament last week, it was clear from the outset that Parliament, having not being consulted previously, has no intention of passing the deal. I don’t see any way this will change, especially when it is clear that there is such a large number of her own MPs not supporting her. 

Last night BBC political editor John Pienaar was talking up the possibly of a People’s Vote - otherwise known as a second referendum. This is the first time it happened: whenever it was previously raised on his show, it was pretty much waived away as a non-starter. Now it is a real possibility. Leavers say that holding a second referendum would be to disrespect the outcome of the 2016 vote. That’s fine: it was a three month debate of terrible standards on both sides. In Scotland we debated independence for two years prior to the 2014 vote which, at the time seemed an absurd length. With the benefit of hindsight though, it was the time required to debate the issues involved. It has taken about the same length of time to make it clear what Brexit actually means. Guardian reporter Carol Cadwalladr has been doing a huge amount of work in uncovering the illicit side of the Leave.EU campaign funding and methods, not that that has made a similarly huge amount of impact with the public. Enough to say that the 2016 result was flawed and possibly illegal. From the beginning I never respected it: it was so short because David Cameron did not expect to lose.

What is clear is that Theresa May’s deal is dead. What is not clear is whether any deal exists that can pass through parliament. This would take a new team to return to Strasburg and reopen negotiations from the beginning. There is no time. The EU has made it clear that the deal made is the only deal available but that depends on the UK’s red lines, or rather those painted by May. She would have to go if any meaningful new negotiations were to come about. 

Naturally the ERG are still hoping to run down the clock and leave the EU without any deal being ratified by parliament. That has always been their aim. It is possible that the EU would agree to extend the March deadline if there is either a general election or a second referendum called. I suspect that if a new government were to negotiate any new deal, Article 50 would have to be halted, resetting the Brexit clock. Only then, if the UK were determined to leave, could a new government start meaningful talks with the EU. How do we know the basis of that mandate though? Only by holding a second referendum. A second vote is a prerequisite ahead of anything else now.  If the country votes to stay, the current government has to fall. If we vote to leave again, then a general election has to be called in order for the parties to put up their competing visions of Brexit. A Remain option would no longer be viable after two Leave results.

Despite whatever the Conservative Party wants, all ways now point to a second referendum.

Salzburg and the Continuing Rise of Nationalism

Apparently the EU’s reaction was an insult to Britain. Prime Minister Theresa May has track record of not listening however and for being inflexible. From a harsh line on immigration, resulting in the injustice of the Windrush affair, through the 2017 snap election with its unwavering mantra of “strong and stable” and now to the so-called Chequers plan, May has shown that, once set out upon a course, she is incapable of moving from it until it meets an immovably real object. According to the European editor of Irish broadcaster RTÉ, Tony Connelly, this mismatch of expectation led to the debacle of Salzburg. Having trampled over objections within her own party to the plan, Theresa May thought that she could do the same with the EU 27. They, on the other hand, have been consistent and clear: there are options available but they have never included compromising either the customs union or the single market. Either the UK accepts membership of the EEA and with it becomes a rule taker, or a Canada Plus deal with defined, regulated trade but, and this is important, a backstop provision covering the island of Ireland in order to support the Republic of Ireland’s place within the EU. Other than this, there are two further options: leave the EU, with no deal and no trade agreement, or stay. Stay and all this can go away. 

These are the deals on offer folks. Sure, there may be some tinkering around the edges but the twenty-seven nations of the EU have decided to stick together on this. If the UK chooses to leave with no agreement or trade deal in place, it will be painful for all. The pain however will be spread, albeit unevenly, among the EU-27. The focus of the agony however, will be upon the UK. For those British people reading this who, like our Prime Minister, may be detached from reality, that means you and me.

We are told however that sovereignty has a value greater than gold and, like the wolf of Aesop’s Fables, better lean freedom than fat slavery. Except that the UK have never been a slave within the EU and British citizens have certainly never been so. We have never been so free to work and move across the continent and millions of our fellow citizens has taken advantage of this for decades: whether for work, holiday or retirement. The only problem seems to be that this is not a case of British exceptionalism: foreigners(!) are allowed to come to the UK with exactly the same rights. Foreign is being spoken on the streets of Britain and apparently that makes some people feel less British. There is a word for that and it is called xenophobia. 

What has been undoubtedly the case though is that an economic sub-class has been allowed to developed and this has been mobilised by nationalist forces across the continent. This nationalism has varied from place to place but it is the far-right variety that is currently in ascendency. It is most visible in nations like Poland and Hungary, but make no mistake, it is continent-wide: as seen in rising support in Sweden, France, Italy and the UK. The Conservative Party now occupies the territory formally covered by UKIP. The rump of UKIP is effectively merging with the EDL. 

The lesson for this who support the EU is clear: the economic benefits has to be shared as deeply as possible, with no EU citizen being left behind. This is a major challenge but it cannot ever be ignored again. Doubtless this insight will enrage the economic right which are currently driving the rise of nationalism and the attempt to break up the European Union. They want a system of competing economies with weak governments dictated to by strong corporations. Competition between nation states are great for them as long as corporations are free to invest in the best opportunity. As far as the various populations are concerned, it will be a race to the bottom. This is the reality of the lean freedom on offer. The EU, for all its faults, is designed to benefit its citizens through the provision of a regulated marketplace. It is these regulations that the economic right wish to destroy and nationalism is their chosen weapon; regardless of who suffers. In fact, for the extreme right, suffering is the natural order of things. A citizen may have to suffer for the sake of the nation but a strong nation ultimately will export its suffering on to other, weaker nations. This is where the far right and the free markets merge in interest except the social Darwinism of the far right will be cheated by the more powerful corporations. The nation-state will forever be weak. It is divide and rule.

How do we avoid this grim prospect? First of all, Britain has to get through this current crisis. It will not be easy. The supporters of the economic right are on the verge of victory. All this have to do is keep May in power and limp her across the finishing post at the 29^thof March, 2019 when the UK leaves the EU. They would prefer a no-deal exit. Billions can be made in a crash, primarily by betting against currency values but also by being ready to buy up devalued property. It is the opportunity that the billionaire backers of Brexit are waiting for. The majority of the press are on their side: insult to Britain, EU Gangsters, May’s Finest Hour, to paraphrase just a few of their headlines.

The Labour leadership has so far been backing Brexit. One can only conclude that Jeremy Corbyn is following the Marxist analysis that capitalism has to become intolerable before the masses to rise up and overthrow the system through revolution. I don’t know if the majority of Labour supporters share the leadership’s Marxism. If they don’t, they have to offer a final referendum on EU membership asking the British people are they sure this is what we want. As a party, they also have to come out as firm supporters of the EU. It was lack of Labour leadership on the issue that, in part, led to the defeat in 2016. 

The SNP has to come off the fence on this too. Many of their supporters have calculated that the UK leaving the EU will lead to an increased chance of a second Scottish independence referendum and a far-right England will lead to a Yes vote finally succeeding. That might be so but, the main problem is that Scotland’s largest neighbour and trading partner will then be a far-right monster! That is really kind of important guys and regardless of one’s aspirations, it is something that no sane person can wish for. Get off the fence and actively support a People’s Vote. 

As for my own party, the Liberal Democrats, we have been knocked into the wings of late but we are still here. If there is an election within the next year our message has to be simple: we will refuse Brexit. No Peoples Vote: a majority Lib Dem government would simply note that the 2016 referendum was advisory under law and a majority government would have a mandate to block it. A vote for the Liberal Democrats is a vote to stay in the EU. If we remain a minority party after the next election, then yes, we still support a People’s Vote. 

Yes, we have many other good policies and it is right we shall talk about them as well. Brexit is the elephant in the room that everybody has to be talking about for now. 

Beyond party politics however, Brexit is the most important thing facing the United Kingdom. It has to be stopped: the alternative is too horrible to contemplate but it is almost upon us. 

UPDATE: 24th of September, 2018. On BBC's Today Programme, shadow Chancellor John McDonnell confirms that any People's Vote offered by Labour would not include a option to remain in the EU. This effectively renders any further referendum being worthless. 

Global Population and Energy

I had not heard of Hans Rosling before I saw his 2013 programme Don’t Worry: The Truth about Population which the BBC re-aired after Rosling’s death this month at the age of 68.  It was really impressive: a great communicator and a first-class mind has left us.  My condolences to Rosling’s family and colleagues.

What Rosling has to say though about population growth is vital for all of us to understand if we care about humanity’s future.  The planet will be fine: over geological time it has seen many mass extinctions.  After a few million years there is always a flurry of evolution as descendants of surviving species exploit the available ecological niches and, in their turn, evolve into new species.  If this happens, then the chances are that humanity will not be around to see it.  No, it is what Rosling said about the population growth by 2100 that must concern us.

Before watching his lecture, I was led to believe that global human population would be capped by available resources at nine billion.  Apparently it is not so, as Rosling is predicting a population of eleven billion by 2100 and probably continuing to rise, albeit more slowly, thereafter. Currently the world is at seven billion - an increase of three billion during my own lifetime. Population levels have already stabilised in the northern nations: Europe, North America and Russia.  Latin America and Africa will see a doubling of their populations but Asia will see the bulk of new people.  This growth is not led by large families either.  Rosling points out that even in 2013, the average family in Bangladesh only has 2.5 children.  No, it is through most of us living longer that the the numbers of humanity will continue to growth.  Failing some drastic cataclysm, the momentum is now unstoppable.

Today we are in a world where the first stresses of this population rise are being felt.  The northern nations are the first to be living longer and having fewer children so our populations are stable, if not falling slightly as the old start to outnumber the young.  On the whole, people are defensive when it comes to foreigners and it is that that is leading to the rise of nationalism in all parts of the north: Putin, Trump, May and Le Pen.  This will only be a phase though as the momentum of humanity will ultimately be too great for such barriers to withstand.  The more serious struggle will be that of resources.

In my own field, that of energy, part of the social-conservative backlash has been directed against the new technologies of renewable energy.  I recently put up a comment on Twitter pointing out that while there is nothing wrong with the government investing in a new centre to maximise the exploration of North Sea oil and gas, they have severely cut investment in renewable energy at the same time.  Responses I got back were “Good: anything that requires a subsidy is a waste of time” and, more succinctly, “Green crap.”  Both responses come from the same source: social conservatism.  Or as a Tea Party member once told me: “All we want is simple.  Leave us the hell alone.”  That is not going to happen but it is nothing to do with political ideas.  It would be through weight of numbers.

There is also resistance from developing nations too.  Many see that the North has built wealth on the back of fossil fuels but now a section of us are saying that renewable energy is the only viable future.  The suspicion is that this is just a cover for the North to keep the fossil energy for themselves and slow down the economic development of people in the South.  “Why cannot we use oil and coal to generate wealth has you have done?” they ask.

Although the demise of fossils fuels have been predicted for some time, they will eventually run out.  If Rosling is correct and the population will rise even further than the often-cited nine billion, this will inevitably happen sooner rather than later.  That is an obvious problem for us all.  For instance, there is not one scenario being offered to the UK government that does not involve fossil fuels.  That is including from Friends of the Earth.  Even they cannot see a society model that, by 2050, we have cut our dependency on fossil fuels by more than fifty percent from current levels of consumption.  What happens to human civilisation when we are literally burning up our last scraps of coal?  I do not know but considering out current state, there cannot be a good outcome.

How much do we have left?  According to my current lectures at Heriot Watt University, the planet has about 40 years of oil, 50 years of gas and 90 years of coal left to use.  This is based upon rising demands for energy up to 2035.

Perhaps at this point I should address the basic issue about finite fuels.  After all, we always seem to be able to find more of the stuff.

 
Coal, oil and gas comes from the buried fertility of life on the planet.  Soon after the first plants were able to leave the seas and colonise land, there was an explosion of life. (Remember what I said about ecological niches being occupied?).  The first forests formed about 360 million years ago, during the geological period known as the Carboniferous.  Although there are coal reserves from younger periods (such as the lignites of Poland), it is mostly the remains of these ancient first forests we are burning.  Dry gas is associated with these coal beds.  That is the source of the gas fields of the Netherlands and the Southern North Sea.

In contrast, oil comes the biological productivity of ancient oceans.  The Northern North Sea oil comes from the Kimmeridge Clay, a carbon (fossil) rich layer of mud laid down only over a few million years about 155 million years ago.  Different areas of the world will have different sources but roughly similar mechanics.  The source rocks for the Gulf area (Saudi Arabia, UEA, Kuwait, Iraq and Iran) were laid down over a protracted length of time (about 80 million years!) during the formation and destruction of the an ancient ocean called the Tethys.  That is why about half the world’s oil reserves are to be found in this region.  As these muds, rich in the remains of marine plants and microscopic animals, are buried and heated, the chemical reactions start, over millions of years, to produce crude oil.  If that oil is heated further, wet gas is produced.  Heat it too much though and all the hydrogen is driven off, leaving only inert carbon.

Traditional drilling and oil exploration focuses upon finding the accumulations of this oil and gas as the fluids migrated and are trapped in rocks.  Fracking is only different insofar that the hydrocarbons still trapped in the original source rocks are freed up by mechanically breaking up the mudstones.   The point is about fracking is that after the source rocks have been exploited, there is nowhere else to go.  Fracking is a symptom that the sponge is starting to be squeezed in order to extract the final drops.

What of nuclear though?  Current power stations are based upon the fission of uranium.  This technology is problematic because of the weaponisation of byproducts.  Nuclear weapon technology is jealously guarded, even if that particular genie is out of the bottle.  However, this particular blog is about energy and not nuclear weapons.  Although there is plenty of uranium left in the planet, most of it is beyond the reach of human extraction. Only small quantities are trapped in the Earth’s crust and therefore mineable.  Current reserves are thought to be good for another seventy years.  Thorium is a far more plentiful element but there has been little investment in extracting the power contained within it.  Probably because its byproducts has far more difficult to weaponise.

In short, the world is not expected to have a single finite source of fossil energy expected to last beyond this century.

I haven’t even started to talk about what burning all these ancient reserves are doing to the climate.  The big question is:

Is mad-made climate change, caused by the burning of fossil fuels, real?

Quick answer is yes.  Yes, it is real.

Climate-change deniers use the figure that “only” ninety seven percent of scientists claim that climate change is man-made and that they speak for the brave three percent.  Even this is a lie.

Have a look at this graph from jamespowell.org.  Climate change deniers have had zero impact on the scientific debate on the evidence.  This means that there is either a global conspiracy involving millions of scientists or, more likely, the evidence for man-made global warming is effectively unanimously accepted by those who consider the evidence.
 

Climate change deniers also point to natural climate change variation during geological time.  This indeed happens.  The next graph, from the University of Berne, shows the natural carbon dioxide level (CO2) over the past 60,000 years in terms of parts per million (ppm).  The ramp up from 20,000 to 12,000 years ago covers the period of glacier melting at the end of the last Ice Age.  The spike, right at the end, covers the last two hundred years up to 2004 - the period of the industrial revolution.  In 2016 CO2 have now past the 400 ppm.  As explained previously, the majority of fossil fuel energy which as been locked up in the planet’s crust is now being liberated into the atmosphere.  

CO2 is a vital atmospheric component for preserving solar radiation and keeping the planet warm and habitable.  Never in the course of geological history however has there been such a rapid and concentrated injection of CO2 into the planet’s atmosphere and all scientists expect the result to be rapid increases in global temperatures.  These changes in temperature will not be evenly spread but will see higher rises at the poles and more modest increases over the equator.  The effect upon habitats and ecosystems are also expected to be drastic as most species cannot react quickly enough to such rapid change.  Sea levels will also rise, mostly due to thermal expansion of ocean waters.

These are the challenges.  What is to be done?

If we do not do anything, human society is in for a very rough time that will effect us all, even social conservatives.  It is possible to do nothing to address the energy situation but then one is into a series of short-term military interventions, killing millions without any permanent solutions.  It is possible that in the face of huge population growth, usable energy will give out almost completely, leading to catastrophic problems in food production and supply. 

I tend not to be a doom-monger though.  Even without wilful negligence of current conservative thinking, solutions often still arise.  Again though, these tend to be short term and limited in scope, especially in democratic systems.  Authoritarian systems such as China do have an advantage when performing long-term planning.  The Chinese are indeed one of the highest investors in renewable energy technology.  This is perfectly understandable because their own history shows the negative results that social upheaval can have.  People tend to remember only the Second World War and the Communist revolution but they also remember events like the Taiping Revolution: one of the bloodiest civil wars in global history.  The challenge for Western nations is achieving desirable long-term outcomes without having to resort to dictatorship and the crushing of individual human rights.

Therefore I call upon all governments, but especially nationalist governments in the west, to first of all accept the scientific evidence and give no heed to climate change deniers.  The same can also to be asked of the mass media organisations.  Giving equal weight to the deniers is not upholding their right to free speech, it is simply propagation of a lie.  I am not going to stop people to state there is no such thing as global warming: it is just that they are simply wrong and are continuing to say so in the light of all available evidence.

Secondly, once the evidence is accepted as real, act upon it.  This does not mean leaving it to the market place.  Wise government is able to foresee trouble ahead and act in good time to minimalise the worst outcomes.  If this means having to subsidise prices from renewable energy resources and invest in energy storage research, then do it.

Thirdly, this appeal is to both governments and green activists.  We will need all the resources available to us over the next century.  This includes fossil fuels and nuclear.  Do not arbitrarily block  the exploitation of these reserves.  They will be needed.  Instead we need a long term policy approach to manage these resources, having them last as long as possible while taking measures to minimalise the effects of CO2 release: either through carbon capture or keeping the carbon in situ while releasing the hydrogen for energy usage.  We cannot have a position where hydrocarbons are bad: renewables good.  Yes, we need to maximise our investment and research in renewables but we will also still have to use fossil fuels.

By nature, I am not a pessimist.  These are huge challenges but, if we are smart, we as a species and civilisation, may be able to get through this next century.  We all need to wake up, look to the future and not harken either back to the past or some green nirvana that can never be.  We all need to accept and act upon the evidence.

UK Politics, 2016.

A lot of people will be glad to see the end of 2016 and in the political sphere, it was indeed a bad year to be a liberal.  I am going to take this opportunity to get a lot off my chest so buckle up dear reader.

Where to start?  Brexit seems a “good” place.  There is a lot of lessons for the political establishment here.  For many, dislike of immigration was the main factor.  Listening to those who voted to leave however, I do not think that the central message was one of hatred.  It was a cry of desperation: the feeling that politicians do not listen to them and that the issues that matter most are not being addressed.  Instead of addressing these issues though, the blame was shifted on to the EU - the “unelected bureaucrats” who allegedly dictate our lives.  The lie was cynically sold to those people who are least informed of the issues.  The state of UK democracy is not the fault of the EU but rather of ourselves.  Westminster has a rotten voting system and local democracy in the form of town and county councils have been hollowed out systematically since the 1970s.  Leaving the European Union will not address any of this.  It comes down to decision-making on the local level and having the resources necessary so that local needs can be answered.  Leaving the EU will only worsen our economy for the foreseeable future.  One possible explanation put forward is based upon economic psychology.  It is claimed that is better for some to see everybody poorer rather than to see some better off.  Personally, I hope this is not the case as for my own personal politics is to encourage people to positive action, while understanding we all have negative passions too.  

What is the game plan of those who led the Brexit campaign?  It varies, depending upon which end of the political extreme one is on.  We currently have a very right wing government in office, led by Theresa May.  Make no mistake: these people are both social and economic extremists.  Even Farage himself mused upon the possibility of rejoining the Conservative Party, as they now occupy UKIP ground.  In order to appear more central, there has been an accommodation in the press of the Far Right.  This is evidenced not only by the continued presence of Farage, but Marine Le Pen of the Front National has been making several appearances on the BBC.  My antenna first twitched when on the World at One (BBC Radio 4) Le Pen was introduced as a “right wing” politician.  Note, not extreme right as in previous years.  Later on she and her nationalist right party featured on Newsnight (BBC 2) and The Marr Show (BBC1).  We have to import fascists for it is impossible to go further right than UKIP and the current government without stepping into Britain First, one of whose members murdered Labour’s Jo Cox MP on June 16th, 2016.

The far economic right agenda is starting to surface.  It had to start with the repeal of a lot of the previous legislation laid down by Liberal Democrats while part of the Coalition.  During the summer recess of 2015, the Cameron government cut the majority of support to the renewable industries and weakened the framework set up to strictly regulate fracking in (onshore) England.  Previously no exploitation would have been allowed under national parks and similarly protected areas - such as Sherwood Forest.  Now it is just about the location of well sites.  Deviated and horizontal well technology is now allowed to drill under areas previously off limits.  Since the Brexit vote, a lot of effort is going into deregulation.  Large corporations are looking at London in the hope of benefitting from an extreme low-tax regime, without having to go to all the fuss of setting up shell companies in far-flung tax havens.  Working rights, already weakened in negotiations with UK governments, will be further attacked.  Farmers who supported Brexit will be looking to grow GM crops and import US-style animal husbandry practices in order to boost profits.  Basically, the whole of the UK is to become a giant deregulated Free-Trade Zone, even more extreme than what exists currently in the USA.  The Right will be looking keenly at the moves taken by President Elect (at the time of writing) Trump, along with the Republican Congress and Senate. 

Enough of the Right, what of the Left?  Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn (remember him?) has been mute on holding this government to account on Brexit.  In fact, a lot of Labour spokespeople have been making very supportive noises on limiting future immigration.  Some say that this is Labour running scared of their own electorate and pandering to the prejudice on display.  I cannot help but wonder if there is a deeper motive in play.  It is pretty clear that Corbyn is no fan of the EU and in this he follows in the Bennite tradition.  The idea being is that the EU is primarily a regulated trading zone with large corporations being the major beneficiaries.  Since a sincere and dedicated socialist is against capitalism, one must also be against the EU.  There is more.  Corbyn and his Momentum acolytes must know the Conservative plans for the economy.  Why are they not vocally opposing them now?  One wonders if the reason is because they have read their Marx, and that in order for true socialism to come about, capitalism must be allowed to go to the worst possible extremes.  Only then will us proletariat rise up and overthrow our masters.  Overall, the EU has been quite successful in curbing the worst excesses and allowing many citizens to have reasonable lives.  It is a stumbling block on the way to the Marxist paradise.  The Conservatives on the other hand are offering the path to corporate excess and thus to the inevitable people’s revolution. Only speculation one understands, but otherwise there is no accounting for the silence of Labour leadership.

What of UKIP?  The whole point of the referendum was for the Conservative party to address the schism within their own ranks: UKIP is a renegade party created by former Conservatives after all.  This they have done, even at the cost of pulling the UK out of Europe (Brexit means Brexit) and dividing the nation pretty well down the middle. Seldom British history has a prime minister laid down the future of an entire nation for the sake of his own party, but this is what the Conservatives under David Cameron has done. Since the vote went the way of Leave, there is little point in UKIP existing any more. Sure, they might have a revival if the Conservatives do not deliver but at the time of writing, UKIP has won and the membership might as well return to the mothership that is the Conservative Party. 
As UKIP is reabsorbed however, one may find that some choose to go their own way.  Look out for “independent” candidates, using the language of the US ALT Right; offering to “Drain the Swamp” near you.  In previous years they would have wondered off and joined the National Front or the BNP.  They are still the same old fascists and racists, just using a new label.

 With all this madness going on, the SNP up here in Scotland must think that things are going rather well.  In May they won their third term in government, albeit as an minority this time around.  The problem is with the SNP is that they are a pressure group for independence rather than a political party with thought-through and costed policies.  Yet again in 2016, we had the farce of the delayed publication of the party manifestos.  In 2011, the other parties realised that for their own manifesto, the SNP shamelessly cut-and-paste policies into their own manifesto and simply increases the pledges.  For example, after an in-depth report from a party committee, in their manifesto the Liberal Democrats might pledge to build 40,000 houses in Scotland over the five years of a parliamentary term.  The SNP leadership think “Oh, that’s shiny, we’ll have that” and ups their pledge to 50,000 for good measure.  It is not just the Liberal Democrat manifesto that is pillaged in this way: the SNP does it to all the other parties.  This time around Labour held out and were last to publish with only days left before the vote.  This could not have helped with postal voting and may have contributed towards their third place.  By representing themselves as Unionists rather than Tories, the Conservatives came second.  On the street and doorstep, one could not even make out any sign of Conservative logos or name tags: the print used was so small.  During the election Ruth Davidson successfully de-branded themselves as Conservatives and even now distances herself from her Westminster colleagues by this week restating her EU-Remainer sympathies.

None of this really matters to the SNP.  The only policy they have is independence and the only method of government they do is the centralisation of power to Holyrood.  This year’s bill on forestry will not devolve power to local communities but instead takes power from the Forestry Commission and gives it to government ministers.  The SNP will continue to concentrate all policing in the hands of government by absorbing Scottish-based British Transport Police into the already discredited Police Scotland.  They shamelessly use the language of the progressive left while practicing economic right-wing policies.  Look out for the predicted cut in air transport duty, due to be delivered in 2018.  This isn’t based upon any progressive or green policies but rather at the demand of Gordon Dewar, the chief executive of Edinburgh Airport.  The SNP has not altered the burden of income tax so it weighs heavier on the better off.  All they have done in not pass on the Conservative tax cut to higher earners made by the Westminster government.  When it comes to renewable energy, the Scottish government has passed on the Westminster cuts to small-scale generators and now their emphasis is on large-scale projects, just as it in the south.  Our hospitals and care services continues to be cut, as does our education services.  Right now that they are claiming in an online meme that the NHS is thriving outside England, at a time when both hospital and care services continue to be cut here in Edinburgh and Dundee has problem filling vacant positions.  This is a new definition of thriving.  What really gets me is not just that the problems exist, it is the constant denial that there are any problems at all.  Things will inevitably worsen while the Executive continues to deny that there is problems in public and the main thing they demand of their membership (and even MPs and MSPs) is unquestioning faith rather than intelligent criticism.  As a society we cannot continue to hang time while the party in charge waits for its opportunity to hold a second referendum.  Problems we all face need addressing now, otherwise the nation’s future prospects will worsen, whatever capital city is ultimately in charge.

What of my own beloved party, the Liberal Democrats?  As Paddy Ashdown graphically put it (after dining upon his own hat following the 2015 election), politically we were “roadkill”.  Slowly though we are less roadkill and more on the road to recovery.  Safe to say the party did not enjoy power.  Better being in power though - after all we were able to deliver seventy percent of our manifesto commitments and beat down the excesses we warned you all about with the Conservatives and are now all-too-evident.  Freed from the shackles of Westminster coalition (which incidentally I did highlight in a pre-election blog post in 2010), a weight has been lifted off our shoulders and the old campaigning mojo is back.  This is evident by performances in the 2016 Scottish elections, winning two seats (thanks to teams led by Willie Rennie and Alex Cole-Halmilton) directly from the SNP and avoiding the predicted wipeout.  Further evidence is the net gain of 28 council seats in by-elections across the UK.  The cherry on the (still admittedly small but growing) pie is the victory at Richmond Park, with Sarah Olney overthrowing a massive Conservative majority.  Yes, Goldsmith was standing as an independent and yes, the Greens showed true generosity in standing aside in the fight.  Goldsmith was supported by the Conservatives and UKIP also stood aside to give him a better chance.  A win is a win and it shows that liberalism is not forgotten.  Indeed, liberalism is proving to be the only effective antidote against extremism and popularism.  I have faith in people, but only when they also have the facts.  That is one reason why power is best delivered locally and not centralised in either Edinburgh or London.  Democracy is also too valuable to be bought by corporations following what is effectively a constitutional coup by the economic far right.

I remain both a liberal and a Remainer.  Brexit has given us Liberal Democrats not only a further reason to exist but have provided us with a mission that the public can easily understand.  I don’t respect the outcome of the referendum.  When we had our debate over Scottish independence, the time taken allowed everybody a rounded view before the vote.  Two years felt long: it was long but it proved necessary.  Three months is nothing.  In fact it was just six weeks up here in Scotland, owing to the Scottish Parliament elections being held in May.  When I wrote my blog giving the reasons I was voting No, I made the commitment that whatever the outcome, I would honour it.  We never had that kind of debate over Brexit, it was rushed and frankly was only ever held to settle the schism in the Conservative Party.  Internal party reasons to hold the referendum of such huge consequence are is the worst possible motive and we need a second referendum.  Not so the correct result can be achieved - although obviously I do hope for a different outcome - it is so that a public decision can be reached with all the options and facts being explored.  A rushed, railroaded decision is worse than no decision at all.  The alternative to another referendum would be a general election.  On that, I would be very happy to see the Liberal Democrats stand as the party dedicated to remain within the European Union.  As part of a genuinely progressive coalition, it might even be possible to overturn Brexit and thwart the extreme right.