Brexit: where now for Devon and Cornwall businesses?

Devon and Cornwall Business Council:

“1) DEVOLUTION. This process may be very welcome to the business community (or it may not). There has been inadequate consultation for us to know what the implications might be. Either way it will create a period of uncertainty. We cannot afford to risk this whilst so many critical matters are up in the air. I propose that we ask for, at least, a 12 month moratorium whilst clarity is restored. Then we need a proper period of consultation knowing what we then know. Devolution has the potential to provide significant opportunities for devolved administrations to determine their own future when it comes to skills, transport, investment and development, but this agenda needs to be developed collaboratively with the private sector standing shoulder to shoulder with Government.

2) EUROPEAN MARKETS. More than 50% of South West trade is with near Europe. There have been some bold statements that 90% of trading opportunities will be outside the EU in the next 10-15 years. Many, however, of our investors are based in Europe – IMERYS, EDF Energy, Sibelco, Princes Yachts, Plymouth Gin, Barden Corporation to name but a few. Decisions are made in European capitals which affect a large number of our jobs and future growth prospects. We need to ensure that the existing investments are maintained and that we will feature in future investment decisions – access to the Single Market is vital. UK Trade and Industry (UKTI) department officials are already fully stretched (inadequate funding currently, with an increasing workload), we need to establish our own business trade ambassadors to ensure direct contacts are maintained and developed. From this base we can then begin to start creating a forward order book for whatever new trade agreements might emerge. This will also allow a programme to be developed to enable access into new global markets.

3) INFRASTRUCTURE. The South West has for too long been the Cinderella of the UK in terms of infrastructure investment. We have clearly supported plans for future spending on road, rail, air, marine and broadband projects. We must now directly lobby for these, acting as a single voice and ensuring that our South West MPs are lobbied to also speak with one voice. What, however, will make this happen is a demonstration that investment in infrastructure will result in direct business investment. We need to clearly demonstrate what we will contribute in return.

4) PLAY TO OUR STRENGTHS. Some of our most successful business sectors should be the subject of focussed programmes for ambitious expansion – food and drink, tourism and e-health are good examples of where the South West has specialist skills. Add to these; marine / maritime technology, aerospace / space, advanced engineering, digital and creative economy. Designed and co-ordinated tasks forces could achieve spectacular results in these areas of the economy.

5) GOVERNANCE/REGULATION. The system of regulation has been often complained about as a barrier to business growth – red tape, EU regulations or Gold plating from Whitehall? Staffing levels at regulators have been cut making the problems more acute. The establishment of voluntary codes and working partnerships led by trade bodies and self-regulated by them (with rewards for best practise) could greatly improve the current confrontational systems which have become entrenched – particularly in areas such as planning and environmental health.

6) PRODUCTIVITY. We have routinely lagged behind the average UK productivity levels (between 15-20% lower than UK average for Devon and Cornwall1). There are many drivers of productivity; investment, innovation, skills, enterprise and competition. This problem can be partly addressed by self-help. Simple work based systems can achieve significant improvements to outputs (and profits). These include Lean Production techniques. Training for all staff on digital skills and improvements to work/life balance (flexible working hours) which can reduce lost time off through stress / illness.

7) YOUNG BUSINESS. The Business Community has a collective responsibility to re-engage with the next generation to ensure we have attracted the huge talents of our young people. Business support can start by involvement as a Governor at Primary School all the way through to being a voluntary mentor for new start businesses. There are also great opportunities for assisting with work experience. The SW is blessed with some exceptional people with invaluable skills and experience. This should be high on the business agenda.

8) INNOVATION/SKILLS. We are proud of our Universities and Further Education Colleges. They deliver with national and international standards. The ground breaking research they produce is helping to change things around the world. We complain about a lack of relevant skills; however, do we fully engage with these institutions? Do we share with them our future business plans so that skill sets can be anticipated? Do we share with them our challenges in order to co-develop innovative solutions? Do we respond to their outreach work which can tackle production/system deficiencies? The answer is we could all do better. New partnerships should be formed as a priority. In part focusing on achieving young people with relevant skills (matched to growth sectors) through apprenticeships which, have the potential to greatly reduce our reliability on skilled labour from outside the UK, EU or otherwise.

9) URBAN/RURAL. For too long we have allowed ourselves to get sucked into Whitehall speak on the growth of Cities. Seen from the Whitehall bubble this is the best place to concentrate investment decisions. What we are missing by not forging strong urban/rural partnerships represents one of the greatest untapped opportunities for the growth of our economy – natural energy, local food production, health and well-being, water quality, flood/climate change management are all on our doorstep. DCBC will spearhead a rolling programme of partnership opportunities.

10) FUNDNG. The expectation that Government cash will still arrive as before is fool’s gold. Austerity will get worse before it gets better. Business will become even more important in the funding of growth opportunities. This could include matched funding with Devolved Authorities and perhaps taking advantage of cheap Government borrowing. We must set out our investment priorities more clearly and take these to our key stakeholders in the public sector for early discussions in order that improved delivery be achieved.”

http://www.dcbc.co.uk/news/brexit-where-next-business-community-10-point-recovery-plan#

Buying votes by political donation

Published in full because Owl found it impossible to decide which paragraph to cut.

“We may be told donors do not influence policy, but anywhere else our setup would be seen as corruption
Is this a democracy or is it a plutocracy? Between people and power is a filter through which decisions are made, a filter made of money. In the European referendum, remain won 46% of the money given and lent to the two sides (£20.4m) and 48% of the vote; leave won 54% of the money and 52% of the vote. This fearful symmetry should worry anyone who values democracy. Did the vote follow the money? Had the spending been the other way round, would the result have reflected that? These should not be questions you need to ask in a democracy.

If spending has no impact, no one told the people running the campaigns: both sides worked furiously at raising funds, sometimes from gruesome people. The top donor was the stockbroker Peter Hargreaves, who gave £3.2m to Leave.eu. He explained his enthusiasm for leaving the EU thus: “It would be the biggest stimulus to get our butts in gear that we have ever had … We will get out there and we will be become incredibly successful because we will be insecure again. And insecurity is fantastic.”

No one voted for such people, yet they are granted power over our lives. It is partly because the political system is widely perceived to be on sale that people have become so alienated. Paradoxically, political alienation appears to have boosted the leave vote. The leave campaign thrived on the public disgust generated by the system that helped it to win.

If politics in Britain no longer serves the people, our funding system has a lot to do with it. While in most other European nations, political parties and campaigns are largely financed by the state, in Britain they are largely funded by millionaires, corporations and trade unions. Most people are not fools, and they rightly perceive that meaningful choices are being made in private, without democratic consent. Where there is meaning, there is no choice; where there is choice, there is no meaning.

Politicians insist that donors have no influence on policy, but you would have to be daft to believe it. The fear of losing money is a constant anxiety, and consciously or subconsciously people with an instinct for self-preservation will adapt their policies to suit those most likely to fund them. Nor does it matter whether policies follow the money or money follows the policies: those whose proposals appeal to the purse-holders will find it easier to raise funds.

Sometimes the relationship appears to be immediate. Before the last general election, 27 of the 59 richest hedge fund managers in Britain sponsored the Conservatives. Perhaps these donations had nothing to do with the special exemption from stamp duty on stock market transactions the chancellor granted to hedge funds, depriving the public sector of about £145m a year. But that doesn’t seem likely.

At the Conservatives’ annual Black and White Ball, you get the access you pay for: £5,000 buys you the company of a junior minister; £15,000, a cabinet minister. Politicians insist that there’s no relationship between donations and appointments to the House of Lords, but a study at Oxford University found that the probability of this being true is “approximately equivalent to entering the national lottery and winning the jackpot five times in a row”.

We might not have had a say in the choice of the new prime minister, but I bet there was a lively conversation between Conservative MPs and their major funders.

Among the many reasons for the crisis in the Labour party is the desertion of its large private donors. One of them, the corporate lawyer Ian Rosenblatt, complains: “I don’t think Jeremy Corbyn or anyone around him is remotely interested in whether people like me support the party or not.” Why should the leader of the Labour party have to worry about the support of one person ahead of the votes of millions?

The former Labour adviser Ayesha Hazarika urged Corbyn to overcome his scruples: “Meeting rich people and asking for money is not exactly part of the brand that has been so successful among his party faithful. But … sometimes you just have to suck it up and do things you don’t like.”

Under our current system she might be right, not least because the Conservatives have cut Labour’s other sources of funding: trade union fees and public money. But what an indictment of the system that is. During the five years before the last election, 41% of the private donations made to political parties came from just 76 people. This is what plutocracy looks like.

Stand back from this system and marvel at what we have come to accept. If we saw it anywhere else, we would immediately recognise it as corruption. Why should parties have to grovel to oligarchs to win elections? Or, for that matter, trade unions?

The political system should be owned by everyone, not by a subset. But the corruption at its heart has become so normalised that we can scarcely see it.

Two-fifths of British political donations made by just 76 people
Here is one way in which we could reform our politics. Each party would be allowed to charge the same fee for membership – a modest amount, perhaps £20. The state would then match this money, at a fixed ratio. And that would be it. There would be no other funding for political parties. The system would be simple, transparent and entirely dependent on the enthusiasm politicians could generate. They would have a powerful incentive to burst their bubbles and promote people’s re-engagement with politics. The funding of referendums would be even simpler: the state would provide an equal amount for each side.

The commonest argument against such arrangements is that we can’t afford them. Really? We can’t afford, say, £50m for a general election, but we can afford the crises caused by the corruption of politics? We could afford the financial crisis, which arose from politicians’ unwillingness to regulate their paymasters. We can afford the costs of Brexit, which might have been bought by a handful of millionaires.

Those who urged us to leave the EU promised that we would take back control. Well, this is where it should begin.”

A fully linked version of this article can be found at Monbiot.com

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/jul/13/billionaires-bought-brexit-controlling-britains-political-system?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

Whither the Bullingdon Club and Hugo Swire?

Now Andrea Leadsom has withdrawn from the Tory campaign, how will East Devon MP Hugo Swire fare? Theresa May is, of course, not part of the Eton Old Boys Club and has not shown any enthusiasm for it.

Maybe we can now get our constituency MP back so he can start to deal with all the pressing problems we have here. But maybe she will enjoy keeping a few of the posh boys around in minor roles!

And what of Parish? He is a Remainer who backed Leadsom, a Brexiter!

They say a week is a long time in politics, but now it’s just a few minutes!

Swire for May, Parish for Leadsom – strict nanny v naughty nanny

Remainer Swire votes for Remainer May but says she is “monochrome” and is he supports her because she is not privileged.

Remainer Parish, the animal rights supporter, votes for Brexiter Leadsom who wants to bring back fox hunting.

source: http://www.exeterexpressandecho.co.uk/tory-devon-mps-split-as-swire-backs-may-and-parish-backs-leadsom/story-29488578-detail/story.html

So, Swire backs strict nanny,the vicar’s daughter who has published her tax returns when he says MPs tax returns(ie his) are no-one else’s business, whereas Parish backs naughty nanny (who refuses to publish her tax returns, was bankrolled by her hedge fund brother-in-law and had the rather elaborate cv that was later amended).

And East Devon Tories have to choose one or the other.

It just gets stranger and stranger.

All we need now is Corbyn to defect to the Tories.

Who will fund the Sidford Industrial Park post-Brexit?

Property funds that own offices, shops, industrial units and warehouses are freezing their assets as fundholders seek to remove their investments in them. In a recession, such properties are millstones, as they go quickly into negative equity and are hard to shift unless you do so at a loss.

Businesses contracting and cautious entrepreneurs no longer want accommodation and this leads to a glut of empty properties which exacerbates the problem.

In this climate, who would fund Sidford Fields and why?

What happens when you put Oliver Letwin in charge of Brexit policy

“Reassuringly, the man in charge of the government’s ‘Brexit unit’ is the go-to guy for not having a clue.

People have always called David Cameron a pragmatist, but the morning after the referendum he must have become a nihilist. Nothing else can explain the appointment of Oliver Letwin to lead the United Kingdom government’s Brexit unit. A prime minister who basically won an election by holding up Liam Byrne’s “I’m afraid there is no money” note has effectively dumped Oliver Letwin on to his successor’s desk – in all senses of that verb. I’m afraid there is no plan. I’m afraid there is Oliver Letwin.

Oliver Letwin! And come to that: unit! “Unit” implies a crack squad, an elite fighting force, a sort of A-Team meets Delta Force outfit whose moral grey areas are a trade-off with the extreme effectiveness best distilled in the famous Jack Nicholson speech in A Few Good Men. Deep down in places you don’t talk about at parties, you want that unit on the wall. You need that unit on the wall.

Instead, you’ve got Oliver Letwin. To fully absorb the fact Oliver Letwin is our guy at the sharp end of Brexit planning is to realise that even as the pound was nose-diving that first morning, we hadn’t reached rock bottom. There was a very deep concealed basement, into which we are only now beginning our journey.

Our tour guide is Oliver Letwin, a man whose chief claim to fame was once being the victim of one of those idiosyncratic Tory burglaries (see also Liam Fox). You know the sort of thing: when you let two strange men into your house at 5am in your pyjamas because they ask to use the loo, only to find – in a development that could only have been predicted by a computer the size of Los Alamos – that they nick your wallet. Or at least, that was Letwin’s chief claim to fame until last year’s declassification of a 1985 report he wrote for Margaret Thatcher in the wake of the Broadwater Farm riot, in which he suggested that social malaise was down to “bad moral attitudes” among black people, who would only re-route regeneration funding into the “disco and drug trade”. (He apologised when this came to light 30 years later.) …

… What’s the plan? “I’m trying to give you the truth,” Letwin twinkled terrifyingly, “which is that I have a completely open mind.” “Which is that you haven’t a clue.” Well of course he hasn’t. Oliver Letwin is your go-to guy if you want someone not to have a clue about something. In 2003, he pledged that a Tory government would automatically deport all asylum seekers to a foreign island “far, far away”. Where? He conceded he did not have “the slightest idea”. He is one remove beyond even Captain Hindsight, the South Park superhero whose speciality is showing up to disaster scenes and explaining what could have been done to avert them. Letwin is Captain I-Haven’t-the-Slightest-Idea. That’s the guy running the Brexit situation room.

“Why was there no mention of Brexit in the national security strategy?” wondered Blunt. “Because,” reasoned Letwin wholly unreasonably, “the government’s firm intent was to remain part of the EU.” And yet, for a government whose firm intent is not to be involved in a nuclear war, it sure has a lot of nuclear weapons. Perhaps it wishes to move to a situation where we wait to be hit by an intercontinental ballistic missile, then appoint Oliver to scratch around for some kind of plan for how to build a nuclear deterrent from the ashes. After all, the ever-upwardly-failing Letwin may be surely added to the list of things that would survive a nuclear holocaust.”

http://gu.com/p/4z3nh

Progressive Alliance

” … Unless something drastic and decisive happens, the next election threatens to become a contest between the Tories and Ukip: in other words, between rightwing technocrats owned by the banks and rightwing demagogues owned by Arron Banks.

What is this drastic something? A progressive alliance.

This means Labour, the SNP, Liberal Democrats, Greens, Plaid Cymru, Sinn Féin and other parties agreeing to field just one candidate between them in every constituency. Whether that means a unity candidate representing all parties (perhaps chosen in an open primary, as the political innovator Paul Hilder has suggested), or making way for the party representative most likely to capture the progressive vote is a question that needs to be debated. The Greens and Lib Dems seem ready to play. What about Labour?

Joining such an alliance means giving up Scotland and giving up its hopes of a majority in England and Wales. You could see that as a lot to ask, or you could see it as accepting the inevitable. Here’s where the kinder, gentler politics is required: to abandon tribalism and strike generous bargains with old opponents. It’ll be hard, but the urgency of the task, as we confront an elite that is now empowered to tear down the remains of postwar social democracy, should be apparent to everyone. By giving up hopes of governing alone, Labour could be offered a last chance of survival – but only as part of a wider alliance.

Combined, these forces can win the next general election, whenever that might be. Apart, they will inevitably lose. A progressive alliance need win only once, then use that victory to reform our electoral system, to ensure that the parties of the left and centre never again engage in destructive competition.”

http://gu.com/p/4npen

Taking control and sovereignty – whose control?

Tricky one this. Presumably people voting Brexitassumed that control and sovereignty rested with Parliament. But David Cameron appears to think he can by-pass Parliament on this one. So, it’s a bit like the “elected Mayor” situation in devolution where one person gets to decide what happens next. Owl always thought that was a definition of dictatorship!

The referendum held on 23 June was an exercise to obtain the views of UK citizens, the majority of whom expressed a desire to leave the EU. But the decision to trigger article 50 of the Treaty of European Union, the legal process for withdrawal from the EU, rests with the representatives of the people under the UK constitution.

The government, however, has suggested that it has sufficient legal authority. Mishcon de Reya has been in correspondence with the government lawyers since 27 June 2016 on behalf of its clients to seek assurances that the government will uphold the UK constitution and protect the sovereignty of parliament in invoking article 50.

If the correct constitutional process of parliamentary scrutiny and approval is not followed then the notice to withdraw from the EU would be unlawful, negatively impacting the withdrawal negotiations and our future political and economic relationships with the EU and its 27 member states, and open to legal challenge. This legal action seeks to ensure that the article 50 notification process is lawful.”

Source: Guardian Live blog

Is Neil Parish indirectly supporting UKIP if he votes for Andrea Leadsom?

“No hysteria, I’m sure, in the Conservative party, where the whittling-down of leadership candidates begins tomorrow. Andrea Leadsom launches her official campaign today amid accusations that she is the Ukip choice for Tory leader. Ukip and Leave.EU funder Arron Banks is certainly on Team Leadsom, and Tory MP David Jones (a Theresa May backer) has warned:

There is no doubt that elements of Ukip are intending to try to steal a Conservative leadership election.”

Source: Guardian live blog

Osborne has a 5 point plan …

Chancellor George Osborne has come up with one [plan] and his also has five points [see Johnson, Boris], key among them a proposal to cut corporation tax to below 15% – the lowest of any major economy – to encourage businesses to invest in post-Brexit Britain. The others, as revealed in an interview with the Financial Times, are:

Ensuring support for bank lending.

A push for more investment in China.

A focus on delivering the Northern Powerhouse.

Maintaining Britain’s fiscal credibility.

No word from the chancellor on the brightness of the future, though he does urge everyone to stop “moping around”.

Source: Guardian Live blog

If that’s the plan, where does it place devolution outside the “Northern Powerhouse”?

And did he mean investment IN China or FROM China?

Whatever, our LEP members – all hit hard by Brexit implications in their individual sectors (nuclear, arms dealing, housing development and universities) – must surely be taking time out from their LEP duties to spend more time with their own businesses, now in dire need of their expertise.

Leadsom, Remainer in 2013 does not rule out working with Farage

This is what Andrea Leadsom, leading Brexiter and Tory candidate for PM (backed by our MP Neil Parish) said about the EU in 2013 and her current ideas:

” … Tory leadership contender Andrea Leadsom has refused to rule out giving Nigel Farage a position on the government’s EU negotiating team if she becomes Prime Minister.

The admission comes despite the Ukip leader drawing boos and shouts of rage from MEPs in his ‘victory’ speech last week as he declared many of them had never had a proper job.

Asked if she’d appoint Mr garage to help lead Brexit negotiations, Ms Leadsom – who has painted herself as the heir to Margaret Thatcher – said: “I don’t want to get into who would do what.” …

… ,Ms Leadsom was forced to confront claims of hypocrisy today after a tape emerged of her saying Brexit would be a “disaster”.

She said in 2013: “I’m going to nail my colours to the mast here: I don’t think the UK should leave the EU.

“I think it would be a disaster for our economy and it would lead to a decade of economic and political uncertainty at a time when the tectonic plates of global success are moving.

Like the rise and fall of the Roman and Greek empires, we are seeing the rise of the Asian or South American economies at a time when our own future is less certain.

“And to be honest, economic success is the vital underpinning of every happy nation. The wellbeing we all crave goes hand in hand with economic success.”

Asked to respond to the remarks, Ms Leadsom told the BBC’s Andrew Marr show: “It’s been a journey”. …”

She also did not rule out employing Nigel Farage, or possibly offering him a knighthood if she gets the power to do so.

Source: Andrew Marr Show, 3 July 2016

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/no10-hopeful-andrea-leadsom-refuses-8338756

As Mr Parish has also changed his mind about Brexit a couple of times, one can perhaps understand why she is so attractive a candidate to him.

Neil Parish does the Brexit hokey-cokey

hokeys

He was one of 79 Tory MPs who voted with the opposition to force the EU referendum.

He then backed – vociferously – Remain,

Now he backs Brexiter Andrea Leadsom.

Hugo Swire has not yet declared. Might he also back a Brexiter?

Well, you have to be flexible in the Parliamentary jobs market.

Hold on to that anger against those who would wreck everything …

” … This week of shock will settle, eventually. Events will begin to move at a slower pace. We will realise that we have to be patient, that we need to wait till France and Germany get their elections out of the way, and hope that a new future can be negotiated – one that implements the democratic verdict delivered in the referendum, but which does not maim this country in the process.

But even as we grow calmer, we should not let our anger cool. We should hold on to our fury, against those who for the sake of their career or a pet dogma, were prepared to wreck everything. On this day [the centenary of the Battle of the Somme] when we mourn what horror the Europe before the European Union was capable of, we should say loud and clear of those that did this: we won’t forget them.”

http://gu.com/p/4nfyp

Parliament: new inquiry into implications of leaving the EU announced today

“In the light of the outcome of the referendum on EU membership, the Foreign Affairs Committee is launching a rolling inquiry into the Government’s handling of the process of departing the EU and the ongoing implications of the decision for the UK’s role in the world. This will build on the findings of the Committee’s report, published in April 2016, outlining both the short- and long-term implications of the vote for the UK’s global role.

Inquiry: Implications of leaving the EU for the UK’s role in the world
Foreign Affairs Committee

Terms of reference

The Committee welcomes written submissions which address in particular:

The type of relationship that the UK, its Crown Dependencies and its Overseas Territories should seek to pursue with the EU in future
The implications of the decision for the UK’s strategic orientation, global posture, alliances and international trade.

The Government’s management of negotiations to determine the terms of the UK’s exit from the EU, including their political direction and the structures and resources to be put in place to orchestrate the transition.

The work of the FCO in the transition process, both in negotiations with the EU and in managing the UK’s broader global role including trade agreements

Because of the rapidly changing situation and the rolling nature of this inquiry, no deadline is being set for written submissions. However, submissions received by 30 September will inform the Committee’s work in October.”

http://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/commons-select/foreign-affairs-committee/news-parliament-2015/eu-results-launch-16-17/

Political paralysis – and no plan, or at least not a viable one

” … The root problem here, and the real reason why Britain looks increasingly ungovernable, is that the referendum allowed the public to give the thumbs down to the status quo, without providing assent for anything to go in its place. Indeed, if there was a “leave proposition” it was mendacious, involving the pretence that we could simultaneously, bolt the door, stop paying all EU fees, but continue to trade with it as advantageously as now. In the days since the vote, Angela Merkel has confirmed that it is simply not possible to have all three at once. One way or another, Britain is going to have to choose here, and it may very well be that there is no majority – among the public, or in parliament – for any of the realistic options.

If so, the UK will be snookered – condemned by the referendum to being out of Europe, but without any agreement on a way forward. It is a situation that cries out for serious leadership, to win popular assent for one imperfect path or another. Without it, the country could end up paralysed, and the people feeling betrayed. At Westminster, however, many politicians seem too consumed with betraying each other to care.

http://gu.com/p/4nb2d

Brexit and housing

From Daily Telegraph Money/Property:

“What does it mean for the supply crisis?

While we don’t know whether immigration will be curbed, if there are fewer people allowed to work in the UK’s construction industry, it will exacerbate the already acute skills shortage. About 12 per cent of construction workers across the country are from abroad, and in London that rises to 23 per cent.

Construction costs could jump 12 per cent as a result of the vote to leave, according to Ted Macdougal, development director for Forrest, a housebuilder.

Our housing supply-demand imbalance will not be solved any time soon: the Government’s pledge to build 200,000 homes per year is still way off target. Investment in house building is on hold and until there are enough homes built, the lack of supply could cushion house prices, regardless of Brexit.”

https://t.co/xgEUvuoaHs

The current political situation explained


Benjamin Timothy Blaine – Facebook post

“So, let me get this straight… the leader of the opposition campaigned to stay but secretly wanted to leave, so his party held a non-binding vote to shame him into resigning so someone else could lead the campaign to ignore the result of the non-binding referendum which many people now think was just angry people trying to shame politicians into seeing they’d all done nothing to help them.

Meanwhile, the man who campaigned to leave because he hoped losing would help him win the leadership of his party, accidentally won and ruined any chance of leading because the man who thought he couldn’t lose, did – but resigned before actually doing the thing the vote had been about. The man who’d always thought he’d lead next, campaigned so badly that everyone thought he was lying when he said the economy would crash – and he was, but it did, but he’s not resigned, but, like the man who lost and the man who won, also now can’t become leader. Which means the woman who quietly campaigned to stay but always said she wanted to leave is likely to become leader instead.

Which means she holds the same view as the leader of the opposition but for opposite reasons, but her party’s view of this view is the opposite of the opposition’s. And the opposition aren’t yet opposing anything because the leader isn’t listening to his party, who aren’t listening to the country, who aren’t listening to experts or possibly paying that much attention at all. However, none of their opponents actually want to be the one to do the thing that the vote was about, so there’s not yet anything actually on the table to oppose anyway. And if no one ever does do the thing that most people asked them to do, it will be undemocratic and if any one ever does do it, it will be awful.

Clear?”

A Progressive Alliance?

Letter in Guardian from Caroline Lucas, Green Party MP:

“Is there any waking up from this nightmare, a glimmer of light,” asks Polly Toynbee, at the end of her searing examination of the pent-up “seething anti-Westminster wrath” which found its expression last week, and which helps to explain the victory of the leave campaign (Dismal, lifeless, spineless – Corbyn let us down again, 25 June).

If there is to be any hope for progressive politics, the answer has to be yes – and the solution lies in Toynbee’s own analysis. As she acknowledges, our electoral system is responsible for the fact that the concerns of vast numbers of people routinely go unheard, while parties fight for the swing voters of the centre ground. That’s precisely why we urgently need to build a progressive alliance for electoral reform.

Having lost control in Scotland, and with constituency boundary changes on the way, it must be increasingly clear to Labour that they cannot win an outright majority at the next election, no matter who their leader is. Instead of indulging in months of introspection and infighting, this is their opportunity to recognise that a more plural politics is in both their electoral and political interests. And with the growing likelihood of an early general election, the importance of progressive parties working together to prevent the formation of a Tory-Ukip-DUP government that would seek to enact an ultra-right Brexit scenario is ever more pressing.

It’s no surprise that leave’s message to “take back control” stuck. Many people do indeed feel powerless. Ensuring that everyone’s voice is heard in our political system is the first step towards healing the deep divisions that this referendum has revealed. I call on other progressive parties to join us in fighting to achieve that.

Caroline Lucas MP
Green, Brighton Pavilion

http://gu.com/p/4n5k3

And/or an Independent Alliance?

The law of unintended consequences strikes yet again

“The fallout from last week’s vote to leave the European Union is rattling business and finance, far and wide. One aftershock is being felt at the European Investment Bank.

The EIB is owned by the 28 member states of the EU. The UK, alongside Germany, France and Italy, is among its largest shareholders, with about 16%.

The bank provides finance to a wide range of projects around Europe, with a particular focus on areas like infrastructure, social housing, renewable energy and education. It invested £5.6bn (6.7bn euros) in the UK last year and has ploughed £42bn (50bn euros) into the country over the last decade.
But after the Leave vote, there may already be a freeze descending on some new investment.

The good news is that the EIB says that its recent deals in the UK should proceed as planned. Those include funding to an automotive parts business in County Durham, to Swansea University, to housing associations in Northern Ireland and to an off-shore windfarm in Scotland.

But the EIB told Newsnight that the uncertainty created by the vote to leave the EU means that some UK projects, which previously would have stood a good chance, are now less likely to be approved.

There are reasons why the EIB might be cautious. It is unclear whether the UK could or would remain a shareholder after it leaves the EU. That might depend on the form of its relationship with the remaining 27 members. The situation is unprecedented and the EIB’s statue doesn’t contain any guidance or provisions for a shareholder leaving the EU.

Where does the money go? EIB lending to UK 2011-2015:

Energy – 28%
Transport – 25%
Water, sewerage, solid waste, urban development – 25%
Industry, services, agriculture – 7%
Education, health – 11%
Small and medium-scale projects – 4%

Source: EIB”

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36668129