Westministenders: Hey Hey we're the Monkies.

[RedToothBrush]

Welcome to the Listening Parliament.

Have you noticed it yet?

The Three Monkeys of See No Evil, Hear No Evil and Speak No Evil have been in a bit of a fight with didn’t fair well. Its funny how politicians of all shades and levels are desperate to prove just how good they at listening and how they see the problems.

Its quite incredible to think that officials elected to serve the public are even in this position where they are having suddenly think about how they show they are listening. It rather shows up that they have been accustomed to telling the public what to think and what to believe.

What they are still to work out, is that in saying they are listening, they also have to demonstrate they are listening and be credible.

The trouble is, that even though some of the monkeys have been killed off, we still have a lot of monkeys in parliament. 'Monkey say, Monkey do' actions still lurk. Politicians who imitate others without understanding the consequences.

There is no point in listening if you are only listening to one group and don’t understand the consequences of simply repeating the words of others.

Politicians saying they are listening when you can find dozens of incidents where they have said completely the opposition, without having the gumption to explain they have changed their position and without having the grace to explain the evidence that has lead them to change that position rather undermines the idea they are listening.

U-Turns are not a bad thing. U-Turns can show that you were making an error but were wise enough to admit that and why you were wrong. U-Turns are bad when you fail to acknowledge your failings and only do it to chase votes. This is where cynicism creeps in and lack of trust in politicians occurs.

Listening also requires actions to reflect words. There is no good in saying one thing, if your actions don’t reflect that. This is where the Listening Parliament is already failing. And I’m sure we will see it more.

Above all, listening is only part of a conversation. A politician is supposed to be accountable. They are supposed to have their eyes open to evil, not deaf to it and not unwilling to speak inconvenient truths where they recognise the evil.

Any politician who tells you they listen needs to back it up somehow. They need to demonstrate and justify their positions accurately. If they don’t they aren’t listening properly.

Isn’t it funny how it was in Hartlepool that the monkey got hung for being a Frenchman? No one was there to explain differently.

mybrainhurts that was my interpretation of her comments on the Andrew Marr show on Sunday. She was talking about the dangers of chasing votes by changing course. It struck me as being very out of line with her stance to Osborne's TC cuts previously which is why I noted it. Happy to be corrected if she is saying something else in a more nuanced way elsewhere.

LH, "Ah, but I think in the 19th Century, they would have paid fuck all tax."

As a proportion of their assets and income, taking into account the fact they get the use and benefit of state services like NHS and education etc. which wouldn't have happened in the C19th, I wonder if they may relatively still pay fuck all tax.

Wasn't that what the British overseas tax haven account(s) were about?

Ah, but I think in the 19th Century, they would have paid fuck all tax.

But in the 21st Century the Camerons have done that anyway, via Trusts.

Cross post.

Plight of British expats: ECREU/The3Million

www.ecreu.com/ecreu-latest-news.html

The cuts to both social social services budgets, and provision for those with disabilities concerns me greatly. One of those Hampshire suggestions for children with disabilities is 'enabling families to do more for themselves* - so couples who are, on average, both the poorest in our society, and the most likely to separate, due to the immense, 24/7 pressure of caring for a disabled child, are going to get even less support. It mirrors what is happening around here, I have to say.

I'm involved with fundraising for a local hospice, and learned recently that they've had to start doing referrals of family members to food banks. And these referrals are increasing all the time.

Sostenueto, I agree that this will get very ugly.

Peregrina - I felt the same myself e.g. something which keeps the elderly out of residential homes with support in their own, would almost certainly be welcomed by many of the elderly people.
What the councils mean is that female relatives of the elderly people needing support will do the job for free along with all the rest of their roles. On the ground, this will mean dementia care, bathing, paying to alter homes for wheelchairs, downstairs living room conversion to bedrooms, chair life installation, bathroom modifications.. Costs and burdens will fall to family.

Mathanxiety I did palliative care in the community as well as dementia care and conversions to homes, using the dining room as a bedroom was commonplace. There used to be a grant that people got to do the work but I believe it was stopped. People must realise the actual cist to keep people in their own homes, roughly £1000 a month if needing maximum 22 hrs a week. That is per carer, if you need 2 then its more. Lots of care agencies refusing to take council referred clients and taking private clients. £12 an hour versus £22 an hour, and is part to blame for bedblocking in hospitals. That's been going on a long time.

On this day in 1948 the NHS came into existence. Happy birthday NHS.

On radio 4 this morning on farming programme one farmer said if the farmers did not get same benefits from government that EU give and they can't get trade deals outside EU or in it food prices will double and people will begin to realise what it is like to wake up permanently hungry. Other farmers agree with brexit. Can't think why really.

Mind you it will cure the obesity problem....

Yes, I agree with all the arguments about what 'care in the community' really means, seeing it happening right now with a couple of elderly relatives. But, in a country which wasn't so obsessed with 'austerity' for some, I am quite sure we could afford it. Again it comes down to political will.

Mind you it will cure the obesity problem....

There are many causes for obesity and it is generally a symptom of an underlying issue (physical or mental).

Food rationing in WW2 did mean that the population ate healthily but if any government tried to impose rationing on such a level in 'peace' time there will be riots.

Food imports + austerity = cheap junk food. Which leads to poor diets and increased health issues including obesity. So, no, it won't be a cure for obesity.

More expensive food hits the poor, ntbo, because it is a higher % of their outgoings
The better off have much more discretionary income (which is why they are not more virtuous than the poor in choosing organic or fair trade items)

Diets imposed on only the poor are unfair

We've often discussed "age difference" in voting, but "sex difference" may be as high on some topics.
Interesting figures in that Survation poll wrt Brexit

LEAVE clear majority of men (54/46),
REMAIN even larger majority of women (37/63)

http://survation.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/Final-Survation-UK-Attitudes-Tracker-280617MMDLLMTDC-1c0d1h7-chd.pdf

Possibly because men are more likely to rate nationalism / sovereignty higher, while women are more likely to be worried about higher prices / becoming poorer ?

We saw women, especially younger ones, more likely than men to vote Labour at the last GE.
However, this and other polls indicate Brexit has much higher sex difference than Labour / Tory voting VI

We've often discussed "age difference" in voting, but "sex difference" may be as high on some topics.

But that needs to be measured against the other great UK divide of class. I'd wager that if you could draw an axis of "class" then as you progress along it, those ratios change considerably.

One possible interpretation of the emerging unreliability of polling, is that whereas "class" used to be a simple spread across 3 or 4 categories; the arrival of social media - where it's possible to observe myriad classes forming (and dissolving) - has made the whole much more complex.

In 1970, if you were a trans:"Sir Buffington-Tuffington" you could only really identify as upper class. You would have no idea that you could be part of a wider community.

Today, with Facebook, it's a click away. People can find they are part of something they would never have known a generation ago, and that could be affecting their voting as it surely affects their newsfeeds.

I still think we could have compulsory voting if we introduced a "None of the above" box, with the proviso that the winning candidate has to poll a true majority. If more people go for "None of the above" than a candidate, the constituency doesn't return an MP.

Would certainly make for interesting policies

Ha, motherofdragons, I love the final line:

The Tories can’t even win a majority in an election against each other…

LEAVE clear majority of men (54/46),
REMAIN even larger majority of women (37/63)

That's a huge change if true.

A few people did the analysis of the referendum result.

Lord Ashcroft said the gender split was remain 48 - 52 leave for both men and women.

YouGov said the gender split was remain 47 - 53 leave for men whilst remain was 49 - 51 leave for women.

You can see why that's happened though from this from the ref result:
R. L.
Male 18-24: 61% - 39%
Male 25-49: 53% - 47%
Male 50-64: 39% - 61%
Male 65+: 38% - 62%
Female 18-24: 80% - 20%
Female 25-49: 54% - 46%
Female 50-64: 40% - 60%
Female 65+: 34% - 66%

More young women intending to vote more than any other reason.

It also suggests that lots of people might be changing their minds despite what's been assumed. The thing is that it potentially looks like women and men are changing minds in fairly even numbers. It would suggest the debates since the ref are having different effects on each gender.

Brexit hugely favours white men whilst throwing women under its £350 million bus. Perhaps it's no surprise.

The Trump effect.

www.politics.co.uk/blogs/2017/07/04/hard-brexit-of-the-fishes-gove-s-first-move-raises-alarm-ove

Sleep with the fishes: Gove's first move raises alarm over UK hard Brexit strategy

This just says it all.
www.thetimes.co.uk/article/paranormal-expert-rupert-matthews-heads-for-brussels-kndg3qqt8
Paranormal expert heads for Brussels

He is an expert on poltergeists and alien sightings who once taught an online university course on the paranormal. As of yesterday, he is also the new Conservative MEP for the East Midlands.

In a move quietly signed off by Conservative central office, Rupert Matthews has been appointed to fill a vacancy left when Andrew Lewer was elected to Westminster last month.

His background as a prolific writer on ghosts, UFOs and alien encounters has raised eyebrows in Brussels, but some of his political views have caused outright alarm. He once claimed that the European Commission had the power to send troops on to the streets of London to prevent Britain leaving the bloc.

Quote about that can be found here:
www.economist.com/blogs/bagehot/2011/10/britain-and-eu-0
The newest Conservative member of the European Parliament, and his fears of German invasion

The other aspect which the Lisbon Treaty brought in, which I found really quite worrying, is that the European Commission now has the right to deploy military forces to anywhere within the European Union without needing to get the permission of the member state where the military forces are being deployed…

...It's up to the commission, so long as I think it is the Commission president plus a majority of the commission are in favour of this. The only drawback that they have on this is that of course they don't have any military forces of their own. … it is a technical problem. But the key point is that while they have to have the permission of the country whose forces they are deploying, they do not need the permission of the country to which they are deployed. So for instance, were there to be massive riots in London or there were to be all sorts of problems, they could go to the German government and say please send us a Panzer division, and if the German government said yes, then the European Commission could send that Panzer division to London and there is nothing the British government could do about it.

It is quite clear the way that the European Union is developing, it is quite clear what they are trying to achieve, and looking at the examples from the past, these are real warnings about what might happen in Europe

He's also said this:

A country like Britain is a massive contributor in financial terms to the European Union. Having Britain as a member state means the European Union carries a lot more kudos and a lot more authority on the international stage. But if Britain were to leave, that authority would be diminished, the European Union would have a much smaller budget, much less money coming into the centre

We look like we are taking the total piss out of the EU. Given we send people like this to the European parliament, it's remarkable it works at all.

This guy is either a liar and a con man or delusional. Or both.

That's about the best I can say about him.

There's been a report published on the links of the UK to Saudi Arabia.

Saudi Arabia has 'clear link' to UK extremism, report says
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-40496778

I wonder when we can expect the government's own report to be published, given that it's finished and ready to go.

Ian Dunt @ iandunt
Brexit threatens to unleash a tide of investor legal cases against the UK

ukandeu.ac.uk/can-investors-sue-the-uk-over-brexit/?platform=hootsuite
Can investors sue the UK over Brexit?

Until a week ago when people spoke about the Brexit bill, they meant the financial settlement between the EU and the UK. But now, a different bill has made headlines, first in legal blogs, then in the press. According to these reports, investors could sue the UK, seeking compensation for losses arising because of Brexit.

Article concludes yes it possible. By the sound of it, there might be investors who might take the gamble that they have little to lose by pursuing a claim.

And there's this:
An investor is more likely to win its case if it has obtained concrete commitments or assurances from the government that are not kept. A letter to an investor committing to concrete Brexit outcomes could prove disastrous. The government’s correspondence with Nissan raises a red flag in this regard, although its content is not known.

So if we aren't crippled by leaving the single market and customs union, we might be bankrupted by the legal bills and settlement claims.

An investor is more likely to win its case if it has obtained concrete commitments or assurances from the government that are not kept.

Isn't the problem here that the Government has made very few concrete promises?