Are they mad? The new legislation on British Steel

Extremely odd things are happening all over just now and perhaps we are becoming inured to disturbing novelty.  In the UK, some might date this to 2015 and the rise of Corbyn, passing through Brexit, in an ever-rising, ever-accelerating crescendo of covid, Ukraine and now the daily lunacies of Trump.

Personally, however, I have rarely been more shocked than when I read this today: 

Emergency legislation allowing the government to instruct companies to keep loss-making steel operations in England open, or face criminal penalties for their executives, were passed yesterday during an extraordinary sitting of parliament.

For context: I bow to no man on the strategic imperative of being able to make steel in this country.  (Obviously, not everyone need agree.)  Nor do I object to swift and decisive use of the levers of power: in fact, more often I am criticising the inertia and lack of imagination of those who hold those levers limply in their idle hands.  

And I don't have the time to read up on the exact legislation in full, which may, I suppose, in the round be less shocking than the above summary suggests.  

But ... criminal penalties?  For an economic "offence"?  Obviously, there are such liabilities upon employers that flout health and safety regulations.  But financial affairs are intrinsically civil matters: are there any other even vaguely equivalent precedents?  The "personal liability" precedent that came immediately to mind to this former councillor was Thatcher's legislation on local authorities: to prevent rogue "socialist" councils like Lambeth and Liverpool from taking the piss at annual budget time, she made the chief finance officer personally liable for balancing the budget, with powers granted to the said official to impose balance if the democratically elected members persisted in mulishly voting for infeasible financial plans.  But these were not criminal matters.  Is Starmer proposing to bang up Chinese nationals ..?  Who was it that thought a sober grey lawyer would at least bring stable, rule-of-law government to the land?

Legislate in haste, repent at leisure.  In the wrong hands this precedent will be a joy to every mad leftist and green in the land.  You pick a piece of policy, and declare it a criminal offence to carry out any act inconvenient for said policy, property rights be damned.  What am I bid for failure to install heat pumps?  "Well, climate change threatens the well-being of everyone on the planet, it's preventing genocide we are talking about here!  It's obviously a criminal matter!!"   You can generate further nightmares for yourself.  Or indeed, generate a few prime candidates of your own for criminalisation!  It needn't only be leftists that play the game: we can all join in, see how they like that.  We are constrained only by the limitations of our imagination. 

Am I alone in my state of shock at all this?  Or do I just need to read the whole thing properly, and calm down?

ND

Nigel Lawson. Not Easy to Categorise

You don't get many politicians like Nigel Lawson.  Perhaps the best thing about him was his intellectual self-sufficiency, which made him more immune than most from some of the typical politicians' permanent, minute-by-minute angst that they might not be perfectly-enough positioned (vis-à-vis their party's leadership, or their meejah image, or whatever else they worry about) for career advancement.  This leaves them always looking over shoulders - their own shoulders, and those of the people they are talking to - checking out the movements of the Important People in the room, metaphorically and actually.  This deeply unattractive paranoia, Lawson avoided better than most.

But it's all relative, and he did care.  When he first entered the Cabinet as Energy secretary, after the pathetic efforts in that job of David Howell (now there was a paranoid shoulder-checker par excellence), he was overjoyed, and held a sustained round of little parties in his splendid new office for all his friends, showing off like crazy.  He was also very circumspect in his dealings with Mrs T, with whom he disagreed on a lot of economic policy but whose favour he wished to court and to retain - even when he was at the height of his supposed invulnerability.  

A striking example was mortgage interest relief, which everybody knew was a pointless, indeed self-defeating economic distortion which merely served to increase house prices.  Geoffrey Howe, his predecessor as Chancellor, had cautiously mentioned the notion that it might be sensible to phase it out, only to be firmly beaten around the ears by Thatcher, for whom economic logic played a very lowly second fiddle to promoting (even if fallaciously) the idea of sustaining "her" voters in their aspirations.  Lawson, equally keen to scrap the subsidy, decided it wasn't on, while privately decrying it.  When, at length, he found the bottle to reform just one aspect of this nonsense, he screwed it up tactically by delaying its introduction after the announcement, causing exactly the baleful impact on house prices that theory indicated it would. 

I'd be interested to see an authoritative list of what enduring economic reforms his many admirers would claim for him.  My starter towards this little project: he played an important strategic role in defeating Scargill's epic strike of '84-85, both before and during.  That's not a small achievement: before Scargill was so soundly defeated the whole of the Left in the UK intuitively felt that Thatcher's regime was only there on sufferance: "Just wait till the miners go out ...". 

Other candidates for the list of achievements?  He certainly played a modest part in opening up the energy markets to competition, starting from the dreadful monopoly arrangements then in place.  But even on that he was half-hearted, despite being wholly persuaded intellectually of the merits of this long overdue measure.  It wasn't until John Major's often derided regime that serious progress was made, with a degree of success that made Lawson's (and Peter Walker's) efforts look like very uncertain baby steps.  A genuinely confident heavyweight proponent of free markets in his position could have moved much farther and faster. 

Feel free to add to this equivocal story BTL !

ND

After Boris: Runners, Riders & the Momentum Thing

Who he?

I am a long-time amateur student of how the big parties change their leaderships.  If there's one iron rule, it's that the long-term heir apparent rarely gets the prize - and when they do, everyone quickly knows it's a big mistake (Eden, Brown).  Generally speaking, heirs apparent come and go: think of Thatcher's time:  Cecil Parkinson;  Norman Tebbit;  John 'golden boy' Moore;  Michael Portillo ... come 1990, nope, none of them.  John Major!  Wouldn't have been on any serious list of predictions 18 months before it happened.  Ditto Thatcher herself, of course, in 1973.  Or May in 2015.  Or Corbyn in 2014.  Or Blair in 1992.

And so it goes on:  parallel instances are legion.

Michael Crick, an old chum of mine and very professional student of these things (no man more so since the late, lamented Vincent Hanna), developed some advanced theorising about what he called "limited electorate" elections (like when MPs choose the leader), honing his observations on frequent, bitterly fought contests in student politics.  In his theory, when everybody involved essentially knows everybody else, and when there's a lot of serious ambition in play, i.e. the post is much sought after**, there is no merit whatever in being an heir apparent.  Quite the reverse: the key is to be accelerating like crazy up the rankings in a shortish period before the election, maybe even coming from nowhere.  That's "nowhere in people's reckoning", not "who the hell is this?" - because, ex hypothesi, everyone knows everyone.  Or, to translate into American political vernacular, it's the candidate with the Big Mo at the exact time of the poll.  Fresh, novelty value.  We've all made a discovery.  "Hey, you know what?  Maybe ... Fred !"

These days, of course, the leadership elections are technically thrown open to t'membership - but only on some shortlist basis.  In other words, the informed, limited selectorship (where everyone knows everyone) gets to pre-qualify what t'membership will find on the ballot.  A bit of a hybrid, but it doesn't significantly invalidate the theory, I suggest.

Anyhow.  By way of calibration, here's the complete list of runners and riders as listed A-Z by Conservative Home back last December, another time when Boris was on the rocks.  (It's not new.)

Badenoch;       Baker;      Brady;      Gove;      Harper;      Hunt;                             Javid;     Mordaunt;      Patel;        Raab;        Rees-Mogg;                                     Sunak;      Trevelyan;           Truss;      Tugendhat

Who is Harper?, I hear you mutter.  And Badenoch .. and Trevelyan ..?  But that's not the point.  Now: here's this week's YouGov opinion poll list:

Gove;          Hunt;          Mordaunt;  Patel;      Sunak;      Truss;                                     Tugendhat;          Wallace;          Zahawi

Read these lists and weep.  But note how things change: and while Gove has apparently now ruled himself out, Wallace - nowhere in December - came top of the poll!

Yes, folks - Timing is everything in these matters, with Events running a close second.  If Boris staggers on into the New Year (a very big If), it'll be someone nobody is even considering right now.

ND

____________

** Obviously this isn't meant to be relevant in elections where generally there is a dire paucity of candidates, e.g. for the chair of the local WI.  Though sometimes it might.

Today: a Once-in-a-Lifetime Event

A journey I make frequently takes me all the way up the M11, then on via the A14 to the A1(M) northwards.  For several years now this has been heavily disrupted by a substantial road-building project designed  (a) to make the A14 three lanes wide for the whole Cambridge-Brampton stretch;  (b) to by-pass Huntingdon instead of over-passing it (the big flyover section there is badly in need of repair, and is only two lanes wide anyway); and  (c) to eliminate the west-of-Huntingdon dog-leg, where the westbound A14 becomes a route rather than a road, encompassing two ugly junctions and significant delays before it carries on past Brampton to Kettering and points west (map here).

The scale of this upgrade is pretty big, starting at Cambridge with some very large and complex new junctions to allow the M11, A14 and several local A-roads to merge effectively; and ending a little to the west of the Brampton new cross-over of the A1(M), with new river and rail bridges as well as the many new junctions.  On Saturday morning, heading north-and-west, we were forced to detour because, not for the first time, the A14 was entirely closed by these works.  I was resigned to a couple more years of this stuff.

But.

Returning south-and-east this morning, to our amazement the entirely new stretch of road is now open (and a very fine road it is, too).  So what? - you ask.  So, ... it's opened one whole year ahead of schedule!

Not, I think, an everyday occurrence in the annals of UK civil engineering.  A modest celebration is in order.

ND

History Corner:   I cannot quickly find online evidence for this; but the opening of the A14 as a direct trunk-road from the east-coast docks to the Midlands in 1982 was part of the first Thatcher government's meticulous planning for what became the Miners Strike of 1984-85.  Until the completion of this route (and various other preparations) was complete, the long-anticipated strike could not be properly fought.  And so the government climbed down from the first confrontation in 1981-82, awaiting the more propitious conditions of 1984.  Fancy that: a government acting with genuine strategic intent ...

Thatcher, Reagan, Grenada: We Know What Happened

They're dusting off the Grenada story again, this time with endearing taped telecons between Thatcher and Reagan - what a pro old Ronnie was, eh ?  Could front up for anything, that man.

But we know what really happened, don't we ?

ND

Secret History: Invasion - Grenada 1983

History Corner:  British Island Outposts (3)   As signalled in posts from earlier in the year featuring Cyprus and The Falklands, there is a significant island anniversary this year.  It is exactly 30 years since the USA invaded Grenada, and I have been watching out for revelations under the 30-year rule.  But the disclosures have not added much to the sum total of human knowledge, so I'm going to tell you the tale.

Grenada, a Caribbean island, is (and was) an independent Commonwealth country whose head of state is the Queen, so the British link remains strong.  It had been a hot-bed of leftist activity for several years and in '83 the prime minister Maurice Bishop, himself the beneficiary of a coup in '79, was toppled by the deputy PM and topped shortly after.  America saw the hands of Cuba and N.Korea at work, and on 25th October invaded with overwhelming force.  The Governor-General assumed power and things more-or-less settled down thereafter - see Wiki for more detail (Clint Eastwood's Heartbreak Ridge is not what might be called a source of factual information).

The aspect most people hereabouts know is that Ronald Reagan's temerity in invading a Commonwealth country sent Margaret Thatcher into a fearful bate.  On Monday 24th, the day before the invasion, Parliament had been told by Foreign Secretary Geoffrey Howe that stories of an imminent US incursion were not correct.  The documents tell of her considerable displeasure, and Reagan's 'embarrassment'.  But that's about as far as it goes.

There's more to know.  The outstanding British Falklands operation of 1982 (with the rather attractive political dividend we've discussed before) had been carefully noted by Reagan and his people.  The USA had been slowly recovering from the Vietnam debacle, building up volunteer armed forces and generally trying to rehabilitate its wounded military pride.  There had been no significant operations since 'Nam; and an opportunity to have a crack at some plausible bad guys was too good to pass up.  So they didn't.

By the same bellicose logic, however, Thatcher herself was quite taken by the Falklands experience (as was the whole of British politics - how could they not be - most famously including one ACL Blair) and had every intention of replicating it.  Bishop was topped on 19th Oct, and Britain was not terribly well placed to mount Caribbean operations on the necessary scale within the week.  But of the course the USA was.

Urgent British planning had commenced at the weekend (22nd/23rd) but of course nothing was remotely ready by the Monday when the statement in Parliament was made.  The USA, in it's back yard, was always going to beat the UK to the punch, whatever the niceties of the Commonwealth connection.

So Thatcher was left a spectator, and great was her fury.  But it was not simply because of failure on the part of Reagan to observe some kind of protocol vis-à-vis the Commonwealth; it was because she was denied her Falklands II.

The government, of course, doesn't publish the documents it ought to by law.  It never has - see this recent Grauniad article.  There is just the merest hint of the real Grenada story in the public domain.  When after the invasion Howe addressed the Commons again, he stated: "We were given no indication that [the USA] favoured encouraging or joining in any military intervention"  (my emphasis).  But that's about as far as it goes.

So now you know.

ND 

Posy Simmonds Hits The Mark

Yes, still busy, so another quick plate-spinner in our long-running service to C@W readers: you-probably-don't-read-the-Grauniad-so-you-won't-have-seen-this. 

It's the 'Grantham Fairytale' King Ironsides, a short Posy Simmonds classic that you will be glad you read: a delightful tribute to Mrs T that makes several good points, fairly and kindly, in the way that only Simmonds can.

The enjoyment is tripled by imagining the legions of Guardianistas who like to think that Posy is an identikit thatcher-hating feminist harridan, and will have multiple burst blood-vessels by the time they get to the final sentence.


One has to think the better of the Grauniad for having published it.

ND

Thatcher 2.0

Of all the nice and nasty things said about Margaret Thatcher since the sad news of her death yesterday, we that she was a driven woman who knew her own mind and had a desire to get things done. Right or Left she was a woman of action.

Equally unanimous is the derision for the current leaders of Cameron, Clegg and Milliband for their uniformly weaselly approach to politics which allows strong positions only to be taken on minor or non-issues like gay marriage or support for foreign aid (this is a bit disingenuous to Cameron re Education and Welfare, but its not like these are his ideas, is it?).

So if the Iron Lady was in her pomp now, what would the UK be doing about its problems? I posit it would be something like the following:

1. Europe - Nothing different I feel, Thatcher saw the post-war need for a more united Europe although her fear of a united Germany has come to pass in a way which she would not have expected with its use of the Euro as a tool for domination.

2. Economy - Taxes would have been cut and the deficit would have grown, now we would be worrying if the rise in revenues was going to make up for extra debt pile. Thatcher would have trod carefully on the Welfare budget as she always did.

3. Immigration - A staunch nationalist, Thatcher would have worked hard to stop unlimited immigration, she understood families and resisted big cultural changes - this is the issue she would be targeting the EU on re allowing too much transfer of people.

4. Unemployment - With visions of the damage of high inflation I doubt the policy of QE and the ultra-low rates that have created zombie banks and companies would have been passed. Unemployment would thus be higher with more companies going to the wall, but perhaps more like the USA our recovery would be quicker as new firms rose from the ashes.

So what would a strong leader do now, there are always constraints and you can't wave a wand - what would we want a new Thatcher to do to turn our Country around from the financial crisis?

Margaret Thatcher: 1925-2013

Lady T. has died, age 87.
 A  genuine change politician. A conviction politician. A politician who utterly dominated politics and in some eyes still does.
Someone who left the nation vastly different from when she found it.
Divisive, to be sure. But, as Andrew Marr said in his History of Modern Britain,

Politically, Thatcher has made us all her children. Of the prime ministers since the war, she was the one who changed the political weather.

Reader's thoughts on the Thatcher era?