Weekend Post: Drew in Oman (2)

Continuing Drew's expedition to Oman in the 1980's ...

Into The Heat

Recruiting ordinary Omanis into the ranks of private soldiers was an informal, traditional affair.  At some point early in his adult life a young Omani man(1) would reckon it was time to serve his Sultan, and would wander down to a nearby army camp to enlist.  After a few years, he would decide he’d done his bit, and would unilaterally take his leave and wander off back home.

To the average westerner there is a flaw in this set-up … what if there was an active campaign underway and Private Mah’mud could ill be spared?  Don’t be daft: if the Sultan still needed his service, why of course then Mah’mud wouldn’t leave!   Other than these honourable self-imposed feudal disciplines there was only one significant formal rule applied to local recruiting: if a former soldier fancied another spell of all-found accommodation in the ranks, he would have to go through basic training all over again.

As I said in the original post, these loyal soldiers were pleasant and (I guessed) hardy and brave enough: but they didn’t come across as sufficiently ruthless for the 1980s border troubles we were there to assist with.  Border fighting in the mountains is a matter of maintaining small, hidden observation posts - and taking out the OPs of the other side; which all places a premium on operating silently and invisibly.  Now your average friendly Omani expects to get up in the morning and warmly greet everyone he meets – a blessing and a hearty handshake for even your closest friend.  Apparently these charming courtesies would be observed even in the field.  Even in an OP … And, clean-living Moslem fellows that they were, they certainly wouldn’t dream of carrying out their bodily functions in the confines of the slit-trench as is required in these circumstances.

This is where the Baluchi battalions came in.  Somehow, the Islamic customs of Baluchistan comfortably embraced the disciplines necessary to conduct silent throat-slitting operations in the mountains.

Officers quarters.  My baiyt was second on the right.

Into this heterogeneous mix of soldiery flew Drew and his two SNCOs.  We travelled incognito, Gulf Air (business class) and stepped straight into a waiting vehicle (unmarked) on the tarmac.  Stepped? Staggered, really, after the massive punch in the face that comes from the oven-door blast of a Gulf summer’s day on an open concrete surface in coastal humidity.  Our little white Toyota runabout had aircon, of course (on the coast itself you needed the windscreen wipers against the condensation forming on the outside of the aircon-cooled car windows), so we were rapidly back into a bearable micro-climate for the duration of the drive to the garrison.  Heading inland meant we had put the humidity behind us: but on arrival we had to acclimatize PDQ.  Some rooms had clanking aircon, some ceiling fans, others just desk-mounted jobs.  But the inevitable walking-around that happens in any military camp, from quarters to mess, and from mess to place of work, was unavoidably exposed to the heat.  There was one saving grace: for whatever reason, we were asked to remain in civvies (we were ‘advisers’) and could therefore dress loosely in white.

Perimeter stand-to position (not used while I was there)

The camp was spartan, but I was delighted by it all.  On the one hand it was romantically situated in barren foothills on the edge of the desert, very basic in essence, and felt like a proper 19th century cantonment, nicely marked out in white-painted bricks and with a rather lightly fortified perimeter (see pics).  On the other, it had electricity and running water, a small swimming pool (for the mad Brits), and Fosters in the mess.  My ‘baiyt’ (phonetic, & I have no idea what the proper Arabic is) had a rudimentary shower (all water was hot), a crapper-hole, a useless aircon and a reliable, fairly quiet ceiling fan.

Officers Mess

If the climate was a bit too hot, the welcome was warm.  I was the only British officer there.  The garrison commander was an Omani Brigadier: young, tough, suave, British educated, energetic, decisive and with natural authority, he would have done well in any army.  I got on well with him: he enjoyed conversations that ranged a little more widely than he probably encountered day to day, and was happy to offer his views on any subject, including (after a little cautious fencing on both sides), politics.  He had a brilliant gambit which I have subsequently used myself to good effect in third world countries: all pronouncements would be prefaced with the formula: “I think the Sultan is very wise on this matter …”.  After that, it didn’t matter who was listening in.

The senior staff officer was a Pakistani, a full colonel in the Sultan’s pay.  He operated from an office with a wooden verandah, straight out of the North West Frontier.  Clerks with manual typewriters pounded out the orders of the day (in English).   Though this colonel’s duties were strictly administrative, I figured he would be a useful person to have onside; so I made a point of seeking him out, presenting my compliments and inviting him to visit the unit I was advising.  He showed little emotion (then, or indeed ever), but I could tell he was dead chuffed to be treated with due respect - by a Brit! - and he took up my invitation; out of reciprocal politeness, probably, since he showed little real interest in what we were doing.

I am guessing he got less deference from the Garrison RSM, a robust Brit on secondment who seemed to me remarkably lacking in the kind of live-and-let-live tolerance I associate with the best of colonial behaviours.   He ruled the roost uncompromisingly in a Brit-dominated Sergeants Mess.  Maintaining standards is one thing, but apparent disregard for the locals is another.

Daily routine was oriented around the accommodations necessary for dealing with the oppressive temperature, naturally enough.   The call to prayer was broadcast noisily through a loudspeaker, and most of the Omanis rolled their eyes upwards when it interrupted what they were doing.  By no means all of them responded to the call.  Work started at 06:00 – with the usual hearty handshake for everyone.  Breakfast was at 09:00, a substantial affair with much minced lamb involved.  More work between 10 and 13:00, then back to the mess for lunch.  Lots of juicy, energy-giving local dates always on offer at lunch, which were pressed upon me enthusiastically: you eat dates, Captain Nick, then you go to your woman! 

Pool - without which, a punishment posting indeed

Lunchtime could be the last I saw of many of the officers for the rest of the day because all of them, along with all the Omanis of any rank or job, would then slope off for the whole afternoon (going to their women?) and few would be back for the evening meal.  The Brits, of course, reconvened at 14:00 and cracked on with everything that couldn’t be achieved in collaboration with the less-than-sparkling locals during the morning.  Then at 4, it was down to the pool; at 6 it was into the car and off to the souk for a wander as evening fell; then back to our respective messes.  For me, dinner and a chat with the Brigadier.  Yes, the Sultan was very wise.                                (to be cont ...)

ND

(1) I note that these days the Sultan's armed forces contain some rather dashing ladies as well.  Lots of medals on some of those chests ...  

 Photos © Nick Drew 2016

Jeremy Corbyn could be the Trump act in the UK

After the very interesting discussion of BQ's excellent posts yesterday re the narrow Trump win in America, I thought we should continue the theme today.


The main lessons from the US elections and Brexit:


1 - People are fed up with Political Correctness and the Media push of all things liberal; equally they are cowed to speak out, ruining polls and making the public/private discourse in the Anglosphere discombobulated.


2 - Establishment=Bad (not that Merkel got the memo yet when you see her response to Trump, means she is toast next year though at least). Candidates like Hillary can't win nor Cameron.


3 - Anti-Establishment figures can be very radical indeed and still get elected on very weak, populist platforms.


4 - Polling is wrong, real people matter and the crowds of Trump v Hillary and crowds of Leave vs Remain are good evidence for this sea-change.


All this could be very good for Jeremy Corbyn;


- He is anti-establishment
- He has a weak, populist policy platform
- He is not an Establishment figure


On the other hand;


- He loves political correctness and does not play the blame immigration game.
- He is left-wing at a time when the Anglosphere is electing right-wing populists.
- He is not new, he has been around for a while which means by the time there is an election people may well have made up their minds.


Overall, there is reason to think Labour will do much better than expected with Corbyn given the developments in real world political economy of late. The Tory party may or may not prove competent to deliver Brexit. UKIP will only take on the Trump mantle with a strong, charismatic leader and they have just lost that one in Farage.


My personal call will be that it will not be Corbyn though. Too much of his personality is projected onto to him by willing believers. Trump and Farage are the opposite, leading through incitement of the Outrage Bus. Corbyn's lack of charisma and penchant for hang-wringing will not in the end be enough to carry him over the line (barring crazy events, like massive Brexit recession or some such).

Donald Trump's very tight margin of victory

Hillary Clinton - 228

Donald J. Trump - 279 

 270 to win.

A pretty impressive margin at first glance. Democrats are wiped away.  And a very similar rerun to Brexit. 

Wrong polls: Hillary was 5% ahead in polls and still  95% certain to win on betting markets at midnight.  

PaddyPower had foolishly paid out on her victory weeks before the election.

Misinterpreted data. Exit polls showed 'the economy' and not 'immigration' was the most given reason for voting which is seen as good news for Hilary Clinton. 

Why would that be good for Hillary? It was obvious that the question asked was being answered as 'jobs' and not 'the wider economy'. You only had to watch two minutes of those being interviewed. 

Group think assumptions.  Latino's, black Americans and women are all voting Democrat.  

Why would Republican women, suddenly start voting for Clinton? The level of female support for Republicans is around 36-37%. That didn't move. And why would it?
 

Received Wisdom - The Democrat's ground game and Clinton's superior election experience will ensure more turnout for her than for Trump.

 Which ignored the near empty Clinton rallies and the Farage/Corbyn level of mob attendance at Trump ones. Why wouldn't those people be enthused to vote. As at Brexit. And for much the same reasons.

 When will they learn. eh? Probably going to need a le Pen presidency before it really sinks in.

228 - 279 is very impressive . Trump has the Whitehouse. Both Houses of Congress and the Supreme Court on his side. If he wants to build, he can build a wall.

The surprise and scale of Trump's unexpected victory has meant that people have overlooked one quite important point. he very, very nearly lost.

Florida - An absolubte, no question, must win Trump state, was won by the Republican with 4,605,515 votes to 4,485,745.  out of  some 9 million votes the winning margin was 119,770.

The seats that took him to victory, and made sure the Democrats could no longer win were Wisconsin and Michigan. And the ultimate surprise, Pennsylvania. A 'swing state' that has not swung since Bill was greeting interns at the White House

 Pennsylvania . Trump - 2,912,941. Clinton - 2,844,705. - a decent 68,000 majority. however The 3rd candidate had 112,000 votes.

 Wisconsin.  Democrat voting since Ronald Reagan left office. 1,409,467  Republican. 

1,382,310 Democrat.

27,157 victory margin. The 1% !

Michigan.  Democrat since Bush the elder fell from office to usher in the other Clinton, has had 5-15% democrat margins of victory since 1992.

2,279,210 - Trump. 2,267,373 Clinton. 

4.5 million votes. Margin - 11,800 votes. A Gordon Brown zero % win level of victory.

 Those 3 states, just a few thousand homeless voters down the polling station, and that would be a Clinton presidency under their hybrid, first past the post system.

So a Remoaner style argument of  a tiny majority for Trump from people who didn't know what they were voting for could conceivably be made quite convincingly. Especially if the assumption that third party candidate votes should have gone to Clinton is made, however speculatively.

That would explain the damaging, unexpected, and in the words of Margaret Beckett today 'Horrifying and terrifying specter of Donald Trump in the Whitehouse.'

And would conveniently ignore the facts that the Democrats had a very unpopular candidate who took months and months longer than expected to lock down her own nomination. 

Had 30 years of political baggage, stored in a closet with more skeletons than Vincent Price and more scandal than a Profumo romp. 

Who couldn't get out the vote, even among Hispanics and women who had been subject to constant Trump abuse and or threats of deportation. Even going as far as promising to build a wall to keep them out once he'd booted them from America.  

Who never managed to explain why she deleted 30,000 yoga class reminders on her private email server or where her millions of dollars mixed  in private-government-charitable companies came from.  

Who offered nothing more than a status quo, third term Obama, with a bit more war. Who refused to even debate concerns on immigration or the direction of the economy. 

Who exuded a sense of elitist entitlement. Of self virtue and self righteous preaching and ivy league disdain for any opposing illiberal views.

Who seemed to believe should be President of America because she was a woman.. and had waited a heck of a long time.. and it was her damn turn!

 Someone so unpopular that a rich TV host could come from nowhere. Say anything he liked, no matter how discourteous or outrageous. Stand for office without even the support of his own political party. Alienate half of America and have western democracies debating in parliament whether he should be banned from ever entering their countries, and STILL beat her..

That might have had something to do with it.

UK prospects improve with President Trump

So that was fun, wasn't it?


The men at the train station in London today were apologising for both the severe lateness of the trains and also the US Election; really?


In good news for the UK, the welcome fall in the Pound is now unlikely to become a further rout which will mean we may have optimum inflation - some but not too much.


Luckily, we dumped Cameron who had insulted Trump and instead in PM May have one of the first to phone and congratulate him. Looking forward to that trade deal. Meanwhile in Brussels there must be itchy feet about President Le Pen next year.


Plus, as ND notes below, we have lefties crying for our sport whilst I have a tiny sum to collect from the bookies later.


Twitter is awesome at time like this.


And two of my good friends are likely to get senior jobs under Trump which is great; my only regret is I did not take up the chance to meet him in January when offered!

A Treat In Store

Can't wait to see the blubbering Beeb and Grauniad pundits swing into action.  There will be some cut-out-and-keep moments to savour over the next few days.

They don't like it up 'em.

Open thread.

Say After Me: GDP Trumps GHG ...

While we await the outplaying of the Ameri-farce, here's an amusing story:

Greece set to win €1.75bn from EU climate scheme to build two coal plants

Yes, and lignite plants to boot.   Lignite! 

"You couldn’t make this up,” added Imke Lübbeke, WWF Europe’s head climate and energy policy. “The ETS was intended to reduce greenhouse gas emissions but it now risks being abused to facilitate investments in the new coal plants, which would operate well within the 2060s. This would violate climate targets and is in no way compatible with the leadership role the EU aspires to play in global climate policy and carbon markets.”

Well, there you go.  (In case you were wondering, I didn't make up "Imke Lübbeke", either.)  Law of unexpected consequences, plus my old motto of GDP always trumping GHG.  And this coupled with two other Grauniad stories this week:  hydro power turns out not to be 'clean', and wind turbines are conducting a massacre of bats.   

Life is never as simple as we hope, is it?  We feel their pain.

ND

The EU are going to dictate Hard Brexit, our hyperventilating politicians are myopic poseurs

The Fuss over Article 50 is something to behold really. How something so meaningless can come to dominate  the national psyche, even if only for a few days?


The 'Trigger' of Brexit was the referendum, from which there is no re-tying of that Gordian knot.


The Prime Minister will have an easy majority in Parliament to pass any Article 50 Enabling Bill, it is as though everyone has forgotten the large Labour Leave support and DUP support. It is really not in doubt. Plus, failure is a confidence matter for the start of a general election that the current Government would walk with current polling.


However, the real reason it is a nonsense is the posing of the likes of Jeremy Corbyn about Single Market access and such. None of this is in our gift. We voted to Leave the EU, that means the single market and all the other pieces. The only way to keep Single Market Access is to, err, not leave the EU but to stay in all but name.


There is no mandate for this and, moreover, that is a worse position to be in than either staying or leaving fully. With leaving we go gain control of the future, by staying we keep the status quo (for now), half leaving means we get all the bad stuff of EU bureaucracy and none of the political control


The EU nations are determined from everything they have said so far to make it either a stay or go negotiation. Perhaps hoping that stance will force a second referendum or that the punishment beating handed out will deter others from the same path.


What our red lines and negotiating positions are is being really over-analysed in the current febrile environment. Once Article 50 is enabled, it will be a full exit from the EU, bar minor stuff like police information sharing. The EU won't have it any other way.


As usual, our politicians are playing on their hopes about they think people voted for. Vox pops in the country show clearly whenever I see them that Brexit voting people knew what was coming; it is just the metropolitan elite who cling to the hope that somehow that is not so. Neither do these wets realise what having the EU on the otherside of the table means.  It means business, it means walking away.

Weekend Post: Drew in Oman (1)

Back in the mid 80’s I found myself soldiering in Oman for a short while, as mentioned in a post a few days back on the subject of Baluchistan. Anon asked me to elaborate, and here we go.  I don’t claim any of this is up-to-date, because I haven’t been back for a long while; so it’s in the past tense accordingly.  Also, I wasn’t there on a UN fact-finding mission or writing a doctoral thesis: I was there to assist our ally the Sultan maintain the integrity of his realm, and only know what I saw or was told.  If anyone reads something and thinks, hey, that’s not correct, then – do tell ! 

So - draw up a sand-bag, swing the red lamp, and harken to old Drew! 

Intro: the Benign Dictatorship - a Bit of Background 

Britain has had a very longstanding relationship with the Sultans of Muscat from the days when Sinbad the Sailor was pirating against our India trade, and plenty of Brits have been down that way over the years to help the Sultan out. ( For example, rather unexpectedly the RAF Museum at Hendon has an interesting exhibition on airforce links with Oman, including film of a fly-past put on for the Sultan back in the ‘30’s.)

In the post-war period, things hotted up when the Sultan sought to extend his reach from the coastal strip he traditionally ruled, further inland: he was after the oil being found there, naturally. In so doing he came up against the local tribal leaders (supported, it is said, by Saudi and US interests to the west, who also wanted the oil: the border on that side was vague, just a dotted line on the map). It wasn’t plain sailing. However, the trusty Brits weighed in on his side and, well, fortresses made of mud don’t really stand up to strafing from Hawker Hunters (see below). But the tribesmen retreated to the high Jebel, and couldn’t be dislodged. Inevitably it fell to the SAS to do the job, winkling them out cave by cave. The northern Jebel thus pacified (and given protected areas somewhat like Native Indian reservations), the Sultan lay claim to all of Muscat and Oman. 

"... cave by cave."   In the foothills of the northern Jebel

This worked more or less satisfactorily during most of the 60’s, until communist insurgents based in the former South Yemen (confusingly, to the north of North Yemen) started taking a crack in the south of Oman, where the border was also still just a dotted line. Once again, airpower and the SAS were pivotal in sorting things out, after a coup against the Sultan by Qaboos, his son, who encouraged some much-needed modernization in all departments, including the military.  Brits, inevitably, were well to the fore.  Qaboos bin Said al Said still reigns to this day. 

By the time I got there these major disturbances were a thing of the past, and the residual aggro was a lively (but little noticed) border dispute with South Yemen: no communism involved, just the usual neighbourly land-grabbing I wrote about briefly before. There were many Brits knocking around in the Omani military: some on long-term secondment (especially in the airforce), some taking the Sultan’s shilling directly. There were also quite a few Brits in the northern coastal towns on business – mostly energy, though the Sultan had a (misplaced) fear of the oil running out, so he encouraged the precautionary building of tourist-industry infrastructure. This one could see in the form of fine but lightly-used coastal highways, large dusty hotels only occupied on the ground floor and first floor, and the remarkable Al-Bustan complex, of which more anon. But very few tourists indeed, at that time: the visas just weren’t being issued. 

Finally, there were quite a few Brits in the Christian cemetery, just to remind us it could be for real.

"... quite a few Brits in the Christian cemetery ..."

The Sultan ran a fairly relaxed, not-quite-secular country. Booze could be bought openly and legitimately, and consumed in private or in licensed bars. Plenty of the Omani officers drank: I was the only British officer in the garrison where we were stationed but there was Fosters on tap. Islam was the official religion, but Christians were fine, it was Hindus that weren’t countenanced (idolatry). Oman is very sparsely populated so a huge immigrant workforce was required to maintain the standards the oil-rich Sultan aspired to for his country: Pakistanis, flown into Seeb to hand over their passports and complete a tour of work - mostly menial. There were some unexpected sights: for example, Tuesday was motorway-cleaning day, meaning you had to watch out for chaps with brooms dashing out to sweep the carriageway. No lanes were closed for this exercise. The number of itinerant workers was a state secret: and since it was pretty obvious they outnumbered the locals by quite a multiple, you could see why. 

But everyone seemed pretty happy. Away from the ‘coastal strip’ (60 km between Seeb and Mutrah), everything was dirt-poor: why, then, no beggars? Because that would be a disgrace to the Sultan: if anyone really needed alms, they would present at a Post Office and be given some. (Open to being abused?  No – the Omanis themselves would have been disgraced if they did that to their monarch. A similar honour-code prevailed in recruiting the soldiery, as I’ll recount in another episode.) The phrase ‘benign dictatorship’ came unavoidably to mind.                      (to be cont ...)

ND 

The village of Tanuf, a rebel headquarters in the Jebel campaign.  The building are of mud: the RAF unsportingly shot them up.  It’s been left in that state as a reminder.  But the complex and ancient irrigation system (falajes) had been carefully repaired; and Tanuf Water from a local spring is the Perrier of the Gulf.  Indeed, Perrier owned a bottling plant there! 

Photos © Nick Drew 2016

Uber's challenge to the courts

CU suggested on Monday that Uber's challenge to the now employed status of its self employed drivers will pass easily through the courts. Once a sound judge has a think about it.And with expert advice. Sound judges have also ruled on Brexit. With a rather contentious judgement.

Having attended employment tribunals for many many years, representing the employer, I am not so sure. Employment rulings have baffled me. Going into one, despite preparation and legal advice, and having a full dossier of facts and figures, was always a lottery.

For a weekend competition, here are some examples.All are HR, or actions against no-win-no-fee firm's, if not necessarily tribunal ones. See if you can guess whether the action brought was successful or not.

CASE 1 - Young girl lost the tip of her finger shut in a manual  fire exit door. Defended by the insurance company. Doors signed as OK on a monthly H&S check just days before.
 C - Received apology from company. Told to seek legal advice elsewhere

CASE 2 - Store manager fell from a ladder and suffered bruised ribs and shins. Claimed the ladder was defective. The ladder had been signed off as 'in full working order' the previous day. By the person now making the claim that it was faulty.
 B - Received apology from company and awarded £8,000 damages.

CASE 3  - Young lady suspected of theft was asked by a male supervisor to lift up her top and drop her jeans to show she hadn't hidden anything underneath it. No item was found.
F - Received no apology and no compensation.

CASE 4 - An employee was observed by a member of the public in a 2nd floor display window.
The male employee was having ..erm..lets say ..a  private wonking session. The female member of the public asked for compensation for what she had witnessed. 
 E - Received apology from company. No compensation

Case 5 - A member of a retail staff made anonymous telephone calls to fire services and local council claiming that the building was unfit for work and in breach of fire regulations. Both were rejected by the officers who attended. Same employee made 7-10 other false allegations over the next 15 days about other workers.The management. human rights etc etc. Employee was dismissed after 20 days service, {including 7 days sickness} after three HR meetings over the previous weeks, as 'unsuitable'. 
Claimed unfair dismissal.
 A - Received £32,000 in damages.

Case 6 - Employer was asked by a manager to do a task. When he asked 'why us?' {he was in a group of chatting warehouse packers} was told "because you people are not doing anything."
The ethnic employee brought a case for a racist remark. The  words 'YOU People' he claimed, meant -You Black People.
The group being spoken to was of mixed ethnicity. The manager asking was mixed race himself and married to his Jamaican wife.
 D - Received full apology from the company and compensation about £300 in vouchers.

Match the outcome to the case.

A - Received £32,000 in damages.
B - Received apology from company and awarded £8,000 damages.
C - Received apology from company. Told to seek legal advice elsewhere
D - Received full apology from the company and compensation about £300 in vouchers.
E - Received apology from company. No compensation
F - Received no apology and no compensation.

Edited now - Results by each case. A fuller explanation in the comments

MasonWatch

I haven't suddenly developed a paranoia about the denizens of Great Queen Street.

Nor a fixation with Paul of that ilk.  But I do find him a very interesting character with a lot of fascinating stuff to offer, re-hashed marxism and all.  He's clearly wrestling mightily and imaginatively with the 21st century in all its turbulent novelty: and he's also (like George Monbiot / unlike Polly Toynbee) the sort of leftie who cannot dodge the need to admit when some thesis he's adopted has clashed with the Facts and is plain wrong.

And now he's joined Momentum! (another phenomenon that interests me a lot).  This may be a mixed blessing for them, because he's already telling them exactly what to do, at some length.

Well, that's their problem, I am sure they will enjoy the dialectic process.  However, for anyone disagreeing with the above assessment of the man, have a read of Postcapitalism and the city.  Or Find each other and act! 12 principles for a neo-Bevanite left.**  When you get a minute.  Or two.

ND 
_____________
**he does rather enjoy telling people what to do ...

UPDATE:  someone else is interested in Mason, too 

Precariat

Following on from CU's post of yesterday: it all loops back into the Paul Mason theme we've discussed before, of whether the current dynamics of capitalism are leading to his much longed-for revolution.

I have been a gig economy player 100% for nearly 15 years (and Mrs D likewise), with the important qualification that we had some (earned) capital behind us at the point I ceased being an employee, so - even though there were still some years of mortgage / school / university fees to be covered - we couldn't be classed as 'precariat', which is the other new coinage often used in this context.

The inherent uncertainties of 'gig' are unnerving for anyone who likes a bit of stability or opportunity to plan ahead more than 3 months; and - let's be honest - I really don't know how comfortable we would have felt in that mode 10 years earlier with a young family and no capital cushion.  However, I started my commercial career when 'everyone' went into job-for-life, final-salary style of employment, which can seriously dull the entrepreneurial / self-reliance instincts. (Being in the army before that was *even worse* - you don't even need to consider where the next meal is coming from, you just place your arse on a chair in front of a table.)

The big change seemed to come in the early '90s.  I well recall the 20-something kids I was managing then, who had grown up in families where the (middle class) breadwinner suddenly lost their job during the various waves of Thatcher-era disruption.  These youngsters were much more tolerant of uncertainty than I would have been at their age; their personal career-planning and forward-looking ambition was non-existent as I would have understood it, & psychologically they seemed always prepared for some axe to fall randomly on whatever they were doing at the time.  A different approach to life, which seems to work out broadly OK for many.  But gigging precariously may not be quite so easy when body and mind start to slow up in late middle age.  And we haven't yet seen what happens when these generations reach retirement with bugger-all pension provision.

The debate takes one of two turns at this point, both taking their cue from one or other of the great 19th century German thinkers.  On the hand, Marx (or rather, latter-day marxists like Mason who try to adapt Marx's proletariat-based thinking) would be inclined to see this trend as (a) an inevitable outworking of late-stage capitalism and (b) creating the 'alienation' and despair that trigger the revolution.  We see plenty of leftwing hopes pinned on this, even though (as Mason is periodically forced to admit) every apparent new dawn of the past decade has rapidly clouded over for them.

On the other, Nietzsche relished the idea of more bracing times ahead, where constant turmoil and strife would bring out the best in the toughest and most flexible individuals.  (His academic background was of course in Homer.)   In less dramatic terms, the far less certain employment conditions in the US economy have for a very long time bred a different attitude to life in many sectors of American society, from that of the stability-craving post-war European model.

I'll end by quoting a passage that captures this approach very neatly - and its flipside:

The advocates of the neo-liberalism suggest that is how it should be. Their vision is of a world of restless freelancers living off their wits project-to-project. The post-modern career is self-assembled. Skills and jobs don't last long and so unlike their grandparents, Gen Y can't rely on solid Fordist guarantees. Instead they must dance on hot coals, reinventing themselves towards emerging labour markets, prostituting their ambitions. To fulfil the new economy fantasy they must become the entrepreneurial, "frictionless" workers, mobile and free from the ballast of personal ties. This might suit the youthful graphic designer or the hipster running a digital start-up, but ...

But, continues the writer, this rarely suits a certain category of people for whom regular employment "provides an exoskeleton protecting them from the ravages of the market".  This could, I suggest, be quite a large percentage of our fellow citizens.  (Of course, the dole plays a similar 'protective' role.)

Marx or Nietzsche?  They both offered pretty apocalyptic visions that are equally out of fashion in polite society.  The 20th century didn't quite bear either of them out, though from time to time both camps could claim to see the developments in society they were expecting.  And the 21st ... who knows?    Wars, and rumours of wars ...

ND

Lawyers for Uber mad

This whole Uber case really is a storm in a teacup.


In no way are Uber drivers really employees - they would pass every criteria for IR35, except that they have to work almost solely for Uber.


Plus the whole case is made on hours available (this is how you can get to such low pay of £5 per hour). But of course cabbies are never on the clock for the whole time they are at work.


Really, DLA Piper, who led the case for Uber should be thoroughly ashamed of themselves. They have given wind to a whole raft of hand-wringing happy stories in the Guardian about the fight for workers rights. All of it a waste of time as half-competent lawyers will easily win the next round of appeal at the Supreme Court.


Also, whilst I am riled, what is all this shit about a 'gig-economy' as if this is something new. What, for all of say 2000 years, are fruit-pickers? Other Cabbies? Chuggers?


The whole world is full of people who try to make ends meet by doing basically odd-jobs on a regular basis. The whole Lefty concept that this is some new type of capitalist overlordship is crazy; more so given it is written by journalists who exist in just such a space; perhaps it is their sympathy and angst at their own situation that makes them try to come up with such contorted story-telling?

Press Freedoms On The Line

The writings of Roy Greenslade are frequently suspect, but on this occasion I think he deserves a hearing.

It's about what he reckons is a backdoor way of getting the shocking 'section 40' into law.  Section 40, if triggered, means that a publisher that has not signed up with the 'official UK press regulator' and gets sued for libel, must pay the legal costs of both sides, even if they win.  At the moment S40 is in abeyance.  This sword of damocles should be consigned to the furnace, not left lying around for malicious implementation.

What's wrong with forcing publishers to sign up?  Earlier this week it was IMPRESS, Max Mosley's vehicle for revenge on the press, that was annointed 'official UK press regulator'.  (The fact that JK Rowling and Rowntree are also involved does not make me feel any the more comfortable.)

And we consider ourselves a free nation?  You couldn't, as they say, make it up.  Heaven help us.

ND 

Nissan: The Shape of Things to Come

Watching Jon Snow present the C4 news yesterday evening was a delight.  What the hell's going on here, he blustered - GDP up!  and Nissan investing!  - but, but, ... how can this be?  It's supposed to be all doom and gloom - the government is obviously cheating!!

Jon-boy, this is war.  Whatever the government did or didn't do for Nissan, there'll be many a dark deed done on the road to a successful escape from the clutches of the Commission.  It gladdens the heart to see that some proper pragmatists are settling down to their three-year-long task of doing Whatever It Takes.  Perhaps the wretched remainers in the ranks of the Civil Service are being brought to heel.  Or side-lined.  Whatever: they'll get the message if it's relentlessly reinforced at every turn.  Johnson / Davis / Fox maybe up to the task after all.

The EC will get the message, too.  You won't talk to us?  You hold out nothing better than 'Britain must be punished'?  Why then, we'll cut our deals somewhere else.

Altogether more annoying was the spectacle of Hammond studiously avoiding any sign whatsoever of pleasure at the news.  He has every right to be cautious: but his sour, pessemistic line went beyond prudent management of expectations.  Being charitable, he must have signed off on whatever 'deal' was done for Nissan, which is the main issue on the practical side. 

But rhetoric matters, too.  Churchill, who never failed to give his listeners a blunt understanding of just how tough things were going to be, also never failed to give them a vision of ultimate victory, with a credible display of his personal conviction and determination.

He wasn't much given to toleration of obstructionist attitudes, either.  Get with the programme, Hammond - this is entirely do-able.  

ND

Trouble in Baluchistan is Real Trouble

Scanning the news on return from a nil-by-wifi holiday, I read of dreadful deeds in Quetta, capital of Baluchistan.  Which awakens some 30-year old memories.

Back in the '80s I did some soldiering in Oman, a country with which we have very longstanding relations going back to when that part of the Arabian coast needed patrolling against Sinbad-the-sailor pirates making raids on our India-bound shipping routes.  The Omani army was run quite efficiently thirty years ago (and probably still today) mostly by British NCOs and Pakistani staff officers, and was a smart little affair.  I strongly imagined my father would have recognised it from his Indian Army days a generation before.  One day I will root out the photos and do a post on it.

Anyway, the average Omani soldier (native) was a pleasant chap, touchingly loyal to the Sultan and probably brave enough.  But there wasn't much of what we might think of as a serious martial tradition.  

Nonetheless, there was sporadic fighting to be done.  The relatively heavy stuff of the '50s (Jebel campaign)  and '70s (Dhofar) was over but there was a simmering border conflict with Yemen in the south west, not finally settled until 1992.  And this pleasant average Omani was not really the chap to creep up on an enemy observation post and make with the cold steel.

So they employed two battalions of Baluchis, in much the same way the British army has long retained the services of the Gurkhas.  And, much like a Gurkha, your taciturn Baluch tribesman is exactly the sort of chap for creeping around the hillsides with the cold steel at the ready.  In fact, they were some of the best soldiers I have encountered.

If Pakistan has troubles with Baluchistan, I'd guess they could be very problematic indeed.

ND

Goldman Sachs is scaling back - in New York

Remaoner scaremongering is becoming a thing of legend. Endless stories of horror, few or indeed, any, yet to come true.


The classic one led by the odious British Bankers Association is that all banks are preparing to leave London before Xmas.


The thing is, every single company in the UK, EU and US is using Brexit as a perfect event excuse. Cut salaries - Brexit
Cut costs by firing staff - Brexit
Ripping off Customers - desperation, caused by Brexit.


It is the universal excuse and will remain so until 2020 at least.


Just for balance, here is an article about how Goldman Sachs, said to be considering 2000 jobs in London and whether to 're-locate', is anyway firing 500 odd people in New York. No doubt because of Brexit.


Unfortunately, you can never prove a counter-factual. Goldmans is getting rid of people because its business is changing and the environment is changing. Whether Brexit related or not, the answer will always be Brexit because it suits all management to blame someone or something else other than themselves.


The wider point is that Banking is changing massively, really massively, the internet is fast disintermediating humans from the process of banking and the likes of Blockchain are only going to accelerate this trend. The big bank model is likely on the wane and there will be a big shift in moving to FinTech companies and a more diverse supplier base of services. It is just that as this happens, every job loss will be blamed on Brexit when actually something more interesting, more dynamic, yes...more capitalistic, is occurring. Which will also be more fun to write about than fact-checking remoaner lies.

It's Heathrow, but not Gatwick

So it has finally happened, a new runway maybe eventually get built at Heathrow after 7 years of dithering by various Governments. I can't say May is hesitant as Prime Minister.


Clearly, the UK needs more airport capacity in the South East, but why restrict it to Heathrow is beyond my ken. It is a very statist decision and there was a much more market based route of allowing competition that could have been taken. I guess this way the impact is felt now and in limited constituencies.


On the other hand, UK Gilt 10 Years bonds, although at near record lows thanks to QE, have gained 38 basis points in a month. Still they sit 35 points down on one year, but they are creeping up. Just as the Government decides on a nice big fat investment splurge for the future. the irony being we are doing this at the end of the low interest cycle when even Ed Balls was saying do it at the beginning of the cycle.


Still, 3 elections away before any of these issues (or indeed, projects) come home to roost.

Brexit - Is free movement a red line for the Out voters.

Last bit about Brexit for a while, promise.

 
However, an interesting, well managed, debate on LBC this morning. The Liberal Democrat, Remain voting presenter put the usual idea that people didn't understand that they were voting to actually quit the single market.
It went on to suggest that if Scotland and Northern Island were proposing to exit the UK, via a referendum, would the voters reconsider a second referendum to remain in the single market, with free movement, but possibly opting out of other areas of EU control instead.

This has been doing the rounds for a few weeks now. The idea that the UK fears a break-up enough to accept free movement. And the recent economic shocks have woken people up to the dangers of a go it alone exit.

Personally, I think not.

I doubt the Scots will call another referendum on Scottish independence. The $ oil price alone means that the economic arguments that they couldn't win last time will be harder this time. Plus the unlikelihood  of automatic EU membership being offered. {Spain will veto} makes an argument that was lost once, harder to win the second time. Not impossible. Brexit proves that. But hard to win.
It was 45% - 55% in a more favourable time. The way Sturgeon is only hinting she might do something, rather than saying she will definitely, demonstrates the SNP recognises that it may get more from bluff, than from call.

Northern Ireland won't vote to leave. The main fears, deliberately stoked up by project fear; the threat of a Berlin Wall style border and the threat of no trade with Ireland and repatriation of EU nationals, have all been shown to have been false. So N.I. is unlikely to vote in the same numbers that it did when its genuinely felt self-intrests were threatened.

And, the killer blow for such a Liberal scheme, is that the free movement was a central issue. Not a side issue but the first or second reason why people voted to leave in the first place.
An attempt to keep free movement, by the back door, would not be acceptable.

But, let's find out. Do you believe that if TM can do a deal with the EU, to remain in the single market, but to have free movement, with some restrictions on benefits claimed and possibly having to have a job arranged before coming, some kind of eurofudge that we are all well used to seeing.
Would that be enough for YOU to vote in favour of REMAIN, in a second referendum ?

A handy guide to the post brexit world

What 'Brexit' really means for the political parties.

Conservative - Abandon any EU political regulation. Abandon EU immigration.  Ignore ECHR Judicial rulings. Have no intent to ever join the Euro.  Be ambivalent about remaining in the single market unless that prevents trade with the wider world. Refuse to pay any EU membership fees. Vaguely mention possibly rejoining the single market and the EU  'at some future point in time,' but without enthusiasm or any real intention to do so.

 Labour - Embrace some socialist EU political regulation. Embrace EU immigration. Encourage and respect ECHR Judicial rulings. Consider joining the Euro. Stay outside of the single market and discourage trade with the wider world, except with a soon to be formed Comecon of nations.
Willingly pay EU membership fees but do not take up membership.
Often mention possibly consider rejoining the single market and the EU 'at some future point in time,' with much enthusiasm but without any real intention to do so.

Liberal Democrats - Embrace all EU political regulation. Embrace EU immigration. Encourage and respect ECHR Judicial rulings. Demand UK joins the Euro. Sign up to the single market and ban trade with the wider world.
Willingly pay triple usual EU membership fees and fully take up membership.
Never mention possibly leaving the single market and the EU ' at some future point in time,' and never have any intention to do so

UKIP -  Abandon all EU political regulation. Ban EU immigration.  Ignore ECHR Judicial rulings. Have no intent to ever join the Euro.  Leave the single market and trade with the wider world. Refuse to pay any EU membership fees. Never mention possibly rejoining the single market and the EU  'at some future point in time,' and never have any intention to do so.

SNP -  - Embrace all EU political regulation. Embrace EU immigration. Encourage and respect ECHR Judicial rulings. Demand Scotland joins the Euro. Sign up to the single market and ban trade with the wider world, especially England.
Willingly pay quadruple the usual EU membership fees and fully take up the membership, whilst leaving the UK.
Never mention possibly considering leaving the single market and the EU 'at some future point in time,'  and never have any intention to do so.

The Greens - Embrace all EU political and environmental regulation. Embrace EU immigration. Encourage and respect ECHR Judicial rulings. Demand the UK joins the Euro. Ban all trade.
Willingly pay octuple the usual EU membership fees and fully take up the membership, but impose 100% import tariffs anyway.
Ban any mention of possibly considering leaving the single market and the EU  'at some future point in time,' and never have any intention to do so.

UK Asylum Seeker Ages

SWEDEN is set to begin a controversial age testing scheme on more than 18,000 unaccompanied migrant children.

Daily Express Sun, Jun 19, 2016

 

 

Child refugees coming alone to Sweden aren’t always children. According to workers at several different refugee housing facilities, many people say that they are younger than they actually are in order to get better treatment and avoid deportation.
Sometimes the difference in real age and given age can be upwards of ten years, leading to problems when it comes to schooling, medical care, and housing.
Radio Sweden 5 march 2010


Sweden has been overwhelmed with ‘unaccompanied minors’ in what critics suspect is a huge fraud

Daily Mail January 2016.

So there is nothing very new in the story that of the first batch of children asylum seekers, some appear to be significantly older than the age they claim. This has been a serious issue in Sweden for quite a while. So serious that the most liberal of liberal governments in the entire world, had to step in and do something about a problem it would much rather have avoided. The Swedes asked the doctors to do a test. But the medics said the test wasn't accurate enough and could only provide an age range.

And that story continues on in Scandinavia without resolution.

Over here,the latest batch of over age children has caused something of a millennial revival. The Tory MP David Davies, who questioned the age of the refugees has been labeled a racist. That's a very new labour era method of trying to silence a debate when one side suspects it has no answer to the questions it is being asked and wants to just shut it all down.

 

Why is it 'racist' {Gary Lineker} or 'Unethical' {British dental Association}, or a 'shameful attempt to smear refugees' {Tim Farron} to assess the age of these asylum seekers?

Because if they are asylum seekers, and have been granted asylum, then their age does not really matter. If the UK has agreed to take 'x' number of asylum seekers, then we should take 'x' many. if some of these are over the age they say they probably would still have been granted asylum in the following weeks anyway.

 

However, if the UK public has been told that the UK is only taking children, in an attempt to soften the anti-immigration feeling in the country, then the children should be children. And if some sort of test is necessary, and does actually exist, why can't that be used to verify an age? 

 

Remember these people are coming from France, not Syria. they aren't in any immediate danger except from the willfully inept and deliberately uninterested French social services granting them asylum in France instead of the UK. Why certain sections of UK society are terribly upset over what appears a fairly reasonable request to verify the age of someone claiming to be a child is hard to understand. If these kids are kids, nothing happens. If they are older, they will be treated as adults. That's all. Better for them not be put into social, schooling, medical or asylum centres with children if they are actually adults.

I would remind the lefties who are having a good old virtue signal about this, and the Home Office, who ruled out 'inaccurate, inappropriate and unethical dental checks' that the drowning out and silencing of people's concerns about immigration for ten years; instead of engagement, explanation and resource allocation, had a very large impact on the decision of people of the United Kingdom voting to leave the EU.

 

If they want to make the case for allowing in any number of any age asylum seekers, then make the case for that. But don't suggest to the UK public that it is operating a 'Kindertransport' and then yell racist when someone asks for some proof of age. 

 

That can only end badly.

1% Inflation, eh? How Times Change

Somehow the Grauniad manages to make the 1% announcement sound like something shocking.  Well, "City analysts had expected inflation to rise to 0.9%"  -  so Something's Gone Badly Wrong.

Next, they'll be telling us that soft house prices are an outrage.  If anyone could be arsed, I am guessing we could find past editorials stating how important it is for inflation to be somewhere around 2% and that soaring house prices are a blight on the younger generation.

Ho hum.

ND

$50 Oil. Everything's Relative

We've long noted that everyone, from Saudi Arabia to the Green Party, misunderstands the logic of the US onshore oil & gas industry, namely that it (a) is rational; (b) is flexible; (c) understands sunk costs; (d) has ready access to equally flexible and rational finance; and (e) is constantly innovating - in the direction of reducing costs.  And thus it defies predictions every time.

This cartoon says it all really.

http://www.upstreamonline.com/

If you want some words to go with it, there's always Nick 'sometimes useless, sometimes not' Butler blogging in the FT.

[Saudi] strategy has not only failed but has caused serious damage to the Saudis themselves. Prices fell much further than anyone anticipated because other participants in the market did not respond as expected. The Saudi increase in production has not destroyed the US industry – American output has fallen only marginally despite a 70 per cent drop in prices. The kingdom simply underestimated the resilience of the US producers and their ability to cut costs.

Ain't that the truth.  

ND

Hard Brexit Baked in or off?

This subject always reminds of the old joke about how hard it is to give up innuendo.

However, the EU is in no mood to compromise. Hard brexit it is or else stay in the EU.

The current government policy must be to wait and see what happpens next;

- in the Italian referendum which may change the Government there.
- in the French election if Le Pen does well and is in a run-off with Sarkozy
- in Germany if Merkel quits at Xmas and says she won't run next year.
- in Holland if Geert Wilders gets in

All or any of the above could change the views of the EU next year....but I doubt it unless It is a full house. More likely the article 50 will be triggered and events set in train that will be too hard to stop.

So hard it is.

The Blair return

I have heard, via the Tory Party conference, that Tony Blair and George Osborne are indeed in meetings re a new 3rd way initiative. Blair is keen to come back to politics to offer something to Lefties that is not Corybn Communism.


Equally, Osborne can see he is a busted flush with the Tories, he can only come back in the event of a cataclysm event which has somehow done for Mrs May - in which case he won't be PM anyway.


So perhaps instead, there is a path for them to forge this new, shiny, 3rd way party.


Lovely gossip I thought; apart from including Gordon Brown it is hard to consider how you could make a more voter repellent grouping than this?


What could be worse, suggestions in the comments....

Can Donald Trump still win ?

The weird debate is over. for some reason the TV studios thought it best if the potential presidents had a stool to sit on, next to a really tiny table, and a wireless microphone with no stand.
So when it was Hillary's turn she walked right to the edge of the platform, as if to hug the person asking the question. Which, if she could have made a few more steps, I'm sure she would have. And a few cheek to cheek kisses too. Standing right at the edge like that meant that trump could be seen behind her. Walking about and trying to get into shot like Eric Morecambe with his raincoat and bag.
It was a strange way to present a show. But, it was a strange debate.
Trump has had a terrible two weeks and his numbers have fallen quite dramatically. Enough to make the Republican party that was tacitly, if unenthusiasticly supporting him, because he was doing well, abandon him now he looks like a loser.

So Trump went on the offensive and was offensive. Sparky, but angry too. He semi-closed out his lewd behaviour as locker room banter. But again couldn't reasonably explain his tax payments as Hillary can't reasonably explain why Bill paid off Paula Jones with $850,000.
He did much better than before. Hillary Clinton still has no answer to her email deletions. The spin she tried made it easy for Trump to call her a liar, and to tell her she should be in jail. Which did get a very loud round of applause from an audience told not to applause.

So, Trump did better. He did OK. Although post polling has given the debate to Clinton.
The problem for The Donald is needed to do much better than OK. He needs to do very, very well.

The map above is Oct 9th. On the face of it, its a Clinton win. She has 260 leaning votes and only needs one more mid sized state of the 7 still undecided to win. Trump has 165 votes. He needs to win at least eight  of the undecided nine. 

These are polls and not actual in the bag votes. Only the Darkest colours should be taken as 100% certainty. Which does give Trump slim hope. 
Hillary has 115 seats in the solid camp. Trump has 49.
Clinton's 115 are all 'safe' US Democrat seats. Most have been Liberal since 1992. When the other Clinton ended the Republican landslides. These aren't the states Team Trump will have been hoping to gain. If Donald Trump can finally nail down Texas, which has been Republican voting since 1980, his number goes from a very poor 49 to a better 87. That could give momentum to his campaign.

With his own party denouncing him, however, it does look like its all over already. It would take some really damaging evidence of a Hillary misdeed to come to light to boost him far enough to start taking states from her. And if Team Trump had any evidence, they would have used it already.

Trump must hoping for:

Millions of non-voters suddenly turning out with a real, fierce passion, because of powerful arguments such as immigration and sovereignty, which the opponent has no answer for. Voters willing to vote for someone portrayed as a hateful figure like Nigel Farage. Because they think he is on their side. Voters fed up with being told they are racist and stupid and with a desire to ignore the people who tell them that. People who also just stop listening to the endless warnings of all the dangers in voting against the status quo, and decide that even if it isn't in their own best interests they are prepared to do that anyway.

 There are parallels. And in the debates if you listen to Trump's somewhat incoherent message he is campaigning for the same issues as Brexit. 
Immigration controls. Lower taxes. Better healthcare. A say in the running of the country. American jobs for American workers.

It could happen. The Brexit miracle. 

But its more likely an even more damaging piece of information emerges about Trump. Possibly several more. Or he gaffes up again and again and again. After all, he hasn't been in office for donkey's years. Being schooled on the art of saying nothing too controversial. Making sure to stay on message and blandly platituding the masses. 

How the Republican's must wish they had seen this 'Corbyn' like figure coming. Their own Primaries were like the Labour leadership race. Bland long serving flippy-flops, not prepared to say anything at all that might alienate someone or noobie unknowns trying to go against the party voters grain.
Both not hearing the loud, banging drum of the next wave of politics.

Hillary Clinton  is a really vulnerable Democratic candidate.  But she is electable.

Let The Fracking Commence. Maybe.

The go-ahead given by government for the resumption of exploration drilling by Cuadrilla in Lancs - in the face of refusal by the county council - presumably marks the start of the much-delayed Round 2 of UK shale-fracking activity.  

There was another, rather quirky shale-related development when the larger-than-life Jim Ratcliffe of INEOS shipped in a cargo of 'shale gas' to Grangemouth.  This ostentatious display was, I assume, designed to soften the Scotties up to the idea that shale gas is coming anyway, so we might as well develop it here.  They do need something to replace the North Sea revenues, after all - so maybe a bit of a conundrum for the SNP.

(Of course, what INEOS was shipping in was ethane - a by-product of natural gas production - for use as a chemical feedstock. As a fairly pure chemical, it would generally be difficult or indeed impossible to identify the precise source of a tankful of ethane; but maybe this batch came from a gas processing plant that only takes in shale gas in the first place.)

So there is at least the possibility of new shale-related activities in this country in several places at once.  This might then dilute the protesters' efforts, I suppose: but with the newfound enthusiasm for people with too much time on their hands taking to the streets evinced by Momentum et al, maybe it will stimulate significant new outbreaks of civil disobedience, and overtime for the Old Bill.

As we've noted many times before, the current surplus of gas worldwide (caused by shale production in the USA, and a massive over-development in LNG liquefaction capacity worldwide with more still to come onstream in the next 3-4 years) makes for depressed prices, which won't help a UK shale industry get off the ground.  But the motivation to explore, if not then to develop immediately, is always great.  Ding dong, seconds out, round 2 ...

ND

Crisis hit Pound to hit parity with Euro €

On ND's advice I am trying some different header titles.

There was a flash crash in the pound earlier today in Asisa, these things can happen when over 90 of trade is done by robots who are tracking news and every small event that may impact the markets (even this website gets hundreds of bot hits per day, likely for this reason).

Market sentiment in the days of algorithmic trading is a tough beast, as the Pound gets hammered and all sorts of nonsense is spoken about hard Brexit (as if there was another choice - again, remoaner fantasising) and how bad that will be. As such, I won;t be surprised to see the Pound hit parity for a while with the Euro and even the dollar may touch less than $1.20 for a few days.

The thing is, with a huge current account deficit and a desperate need to increase exports and FDI, then a falling pound is just what we need. OK, so a bit miffed about holiday money, but there you goes; also that is the ONLY downside I can yet see to Brexit so far. Everything else is good news, even the falling pound is just what we need at a macro-level.

Brexit is turning out just like 1992. The UK fell out of the ERM, the Government was humiliated, the recession was still working its way out of the system, everyone felt the country was going to the dogs. Fast forward a few years and it was the start of one of the longest economic booms in our history

Thursday 6th October MOVED TO THE FRONT

This Thursday you may find ND, BE and CU at St. Stephens Tavern (in Westminster, opposite Big Ben) from around 7pm onwards, be delighted to by any of you a drink who can make it.

With the Tory conference in full swing, we shall likely be accompanied solely by bored Labour and SNP MP's in the place....

Brown/Balls/Osborne...and now May/Hammond

I don wonder sometimes, how the economic centre of UK politics has been dragged so far to the left.


Ever since Ken Clarke, a acknowledged lefty Tory, left office in 1997 we have not had a decent Chancellor or Prime Minister who believes in capitalism.


Yet we have had a few changes of Government and people during this time, getting on for 20 years now. If anything, the speech by Teresa May today is even more left -wing that one that Ed Milliband would have dared to give. In fact, perhaps she is intent on seeing off Corbyn by out-flanking him on the Marxist left.


Massive state intervention has never been a good idea, never. I give you the Soviet Union as a lesson, I also give you China in about 5 years time too. I give you 1970's UK.


But this is what May wants, already we can see in the horrific scarcity of talent on her front bench from the simply dreadful Amber Rudd to the gaffe-prone Brexiteers, they sing in unison an anti-business and anti-capitalist dirge.


Of course we want to limit immigration, but blaming companies is not the right answer nor is trying to turn them into a police state.


Of course, we want stable utility prices, but not by Government decree; this is how they try to do it in Venezuela and Zimbabwe and we have seen the end of the film already. We want steady prices because there is a balance between supply and demand.


Market and capital based solutions are often the best answer we have ever developed, not perfect, not without downsides, but better than nanny-knows-best Government dictat.


It is a disgrace that 20 years of Government have seen frankly no real development of thought or innovation and instead politicians decree the same statist nonsense whatever side of the floor they are from. Perhaps they think they are clever as this is big tent politics. maybe it is, but it is terrible for our living standards.


What a shower they are, Labour of course are even worse, led by genuine communists. I fear a frightful few years ahead of constant backtracking and obvious policy errors.

Regulating Plastic Surgery

Yes, plastic surgery is in the news, with the Royal College of Surgeons expressing concern that any doctor is permitted to offer such treatment without further specialist qualification.  (Is this perhaps related to Anne Robinson being all over our screens again?)  

Well, up to a point every good capitalist recognises the need to regulate.  We could probably do worse than adopt whatever approach it is that they use in Russia ...

ND