Putin ill - a would-be Black Swan event?

Chances are it will come to nothing, but it has intrigued me think this morning that if reports of Putin being very unwell were true and he were to suddenly and unexpectedly come over all Hamlet, it would rather throw the play open...

- Who would take over - Putin has been careful to not groom a successor. There does not seem to be a familial line up in waiting.

- Would they continue to back the Ukraine war - from what I can tell, this is not quite so overwhelmingly supported at home as is portrayed.

- Might Obama back away from a deal with Iran. Without Russia, Assad in Syria has a limited shelf-life. With the imminent arrival of several Iranian brigades his future currently is looking more assured.

- Greece's weak hand would be even weaker in their 'negotiations' with Germany the EU.

As always, the world could become a more stable place or less stable one very quickly.

Keeping Up With The Kalashnikovs

One definitely shouldn't laugh, but the unfolding tale of the London jihadi brides is a severe test of the straight face and sober countenance.

A handwritten list discovered in the bedroom of one of the three London schoolgirls feared to have fled to join Islamic State details the items they needed to buy as well as the travelling costs of getting to Syria. The items ranged from a mobile phone to underwear, makeup and an epilator*.

“My sister was into normal teenage things. She used to watch Keeping Up With The Kardashians.”

Well she's Keeping Up With The Kalashnikovs now - an easy mistake to make. As Abdurrahman Bilgic, Turkey’s ambassador to the UK, tactfully puts it: "our neighbourhood is not a rose garden”.  He may not have been to Bethnal Green.

One would be more inclined towards sympathy for these strange but fundamentally tragic goings-on if it wasn't for the relentless finger-pointing towards the authorities.  According to (inter alia) the pious Mr Vaz, the Met is to blame !  Another easy mistake, I think, because more reliable commentators are blaming the net.  That's net, Keith, you know, the interwebby thing where they find these silly videos and stuff.

ND
_______________
*reminds one of the old joke about legionnaires rushing to meet the camel train: well you don't want an ugly one, do you?

QE Works!

So some years after the Uk and US did QE, the Eurozone has tried the same. And to no ones surprise it has had the same effect.

Along with the currency crisis, the launch of QE has seen the Euro plummet in value versus the dollar. To the point at which is is not below 1.08 to the dollar and so veyr near to parity - with the direction of travel suggesting that parity maybe reached. With the Pound hitting 1.40 to the Euro, my summer holiday to France is looking that bit cheaper too.

In the main, this is good news for Europe, a lower currency will help Europe be more competitive against Asian and American economies and help it climb out of its long slump.
Also QE has pushed down bond rates, even for Greece, averting a return of the Debt crisis of 2011, for now.

However, there are dark clouds, Germany benefits the most as it exports the most - A D-Mark would surely have parity with a Pound Sterling by now. Thus the Southern European nations cannot export internally in the Eurozone at good rates and this is a big challenge to the Eurozone periphery.

Also, it suggests the long-term 'austerity' (also known as sanity and being able to sack people for underperforming) is unlikely to be followed through. Of course too, if you are a saver in Europe then this trend is not your friend.

Overall though, the best thing to say is its about time...

Budget 2015: The Final, Fateful Act of the Quad

"Given his penchant for political theatre, Osborne might offer something completely fresh, in a final bid to frame the political debate in the run-up to polling day"

Yes, they got that right, those shrewd Grauniad commentators.  Osborne will have been thinking about how to use this opportunity for at least four years, and we know he'll be trying for something dramatic.  At the very least a power-play, another of the 'rolling barrage' initiatives: and in truth what he really wants is an outright game-changer.   Something creative, unexpected, headline-grabbing, agenda-setting, initiative-grabbing, Balls-bothering, Mili-mithering, voter-pleasing  ... just up George's street, or so we are led to believe.

Of coure these things often don't come off: Gordon Brown was forever trying the same trick and he fell flat several times, and flat-on-his-face more than once.

And Osborne's Big Budget opportunity comes with a twist, namely the need to have it approved by Clegg + Alexander in one of those 'quad' meetings they have.  Had the LibDems been riding high(ish) this could have neutralised the potential quite substantially - why give an opponent a half-share in something clever?  But as things stand, the junior partner that is trailing so badly will be just so grateful for anything they can get: so they can probably be steered into something that will suit Osborne's purposes fairly well.  And he may not much mind them ending up on the same side of whatever devious dividing line he's hatching.  Those final meetings of the famous foursome could be interesting.

So - all eyes on you again, matey.   We're hard to please here at C@W, but shan't be slow to give credit - if it's due.   There's glory to be had if you can square the quad and wow us all. 

ND

Are Labour and the Tories really very different?

A nice, refreshing attack on the Tories by Ed Balls will be made today. Lacking in an detail, he instead claims that the future Tory Government cuts will be the worst in the history of the  world, the worst ever made anywhere, ever, and much worse than anything that has ever been done before.

Underneath the Election hyperbole, the difference in spending by each party is set to be around £75bn a year by the end of the parliament. This may sound like a lot, but in cash terms, this is around 5% difference in Government spending.

Currently, we are in the budget process at my workplace. Increases or cuts of around 5% mean in the round, no overall change. Nothing is considered difficult until you get to around 10% and then actually difficult cuts start there  and above - certainly no redundancies hit until at least 10% is suggested for a cut in spending.

So perhaps the most insightful thing that Ed Balls is telling us today, is that there is very, very little difference between the Party's and as such, the vehemence of the rhetoric has to be turned up very high, to address the paucity of the product on offer. 

When Someone Says Something Like This ...

"Don't mistake my decency for weakness" - Ed Miliband

"Do not underestimate the determination of a quiet man"  -  Iain Duncan Smith 

To say it is to blow it.

ND

And These People Have Jobs ... BBC Jobs!

Idly tuning into BBC2 yesterday I encountered of programme on the history of lighting, in which our hero recounts (inter alia) the story of sperm-oil lamps.  This involves telling us about the United Company of Spermaceti Chandlers of Nantucket (1761) which attempted to establish what he describes as "one of the first ever monopolies".

First ever ?  Pardon me while I get up off the floor and reach for my sources.

The term "monopoly" first appears in Aristotle's Politics. Aristotle describes Thales of Miletus's cornering of the market in olive presses as a monopoly (μονοπωλίαν) ... Under mercantilist economic systems, European governments with colonial interests often granted large and extremely lucrative monopolies

An enactment published by Gratian, Valentinian and Theodosius was not content merely to proclaim the manufacture of purple an official monopoly but also made a monopoly of the sale of fabrics dyed with blatta, oxyblatta and hyacinthina

At the time of Edward VI the sovereign was accustomed to grant special privileges to his favourites, which constituted a practical monopoly  

Etc etc etc, through ancient Chinese salt monopolies, the East India Company ...  Sheesh.  Is there no such thing as an 'editor' at the Beeb these days?  Still, what would they be expected to know about monopolies, eh ..?

ND

The Cultural Delinquency of ISIL: Who Knew?

It turns out that ISIL, the latest and most exciting of states to join the comity of nations, really is a bit uncouth after all.  In an inexplicable turn of events, they have allowed their archaeological heritage to fall into disrepair! 

 'The militants continued to "defy the will of the world and the feelings of humanity": [Iraqi officials are] calling for a UN Security Council meeting to discuss how to protect cultural heritage in Iraq'

A serious lapse - and so unexpected, coming as it does only days after ISIL successfully applied to enter the Eurovision Song Contest.

However, the dispute is not thought to jeopardize their bid for the 2026 World Cup. 

Our environment correspondent adds:  They are falling down on the green side of policy too, deliberately setting fire to oil-wells which will do nothing for their CO2 emissions targets.  In 1991 Saddam Hussein had to be rapped over the knuckles for similar failings.  Greenpeace monitors are planning to inspect the sites next week, and intend to request high-level meetings with the ISIL Office of Climate Change to map an appropriate 'CO2 pathway' with them.

ND

Scottish National party. Why are they doing so well ?

Struggling to understand the rise and rise of a defeated SNP ? 
Emerging from the ruins of the Independence campaign that saw their charismatic leader resign and the Independence issue booted down the round for twenty years, incredibly, the new look SNP is stronger and has more support than the party that was heavily defeated only a few months ago.

On tonight's Question Time , from  a traditional labour stronghold in Glasgow, the answer to why a sudden surge in SNP support became clearer.
  "On the doorstep we are hearing 'Labour sold us out. I will never vote for them again'.

"Labour's decision to join forces with the Tories has cost us very dearly", said Labour's deputy Scottish leader.This was reflected in the audience who asked why Labour had endorsed Tory policies. They didn't need to. They should have campaigned on their policies. Not the coalitions!

So there is one reason. Opportunistic politicking over ideology. Traditional supporters don't like that.

The SNP QT rep raised that  "Labour MPs have been instructing their activists to vote Lib dem, or , God forbid, vote TORY, to prevent an SNP win." 

That shocking short term vote grab explains an awful lot. 

Scottish labour MPs have lobbied Ed Miliband to specifically rule out a deal with the SNP purely to frighten voters into thinking about a possible Conservative victory. Both these attempts are to shore up their own chances of a slender Scottish victory. But by deceit. By fooling and disrupting the usual democratic process. The people won't stand for it..to say to labour supporters vote Tory to help Labour is one thing. To let that message out into the wider world is an appalling gaffe. Setting the idea loose that socialist Scots would rather vote in a Tory government than an SNP one. Its Almost certain to create more SNP voters than before. 


Tonight on QT Labour's message was vote Sturgeon..get Cameron. Over and over again used that 'the wider issue is Ed or Dave ..and you will get Dave"

That message isn't really working against UKIP, where it does at least have an element of truth to it. 
In England a split Tory-UKIP marginal seat goes to labour. 

 In Scotland, where the Scottish national party is already the ruling party, that is simply untrue. An SNP seat is just a conditional Labour seat. The SNP have before , and again on Question Time tonight, said they will never, under any circumstances, do any ..ANY..kind of deal with a Tory government. There are no options and nothing is on the table and nothing is going to be put on the table. That's pretty clear.  But they will, providing they can get a deal, work with and support a Labour government.

Humza Yousef, of the SNP, was also quite silent when Toby Young suggested that the SNP might demand a scrapping {probably moderated to..no immediate renewal} of Trident for their support.  Toby said Ed would readily agree to that. 
Which he would . 
It delays the nuclear weapon decision for 5 years. Saves Ed the problem of having to deal with it during his minority government that will contain some 50% of Labour MPs who are CND types. With an even higher proportion of 'just say no' amongst its voters. 

Toby also reminded the audience that Sturgeon has said she wants £180 billion extra cash for Scotland. She wants the mansion tax money from London as much as Murphy does for Labour.
But a vote for the SNP makes something like this more likely than a vote for Labour. 
Because a weak labour party will have to accept the SNP's terms, or hold another election. Something that they could not afford to do, even if they wanted to. 

Add to that the Liberal Democrats meltdown. Something that is going to be much worse in Scotland where the Liberals pre-coalition traditional two faced stance was very much to the left of labour and their Tory bed hop was like an act of treason.

So now we can see it. 
The SNP is on the rise even after its total defeat on the platform of its very existence, because of the mistakes of the big national parties in recent years. The SNP has a very clear and very strong message. It sounds buoyant. It sounds positive. Labour sound frightened, desperate and panicked.
The voters sense that Scotland can gain a lot more through voting for local politics than it can through voting for national politics.

They are probably right.

BBC Question Time : Poll of polls edition

David Dimbleby presents topical debate from Glasgow. The panel includes Liberal Democrat chief secretary to the treasury Danny Alexander MP, SNP minister for Europe Humza Yousaf MSP, leader of the Scottish Conservatives Ruth Davidson MSP, Labour's deputy leader in Scotland Kezia Dugdale MSP, journalist Toby Young and crime writer Val McDermid.

Its that QT from the land of the White Walkers.
But this time, its of significance to the wider UK. The Labour strongholds are in rebellion. The equivalent of areas such as Chelsea or Virginia Water going UKIP. Quite how labour have managed to let this happen..well..I'm still unsure what is occurring. But those Ashcroft polls, are dire for Labour. Making the whole boundary issue moot. 
{Except, of course, the SNP are still socialists..and will put Miliband into number 10}

Tough to know the questions on the regionals.

1. SNP about to have total governance and powerbroker status..discuss.
2. Why is Cameron so afraid of a little chat on the telly with weird Ed. 
3. Tories promise 200,000 starter homes in 5 years. Labour promise 1 million starter homes in 5 years. So I guess SNP can promise 5 million homes in 1 year...
4. Councils in Scotland facing 'unprecedented cuts.' {that won't happen.}
5. Could be Putin investigates the assassination.. but more likely this 5p a litre rebate for rural areas thing. proving the EU is a very, very good thing.

League Table 2015

Measured - 3

Kilgore Trout - 2

Hopper -2

 Nick Drew - 2

Budgie - 1

Dick the Prick - 1 Blue Eyes - 1 Taff -1

Cityunslicker -1

Malcolm Tucker - 1 

 

Charity Shield winner - Malcolm Tucker.

Nuclear First Strike In Europe

I haven't forgotten my intention to have a crack at the sinister putative EU Energy Union initiative: but in the meantime, here's an interesting development of one of the strands suggested last week.  I wrote:

France has always wanted the rest of us to pay its astronomical nuclear decommissioning bill so a 'CEP' was always going to be on the table to join the CAP at some stage ... Why would the fervent anti-nukes allow France the opportunity to enshrine the nuclear option in an EU charter? (as they surely will - an absolute red line for them)

Well France has made the first strike, cannily rallying the UK and others to her flag.  (Why exactly the Grauniad fingers Romania is anyone's guess: their fault, I suppose, for being pushed out in front by the French.)  They call for

"new EU financing mechanisms for nuclear as a low carbon technology, and research and innovation initiatives to deal with the costly and unresolved issues of nuclear waste and decommissioning. New state aid guidelines are also needed, it says, and these should be based on past EU decisions, including the approval of the UK’s planned Hinkley Point C nuclear plant in Somerset. “It is vital that the forthcoming communication on an Energy Union reaffirms the important role that nuclear power ... can potentially play in Europe”

Note the other countries involved: Czech Republic, Lithuania, Slovenia and Slovakia.  In other words, this isn't just a nuclear hunting party, its members include the core of the anti-Russian eastern grouping (with which the UK is often allied in matters EU) - another key strand we identified last week.

"Energy Union" obviously means very different things to different people.  I'm looking forward to a ten-nation riposte along greenish, anti entente-cordiale-nucléaire lines.  Britain and France and Poland and Czechoslovakia against, errrr, Germany and Italy and Austria ... this promises to be epic.  Energy Union in our lifetime?  Pardon me if I'm skeptical.

ND

Off shore Tax havens used for secrecy purposes

You can often read some great stuff in the Guardian Newspaper - on a know thy enemy basis I must read articles a few times a week from the site.

Alot of the time though they manage to be both right and wrong in the same article. Today there is a breathless puff piece from a company called Transparency International. It claims there is huge corruption behind the practice of people using off shore tax havens to have Special Purpose Vehicle companies buy property, often will stolen money.

This definitely falls into the no shit Sherlock category of reporting.

It then makes some wilder guesstimates about how widespread this is and also some awful examples of bad practice. It says for example that Saif Gaddafi had used such a process to buy a property...of course this must be corruption. But of course when Gaddafi likely did this he was Tony Blair's best friend and buddy and not an enemy to the UK. Oh how we forget the changing whimsy of our foreign policy . Of course, once declared an enemy of the State the UK has stepped in and taken the property back. The allegation of corruption can only be that, there is little proof that Saif actually looted the money - circumstantially we know it to be true, but in any Country we would always wait for the rule of law rather than making populist judgements.

(OK, we will be making populist judgements in Ed Milliband's Britian because that is what the man is about, but we will see about this in a few weeks time...).

At the end of the article though, having not made much sense thus far, the Transparency International group say what they are looking to do is know who beneficial owners are prior to properties being bought in the UK by foreign companies and also to stop large cash transactions. The first idea is a good one, it should be publicly knowable as to who owns what, after all that is the point of the Land Registry. That alone will kill dead much property based tax avoidance and money laundering.

The use of cash is less appealing as it is quite possible for people to sell one property and make lots of cash and then buy another. Why this needs to be controlled is not clear beyond allowing the Banks even more control over your finances (on behalf of the State) than ever.

What goes unnoticed is the rather large efforts, via special stamp duty on SPV ownership, made by recent Governments. Property is now much more highly taxed than it was and though exposing corruption is a good thing, I expect any Government advised by the Treasury may think long and hard about the revenue implications of enacting such legislative change.

Competition! William for Beijing - Who for Moscow in May?

The Royal Family are just brilliant for diplomacy and soft-power exercises generally.   The "Windsor"  brand catalogue offers such a nicely graded range of options - a perfect choice available for all occasions - and other countries are left floundering in their wake.   From the lightweight-but-dutiful 'Edward', the man-of-the-world, know-what-you-mean-squire 'Andrew', the robust and heavy-duty 'Anne', the lucky-dip, maybe-you'll-get-a memorable-gaffe 'Phillip', to the seriously A-list 'Harry', the only-if-you've-been-very-good 'Kate', the ocean-going, this-is-really-important 'Wills', the president-trumping 'Charles', and the earthquake-grade, once-in-a-lifetime 'Her Britannic Majesty'.

They all come in uniform and/or on horseback if desirable; speak French; fly themselves in (some even at the controls of a helicopter, which is no mean feat); and don't require two battalions of large grey-suited men wearing shades and microphones to be placed between themselves and the adoring crowds.

Yes, with the occasional fleeting exception like Obama six years ago or Mandela in the 1990's, there's really no-one else to touch them.

Now: here's the challenge.  Wills is doing great business in China just now but another, more sensitive gig looms.  Yes folks, 9 May 2015 is Moscow Victory Day Parade and it's a big'un, the 70th anniversary, no expense spared.  There will be T-34's on show!  And they've already got acceptances from, oooh, the President of, errr, Serbia and, hmmm, the President of Vietnam and  ....  yes, Fat-boy Kim himself, Jong Un the wrong'un!

But somehow, little Volodya's party is not yet complete.  After all, he went to Normandy in 2014 and he really, really feels everyone should do him the honour of paying a return visit - not just the sub-communist nobodies.   Egad! - a tough decision for Whitehall, what with all the posturing over Ukraine: and given the General Election two days before, there's the possibility we won't even have a proper Prime Minister!

So, compo time:

1. who should we send?
2. who will we send? 

Doesn't need to be from the Windsor collection, of course - there's more than one way of sending a soft-power message.  Could be Neil Kinnock, for example, or Keith Vaz.  No prizes for guessing our Ambassador to Moscow - let's focus on the most senior marquee Brit(s) in an official capacity; and there will be awards for getting this right.

I'm saying: 

1.  HMQ, on condition that Crimea is relinquished beforehand
2.  Prince Charles in full rig, on condition that Fat-Boy is debarred

Have at it, C@W!

ND

Greenist Fantasy - only in Wales and the minds of Lib Dems

The news that the Tidal Lagoon Power have got Ed Davey, Environment Secretary for two more months, excited about plans that have been around since the 1960's should not really be news, but the BBC have decreed so there we are.

The interesting part is in their plans are, by Greenwash standards, actually costed. The key aspect is that they think a 2 mile long lagoon built in Swansea Bay will only need a £168p/MWh subsidy.

Let's compare that to the totally unaffordable and expensive proposed new nuclear plant. The one we hate the Government for because they caved in and agreed to a £90/MWh subsidy. Oh dear, oh dear indeed.

Of course for Green power fantasists that fact that these things are not economic does not matter. The subisdy comes from you, the bill payer after all and they don't expect to ask you just ratchet up your bills by say, er, 50% and have it all stamped and agreed by the Government. Of course, Tidal power is probably worse than wind power as it is only available 4 times a day for an hour - not of much use to a 24hr power requirement is it?

At a time when the fall in Oil Prices has made even Fracking (er, no subsidy here) look like it will be too expensive, then this floating of this 'idea' to try and shore up the Lib Dem vote in Wales is pure nonsense-on-stilts.

Moreover, it is not even a new idea, tidal power and the Severn barrage have been talked about by the ill-informed since the 1960's. perhaps earlier. At every stage the costs are looked at it becomes so astronomical as to be completely prohibitive - and that is before another bunch of decry the impact on the sea and the creatures who live there.

I so hope for Ed Davey to lose his seat in the General Election and the Country to be rid of such ludicrous people in its crucial Energy Department.

EU "Energy Union": A Real Monster

The blockbuster Energy Union Package hatched this week by the new Commission has been a while in the creation, signalled by Master Mandelson last year.  Obviously one's first reaction is that this would be an appalling extension of the Acquis, with massive potential for corruption of all kinds, to be resisted at all costs.

But there are a very large number of components in this monstrosity, making it it worthy of more detailed consideration, which I propose to give it in the coming days.  Here are a few initial observations, in no particular order.

• some of its proponents are very critical of  the 'ever closer union'-supporting countries whom one might imagine a priori would be most in favour of another acqui-grab: critical of France, and particularly of Germany.  That's because a major strand of this is about Eastern Europe looking for the help of the Big Brothers in their hitherto one-sided dealings with Gazprom, in which they feel they've been hung out to dry
• there is a strong strand of anti-Russian 'energy revanchism' in play here - if only as a smokescreen (security of supply being the last refuge of a scoundrel) - and one cannot but note the timing relative to recent setbacks suffered by the EU expansionistas in their Ukrainian policy 
• France has always wanted the rest of us to pay its astronomical nuclear decommissioning bill, so a 'CEP' was always going to be on the table to join the CAP at some stage
• the UK has worked wonders behind the scenes, over more than a decade, to drive the open energy market agenda across the EU - with considerable success, given the entrenched opposition from France and Germany.  The Package contains a lot of commendable open-market rhetoric - again, maybe as a smokescreen
• the politics of all this will be epic.  Why would Germany give up its direct gas links with Russia?  Why would France give more power to anti-nuclear forces within Europe?  Why would the fervent anti-nukes allow France the opportunity to enshrine the nuclear option in an EU charter? (as they surely will - an absolute red line for them). Why would the UK accept such a blatant extension of centralisation from Brussels, enough perhaps to make us quit altogether?  (well OK, we know Mili would love it)
• the greens will be wetting themselves at the whole prospect, seeing it as the perfect instrument for implementing their wildest fantasies

And so it goes on.  More than can be addressed in a single post, that's for sure.

ND

Rolling Barrage

Nick Drew used the term Rolling Barrage to describe the latest political moves.
Its a quality metaphor.

Politics is only the continuation of war by other means. 

Our UK politics is still very much fought in the way of wars of old. Not so much the modern battlefield's high tech kit. Powerful communications. Great flexibly in multi-role operations. Cost effective units..High tech, low manpower..highly trained professionals.

No. Our politics is a titanic struggle of Might and Money. Mobilisation and National Will. Depots and railheads and fixed timetable battle-plans during the campaign season.
 Citizen volunteers led by a mix of old regulars. Fresh faced amateurs. Public Schoolboys and keen as mustard university students.  Each side containing far greater numbers of journeymen generals than first class leaders. Each with more incompetent or raw officers than veteran field commanders.
Each side proclaiming a great victory for every mile of useless mud gained. Each refusing to accept a defeat. Instead calling it a "rearwards advance" or a "change of base."

Two huge, opposing, power blocks. Separated only by a very narrow ideological strip of no-man's land.  Yet fighting to the death to control that thin marginal seat ground.
Our political leaders scour the battlefield. They send out Political Spad XIII scouts to search out the moral high ground, from where the Heavy Artillery Politicians can dominate the battlefield.    Bellowing out their thunder day and night. New fangled 'Fokkos Gruppen" report on the movements behind the enemies lines.  Seeking out concentrations of troops and the buildup of supplies. Also attempting to find what weakness the enemy has camouflaged under those rear area nets.

Certain sections of the trench line may be very weakly defended. Salients ripe for lopping off.
Other sections are so heavily entrenched, like the NHS, ring-fenced with miles and miles of barbed wire, and well sited union bunkers, that to assault it head on would invite ruin.

Some trench sections led by unflappable Liberal Democrat Captains, have the potential to stand fast,  even though the lines either side of them are wiped out. 

And the thump of a shell sploshing into the mud. Followed by a dreaded hiss as it releases its toxic topic of "Immigration..Immigration" can have even first line troops of the major parties fleeing to the rear in panic.

Certain sections may be in a safe zone. Weakly defended with second line troops. These could suddenly fall victim to new allies joining the war. The Scots nation and The UKIP opening up like the Turkish and Italian fronts.

The basic battle plan remains the same for both sides.
Find either a strength on your side or a weakness on theirs. Mass forces. Set up a timetable. Brief everyone concerned, making sure their is no deviation from the plan, whatever happens. Then set up a tremendous barrage. Days and days of relentless prattling. Followed by a creeping barrage of sudden explosions and a mixture of Statistics Piercing Shells. Highly Explosive Revelations..Tons of smoke-shells to disguise own mistakes..And the never ending chatter of machine tweets, as the poor bloody infantry try and get their flyers read before they hit the recycling bin.
Once the offensive begins its too late for fine tactics. Simply hammer the opponent and hope to break his front line, so allowing penetrations and flank attacks and try and force him back to his second or third lines.

The chances of a knockout blow are slim to say the least. More often its just attritional, positional warfare , where each side attempts to overwhelm the other with sheer numbers.
Costs are not considered. The war chest has already been amassed and there is no point saving any for the next battle. So every gun that can is brought to bear. And the winner is often the one that made the fewest mistakes.

Our politicians are very old fashioned. They are impressed by something as ancient as a database that might or might not show them where their supporters are. This startling lack of hard reconnaissance means they fire off millions of leaflets, carpet bombing rather than strategic strikes. 
They know the marginals are the key to victory. So they bombard them the hardest. But again, just using weight of shells to try and counter battery their opponent into silence.

Communications,  the key to the modern era, is not quick enough. MPs rely on a pre-mission briefings and what appears to be field telephone. So they sometimes go over the top into a hail of fire that could easily have been avoided by being forewarned.

Can't help feeling that the first party to master  the Westminster equivalent of radio-telephone. Coded messages. Combined arms. Close air support. Mechanised transportation and self-propelled artillery is going to waltz through the political landscape and cause an almighty upset.

I think that's taken that metaphor as far as it could possibly travel. 
But for the historians amongst us..


The Entente

The British Empire - Conservatives 
Ill prepared. Too parsimonious and too active on too many fronts prolonged the conflict and prevented gathering of forces for a decisive campaign. The Empire takes a long, long time to become effective.

The French Empire - Democratic Unionist Party 
Always up for an offensive. But after sustaining terrible casualties their morale declines. Prefer to remain on the defensive within their own sphere.

Czarist Russian Empire - Liberal Democrats
The least prepared, financed and equipped of the great powers. Poor leadership causes severe losses, Even being propped up by the British Tory Empire can't prevent capitulation then revolution.

Serbia - UKIP
Impossibly small. Friend of neither  the Allied nor Central Powers. Somehow, despite attacks from all sides, remain in play. And even mounting offensives.

Central Powers

Imperial Germany - Labour
Once the dominant power. But the war machine was no longer the power force of the 1870s. Outspent by the Entente and lacking allies and with weak leadership, they struggle to find a way to win.

Austro-Hungary - SNP
Allied by virtue of a common ideology to Imperial Labour. But wish to rule as a nation in their own right. They lose almost every battle, yet remain a powerful player in the war to the very end.

Ottoman Empire - Plaid Cmyru/ Respect 
Dragged into the conflict through economic dependency on Imperial Labour. Proved ill prepared and ill financed. Charismatic Caliphate leader keeps them going much longer than expected. But eventually defeated and destroyed.

The Kingdom of Bulgaria - The Greens
Originally both the central and allied powers wanted the Green agenda on their side. Eventually the Central Socialist powers proved more able to deliver Green desires. After limited initial success the Kingdom failed in its offensives.. Poor health of troops and lack of money and supplies led to catastrophe. The blame was placed on the idiocy of their leader, who abdicated.

BBC Question Time - 2 jobs edition

Question Time quiz.

Again..I am out.
But may be back in time for the watching.
So hopefully scores this time.

David Dimbleby presents topical debate from Telford in Shropshire. The panel includes Conservative party chairman Grant Shapps MP, Labour's shadow work and pensions secretary Rachel Reeves MP, Liberal Democrat Tessa Munt MP, UKIP's Mark Reckless MP and the Sunday Times journalist and critic Camilla Long.

A lot of news this week. I will guess

Dimbletie - Butterfly motif.
1. Cash for access. Milibandwagon's second jobs for MP's. Public will be well up for a ban on second jobs. But the exemptions list would run to several hundred pages. 
2. Green party. loony party leader can'rt explain loony party policies. Who knew?
3. Three English girls. All very Enid Blyton. Three get into a fix in Aleppo. Since the story broke been looking for someone to blame...Luckily..
4. Jihadi John turns out to be a kind, friendly, cheerful, pacifist. But the security forces turned him into a Jihadi. So we know who to blame. All this terrorism is caused by MI5 investigating terrorism.
So I suppose if the Human Rights people are right, if we just stop looking for terrorists that will prevent terrorism.
5. Has to be those disastrous Net Immigration figures and Cameron's silly pledge.
{The spin I get from CHQ is - The economy is doing so well..every foreigner wants to come here.!}
If you think I'm trying that suicide line on the doorstep, think again Lynton.

League Table 2015

Kilgore Trout - 2

Hopper -2

Measured - 2

Dick the Prick - 1
Blue Eyes - 1
Taff -1

Nick Drew - 1

Cityunslicker -1

Malcolm Tucker - 1

Charity Shield winner - Malcolm Tucker.

Devo-Manc: Another Serious Power-Play

One of my perennial themes here has been: 

• governments have their hands on the biggest levers 
• a government strategist with a bit of creativity can always drive the agenda

Regrettably it is usually people like Mandelson who actually understand this.  Brown sort-of understood it, except he deployed it negatively in his 2009-2010 scorched-earth campaign, analysed by C@W at the time.  Anyhow, Osborne understands it too (and of course Crosby).

So now we see another serious power play, and it's well up in the creativity stakes (relative to the usual nonsense) - Devo-Manc and, in particular, the NHS-devo aspect dropped onto the unsuspecting Labour Party yesterday by Osborne.  Yes, he couldn't resist dropping this bombshell himself.

And yes, Labour has been comprehensively wrong-footed.  Oh how they hate devolution!  So now they must spend a week (out of the ten weeks remaining) cobbling together a response, which won't be easy because the Mancs (almost entirely Labour) are in favour.  (Hell, Andy Burnham - panicky and instinctively against it - is a north-west MP.)  And Tessa Jowell likes the sound of it for London.  And every regional newspaper will be majoring on it for weeks to come - even if the Gruaniad relegated what the New Statesman called the biggest story of the day to a sub-page on its labyrinthine website (oh how the lefties hate devolution).

We may confidently assume this initiative is part of a rolling barrage.  It wouldn't be difficult to bundle Mili off the field with the devo-bombardment alone, for which there is plenty more ammunition still to be fired: but I'm guessing that another flank will be opened up soon, to reinforce his lethal disequilibrium.

This is gearing up to be one of the great election campaigns.  It's not before time and I'm loving every minute.  There's no such thing as an election to lose.

ND

GKP puts itself up for sale

It's been a while since GKP left the AIM stock market for the main market. Sadly for the company thought, which had a fantastic run in 2009-2011, events have really caught up with it.

Drilling in Kurdistan was always risky but who knew ISIS would be threatening and the whole area would turn into a warzone. Worse, the Kurdish Government has never been able to come to a political settlement with the main Government of Iraq concerning oil funds; so there has been precious little money to pay the Oil companies whom they gave licences too in Kurdistan.

With the large debts built up from exploration, GKP has a hard time paying its debts. As such today the company has put itself up for sale. Moving the shareprice up 50% at time of writing, but still at fraction of where the shares once traded.

Afren, a fellow oil company in Kurdistan with huge problems. also struggling to sell its assets, it maybe a firesale of sorts - it is not like the Global market for Oil M&A is very hot right now.

I have been invested on an off in the company for a long time - it amazes me how much global politics and events have ended up defining one small oil play in end.

Wars, Rumours of Wars, and the FTSE 100

What colourful times we live in, eh?  A single day's headlines include:

• Russians limbering up for the expected assault on Mariupol  
• Cameron commits military 'advisers' to Ukraine*
• Ms Green the greenie publicly melts down into a puddle of green goo
• the FTSE 100 reaches a record high!

Wow.  The next several months are going to be astonishing.

Seriously for a moment, I take all these items as grist to Crosby's mill.  We know that there will be all manner of happenstance making the minnow-parties look stupid - only the SNP are moderately proof against this.  Of course, Mili will take succour from any further green meltdown, but Cameron will take still more from the combination of war abroad and UKIP looking flaky at home.   I think he's mad to engage in Ukraine: power-mad, that is.  Proof of serious intent at a no-holds-barred elelction strategy.  This is William Pitt stuff: you gotta admire a pure power-play.

ND

* truth be told, UK military 'advisers' have been in Ukraine, on and off, for a number of years, much good it has done