Holdenforth Manifesto ahead of the 2024 General Election

“All is for the best in this best of all possible worlds”.

So says Dr Pangloss in Voltaire’s satire, “Candide.”

Holdenforth’s view of this somewhat rosy view of life on earth: “Up to point, Dr Pangloss.”

As I write this blog the mainstream parties in the UK are busy preparing for the September conference season. The aim of the exercise for  the mainstream parties will be to hammer out a manifesto that will persuade the electorate ahead of the 2024 election that they are above all united behind their separate manifestos.

This purpose – the pursuit of unity, is easier said than achieved. The plethora of media outlets makes it a difficult task for party leaders to enforce discipline.

Fortunately, this will not be a problem for Holdenforth –  not for us a futile search for a spurious unity, mainly because there is only one of us.

Our approach will be to issue a blog comprised of appropriate extracts from our blogs – no shortage of material here.

We trust and hope that our readers will note and applaud our consistency as opposed to the ducking and weaving of the big players.

Here goes:

Immigration – legal or otherwise

1. Abandon the ludicrous plan to subcontract out responsibility to Rwanda or where ever. Direct the funds thus saved to those countries of origin of the refugees in return for taking effective action to improve their governance.

2. Put the job of examining the claims of immigrants onto a 24/7 basis., ie set up assessment bodies operating 24 hours a day 7 days a week – that would quickly bring down the numbers awaiting assessment.

3. We at Holdenforth have said it many times  before, we will say again now, and we will continue to  ask HMG to ask the EU politely – can we please rejoin the EU.

4. Prepare a list of measures designed to deter would-be illegals from seeking to come to what they currently perceive as The Promised Land. It seems to Holdenforth that most of those currently making the journey in small boats are quite relaxed about what awaits them in the UK

The thorny transgender issue   –

“If my aunt had bollocks, she would be my uncle but she doesn’t and she isn’t”

Holdenforth will leave this complex issue at that and make off prudently for safer ground.

Putin V THE WEST:-

Holdenforth has avoided commenting on this conflict on the plausible basis that it is difficult to know what exactly is going from the conflicting propaganda of the two sides.

“The liberals who condemn Trump’s failed putsch – but happily condone a real one”
Headline above a column by Peter Hitchens, Mail on Sunday, August 6 

The gist of the Hitchens column is that the legally elected government of the Ukraine was overthrown illegally in 2014.

Hitchens writes:- “It is clear beyond doubt that the Kiev parliament voted illegally to remove him…”

Holdenforth is mindful that the PR departments  of Putin on the one hand and of THE WEST on the other hand are working overtime to spread their respective versions of events. We are also mindful that the PR function masterminded by Zelensky has won this particular battle by a wide margin.

For our part we at Holdenforth continues to hope that the conflict will stop and a negotiated transparent peace treaty – not an understanding – will be made.

A final point on this one. President Zelensky and Boris Johnson were very close allies at one point. Holdenforth hopes that Zelensky will have more regard for any signed transparent treaty than the complete disregard shown by Boris Johnson to UK treaties with Ireland.

Banking and the Debanked

Where does Holdenforth stand on this one?

The following letter was published in The Daily Mail on July 27.

“I was both startled and delighted at the news of the departure of Alison Rose overnight. I gathered that Ms Rose had been interviewed by her fellow board members at NatWest in the early hours of this morning, that she had been handed the black spot and subsequently given an invitation to walk the plank, an invitation that she was unable to refuse.

Her departure will enable the senior managers of the NatWest Group to get back to what they are good at – the careful adjustment of interest charged on loans to borrowers and the significantly lower interest paid out to ostensibly respectable savers.

John Holden

Holdenforth was disconcerted to read that Rachel Reeves, the Labour Party Shadow Chancellor has expressed her support  for Alison Rose on the shaky grounds that the attack on her was due to her being a woman. 

Is this the start of a new doctrine of infallibility – that the female of the species shares with His Holiness The Pope – the security that females are infallible when pronouncing on feminist issues.

As John Gordon – one time powerful voice at Express Newspapers – might say -“I think we should be told.”

The Decline and decline of the BBC

Holdenforth has long argued that the BBC has abandoned the hallowed status acquired for it by John Reith. To us it has long seemed that the mission statement of The BBC can be summed up as:- “There’s no business like show business” and if this assertion is accepted – then the BBC should be promptly privatised.

We noted – in a detached way – that the BBC Chairman, Richard Sharp had resigned following accusations that he had been less than prudent in his dealings with Boris Johnson.

So – we mused – that is the usual fate of those who have dealings with Boris Johnson.

However – we did not leave it at that. We looked at the organisation structures used to manage and oversee the BBC and we were struck by the sheer vacuity of so many of the top jobs and the immense scope for some ruthless pruning in this area.

Accordingly,  we suggest to those in the private equity sector – here is a fat organisation – correction – an obese organisation – offering substantial opportunities for slimming down.

Get your numbers boys to carry out a swift due diligence exercise – you can’t go wrong.

We must rule out Mr Rupert Murdoch in this instance – far too busy with his complex matrimonial activities.

Holdenforth can claim some relevant experience in this area- some years ago a bright young go-getter introduced the idea and approach of lean management. Long before this bright young go-getter published his views I worked for an organisation that pioneered the idea and approach of emaciated management  – and the lessons learned in that harsh managerial climate have remained with me.

Brexit and The Johnson legacy

Johnson – He got Brexit done – and later – he got what was coming to him.

As soon as the in/out referendum was announced those expected to play a prominent role in the campaign had to decide which side they were on. Most had made their allegiance clear in advance – but not Boris Johnson. BOJO had first of all to decide whether to support or to oppose our membership of the EU. It appeared at the time and this became abundantly clear as the campaign developed that his sole criterion as to which side to support was – what was in it for him.

The crucial issues at stake were of no concern to BOJO. He came down heavily and very effectively on the leave side.

The damage inflicted on the Good Friday agreement by the narrow but clear victory for the Leavers – an agreement that had ended centuries of strife in Northern Ireland – was a mere trifle. So what -BOJO had ascended the greasy pole.

Similarly,  the damage done to the carefully and slowly built up arrangements at the heart of the EU counted for nothing with BOJO.

What was in it for him was all that mattered to him and what was in it for him was a great deal.

When does Gentle Persuasion become Bullying?

The issue of the outing of Dominic Raab as a bully as perceived by his civil servants and his subsequent ousting as our deputy Prime Minister rose to prominence in May of this year.

Much of the debate centred on when does aggressive behaviour by a senior colleague towards a junior colleague become bullying.

Some observers thought that the evidence suggested that Raab had a long and unfortunate record as a bully.

Others thought that those complaining were being altogether too sensitive.

Where does the truth lie?

It is clear from his later published views that Raab thought that the bullying bar had been set too low and would make it almost impossible to question junior colleagues who were thought to have cocked up.

Holdenforth tends to share this view but adds that Raab had shot himself in the foot by agreeing in advance to resign if the investigating KC found him guilty.

A stroll down memory lane – do you remember The Rise and fall of Liz Truss?

In October 2022, the then Chancellor, Dr Kwarteng announced a minor policy change – the abolition of the abolition of the higher tax rate – during a bruising interview with Nick Robinson. Robinson accused the Chancellor as having made a complete bollocks of the whole affair – not in exactly those words but that was the gist of his criticism.

Shortly afterwards came the Tory party conference and truth requires that we report that the vultures were hovering and the sharks circling – select your own metaphor – around the dwindling frontiers of the Truss camp

So – what happened?

The  Truss/ Kwarteng team , after some preliminary crowd pleasing prancing,  fell over its own feet as it left the starting gate.

Her ejection was even more ignominious than that of any of her four predecessors, namely Gordon Brown, David Cameron, Theresa May and  Boris Johnson  – a considerable if unsought label.

Here endeth our September 2023 manifesto.

Sadly we cannot endorse the view of Dr Pangloss that all is for the best in this best of all possible worlds – at least not in the UK.

A few gloomy closing comments:

The word out there is that Mr Sunak would like to make Suella Braverman walk the plank but is understandably uneasy about the unintended consequences – to quote President Johnson – do you want her inside the tent pissing out or outside the tent pissing in.

Critics of Keir Starmer are said to be concerned at his lack of decisiveness. His mantra is said to be:

“Time for a hundred indecisions
For a hundred visions and revisions
Before the taking of a toast and tea”
To quote J. Alfred Prufrock by TS Eliot

The response of the Lib Dems to their victory in the recent bye election was not exactly an effective slogan.

“The Liberal Democrats are back in the West Country”

Holdenforth can’t see this as a vote winner even in the West Country. Somehow it lacks wider electoral appeal.

Bring on the conference season.

The Return of the Remainers

“Just remember in the winter
Far beneath the bitter snows
Lies the seed that with the sun’s love
In the spring becomes the rose”
From “The Rose” as sung by Bette Midler

Thus the Rose emerging from the frozen earth, thus the remain cause emerging from the chaos of Brexit, aided and abetted by the downfall of the leading Brexiteers- four ex Prime Ministers – Cameron, May,  Johnson and Truss, together with the ongoing contribution of the Brexit puppet master, Nigel Farage.

We at Holdenforth have been as constant as the Northern Star in our support of the remain cause.

The gist of our case was not that the EU was a flawless institution but that it was a most civilised institution to be welcomed after a millennium of war between the various European nation states, an era which ended with the most appalling slaughter in WW1 and WW2. 

A brief history of the Brexit struggle. 

“A story has no beginning or end: arbitrarily one chooses that moment of experience from which to look back or from which to look ahead”
Graham Greene, The End of the Affair

• Ahead of the 2015 General Election David Cameron committed the Tory Party to a referendum on our membership of the EU by 2017. This rash commitment was made to ward off the threat posed by Nigel Farage to the right flank of the Tory party.
• In the General Election held on July 28, 2015, the Tories secured a comfortable working majority in Parliament. On the debit side for Cameron: he had to spend much of his time between July 2015 and the fateful referendum day, June 23, 2016 advocating that the UK REMAIN in the EU.
• June 23, 2016 – In/out referendum held and narrowly but convincingly won by the Brexiteers – 52% to 48%. Cameron resigned on the same day
• A few weeks later, Mrs May, previously a lukewarm Remainer, became Prime Minister and, significantly, committed to implement the result of the referendum.
• June 8, 2017 – An ill-judged decision by Mrs May to hold a general election to strengthen her position achieved precisely the opposite – a Tory majority lost. From that date onwards Mrs May faced an uphill struggle to implement Brexit. 
• May 23, 2019 – Mrs May resigned as Prime Minister after losing the confidence of her colleagues in parliament.  She was replaced by Johnson on July 23. There followed four months of boisterous activity by Johnson to get Brexit done – a highly effective slogan which did much to secure
• the approval of parliament.
• December 12, 2019 – The Tories, led most effectively by Johnson, won the general election with an overall majority over all other parties of 80. Their success was especially notable in the Red Wall seats – seats previously held by Labour which transferred their allegiance to the Tories.
• The following 30 months were dominated by the Pandemic and by – how shall we say – the eccentric and erratic handling by Johnson of the levers of political power.
• July 22, 2022 – Johnson obliged to walk the plank by his colleagues – Gosh – as recently as that.
• September 5, 2022 – Liz Truss emerged as the winner after a painfully protracted election process 
• October 20, 2022 – Liz Truss walked the plank after a series of blunders without parallel in our long parliamentary history

A key point at this stage in our argument. From June 23, 2016 to date most politicians and most media commentators accepted that the Brexit cause was not to be reversed or even challenged and accordingly exulted in or mourned the outcome according to taste.

The way forward would be to exploit the clear opportunities afforded by Brexit.

Not so Holdenforth – from June 2016 to date we have argued that the Brexit project would end in tears – and so it has come to pass.

A word about the Farage Factor

Most observers would accept that Nigel Farage was and remains the prime mover in the electoral triumph of the Brexiteers and in what has happened since then on the Brexit front. Certainly Farage himself has made this claim over and over again in his new and very effective TV channel GB News.

As I write this blog , Farage, despairing of the failure of the past four Prime Ministers to implement the Brexit policy that was successful in the referendum, has embarked on an effective campaign to halt and reverse the uncontrolled influx of illegal immigrants, while excoriating just about everyone associated with attempts to do so.

The main targets of the abuse that comprise his stock in trade are The French and the successive hopeless Tory Prime Ministers and Tory home secretaries charged with solving the problem.

Holdenforth would like to point out that no one did more to antagonise the Senior Officials within the EU in general and with The French in particular.

Let us put the matter thus – The problems created by the large numbers of illegal immigrants arriving in the UK were to a very considerable extent created by Farage as he attacked everything associated with the EU Project. He is trying to argue that he is fighting the good fight to shore up the chaos created by others.

The truth is that he is flailing to around to cover his own tracks.

The deluded UK public is having to live with the consequences of the Farage-inspired Brexit folly.

Farage now resorts to slogans of increasing vacuity as he attempts to shore up the tattered remains of his mendacious crusade.

The enemies of Brexit are seen as globalists, a term about as useful as baddies.

So there we have it – a succession of Tory leaders starting with Cameron and on to May, Johnson, Truss and for the moment Sunak all resolved to continue the policy of throwing good money after bad as they pursue the busted flush that is Brexit.

What gives we Remainers hope now that the Brexit case will be reversed and that the UK will sooner rather than later return to the EU fold?

“Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them”
The words of Jesus at the end of his Sermon on the Mount. Matthew 8,20

Holdenforth suggests that the collective fruits of Cameron, May, Johnson, Truss and Farage with regard to Brexit have been – how to put it – suitable only to be sent to the dustbin of history.

“Project Fear is back – and it’s as wrong as ever”
Headline above a column by Robert Tombs in The Sunday Telegraph, 29/10/22

Above the column is a photograph of Guy Verhofstadt and like-minded colleagues addressing a public meeting in London “calling for the UK to rejoin the EU.”

In his column the Prof goes through the pro-Brexit arguments ans not unsurprisingly concludes that the case for Brexit is as strong as ever.

Holdenforth remains firmly in the Remain camp, is confident that sanity will prevail, and that the UK will rejoin the EU sooner rather than later.

An apology from HMG for the Brexit fiasco to the EU would be a good start.

“Brexit needs re-working to avoid bailout, tycoon warns”
Times headline (October 25, 2022) above a piece setting out the views of billionaire financier Guy Hands about the need to renegotiate Brexit 

Mr Hands, a private equity tycoon and  a long-term Conservative supporter, is critical of the performance of HMG under the Tories in recent years. He urges the current HMG to renegotiate Brexit.

Holdenforth suspects that the EU leaders faced with such a preposterous request would inform HMG that the arrangements which prevail in the EU are the rules – take them or leave them – but please don’t waste any more of our time.

“Frost: EU judges must keep out of Northern Ireland”
Headline above a report in the Daily Mail, October 12, 2022

A stern warning issued by Lord Frost from that most democratic of political institutions, The House of Lords.

Holdenforth would like to see a protracted period of silence from this particular source.

“Countless moderate Leavers envisaged a continuing warm and mutually beneficial relationship with Europe and many previously ardent Brexiteers now know that they were sold a pup”

Extract from a letter to The Times on October 25, 2022 from Mark Starling

Well put, Mark.  Holdenforth gladly seconds this comment.

Prospects for the Remain cause doing a Lazarus and prevailing. 

Holdenforth believes that:

• Sanity will prevail in the UK and that the UK WILL rejoin the EU.
• Wagers made at the outset of the Brexit project ought to be re-assessed, given the ongoing collapse of Brexit.

A Trussed Up Economy

Our previous blog was a sober account of the problems piled up in the in tray of our new Prime Minister and of the policies that Holdenforh would implement were we in a position to do so.

At one point in the blog we noted: “Holdenforth doubts if Liz Truss will devote the whole of the protracted period of mourning to activities associated with the changes triggered by the Royal regime change. We suspect  that she will use this phase to put some flesh on the bones of her slogans and of the policy lacunae in other areas.”

Holdenforth had not anticipated that our new PM would fall in such spectacular fashion at the very first hurdle that she encountered.  Her newly appointed Chancellor, Dr Kwasi Kwertang, announced in Parliament on Friday, September 23 a series of policies designed to deal with the economic difficulties facing the UK. Liz Truss was sat alongside her Chancellor as he announced his measures and the voters reasonably assumed that the two were of one mind.

The initial public response to the announced policies varied. The Daily Mail and our senior bankers were ecstatic, especially the latter.

The Labour opposition was wrongfooted and guarded and seemed to be biding its time. However , a few veterans such as Jim O’Neill from the Goldman Sachs stable,  Mark Carney, ex-Governor of the Bank of England and Paul Johnson from the IFS were very sceptical, not only about the policies but crucially about the lack of data to underpin the policies,

In the following days more and stronger doubts were raised, notably by the markets – the very foundation of Tory politics – and by the IMF which spoke of the policies in terms usually reserved for wayward failing countries in the Third World.

Eventually the BoE stirred from its torpor and announced measures to calm the situation and to gain some valuable time and breathing space for HMG.

(A slight digression.  “Apologia pro mea  Bloggia” – with apologies to Cardinal Newman

In the middle of the 19^th century Newman, a prominent cleric, published Apologia pro Vita Sua in which he set out the justification for the significant change in his religious views.

Holdenforth, aka John Holden, has no such lofty objectives. He merely wishes to outline some of the factors which have hampered a cool appraisal of the Truss project.

Briefly Holdenforth combines blogging with caring for his aged wife and for himself. This caring business, is, to put it at its mildest,  both exacting and time consuming. The most demanding aspect is the need to negotiate the Byzantine complexity of the many services that, in theory, cater for the perceived needs of old timers.

In short not the ideal framework to excoriate the latest farce at the very pinnacle of the Tory.

However – we are where we are and we will do the best we can.

Now – where were we?)

What precisely were the strident critics of the Truss / Kwarteng novel approach to policy making  complaining about?

In no special order:

1. The absence of supporting numbers – previously the very foundation of all such policies. This aspect got worse as day followed day. Not only had Truss / Kwarteng not used any of the supporting data that was available to support – or cast doubt on – the policies, but with a lamentable combination of arrogance and stupidity they had sacked the senior civil servant at the Treasury and failed to consult the other bodies charged with gathering and providing the data. They had not even consulted or even informed their own cabinet colleagues.

2. Truss went AWOL as the crisis gathered momentum and then emerged only to be interviewed by selected local radio stations. She eventually agreed to be interviewed by a more formidable interviewer, Laura Kuenssberg. Kuenssberg pegged away tenaciously and eventually Truss agreed that she could have done a better job in terms of preparing her supporters in advance but insisted that the most objectionable feature of the announced policy – the abolition of the higher rate of tax – would not be reversed.

3. During the next 24 hours this rigid stance was slowly softened as the strength and scale of the opposition gathered momentum. Truss had not added to her modest number of supporters in the Tory party by noting that the idea of abolishing the higher tax rate came from her Chancellor. This is known in political circles as loyalty.

4. As I write – the last scene in Act 1 – yes – there are more acts to come in this farce – has just finished.  Thus:

* Dr Kwarteng has announced a minor policy change – the abolition of the abolition of the higher tax rate – during a bruising interview with Nick Robinson. Robinson accused the Chancellor as having made a complete bollocks of the whole affair – not in exactly those words but old habits die hard in we manager johnnies, however aged.

*Holdenforth has kept half an eye on what went on in Birmingham at the Tory party conference and truth requires that we report that the vultures were hovering and the sharks are circling – select your own metaphor – around the dwindling frontiers of the Truss camp.

 A few Holdenforth observations.

1. The  Truss/ Kwarteng team , after some preliminary crowd-pleasing prancing, fell over its own feet as it left the starting gate. We will assume that in time honoured fashion Truss is to be regarded as the rider and Kwarteng is to be regarded as the horse.

2. We gather that there is a strong possibility that Kwarteng is about to be handed the black spot and put out of his misery and put out to grass.

3. We also gather that Truss has adopted a strong Remain policy in just one area – she wishes to remain in Number 10.  We suspect that all her acknowledged political flexibility will be geared to remaining in No 10 and that her resolve in this area will indeed be rigid.

4. Let us put our cards on the table. We believe  – and sincerely hope – that this policy will fail, and that she will soon be on the receiving end of a P45 indicating that her time is up – shall we say an exit from Number 10 or, in short Trexit.

5.A additional disagreeable feature here would be that her departure will be more ignominious than that of any of her 4 predecessors, namely Gordon Brown, David Cameron, Theresa May and  Boris Johnson  – a considerable if unsought label.

 Another slight digression

“You ask ,What is our policy?

Winston Churchill posed this question to the House of Commons on May 13, 1940, just before the end of the phoney war and the beginning of the rather more serious conflict. Churchill then proceeded to answer it.

Eighty-two years later Truss proclaimed to the Tory faithful that that her policy was Growth – Growth – Growth   

Holdenforth was not impressed.

Thus:

• Holdenforth stands at 1.95 meters – enough already. 
• Holdenforth also observes that many of his fellow citizens might be better advised to shrink a bit.

A word about income tax

The whole subject of what amount of income tax individuals should pay has now shot to the top of the national agenda and we at Holdenforth would like to make our contribution.

We suspect that senior bankers, both national and global, together with those calling the shots at the Daily Mail and the Mail on Sunday will dissent from our suggestions but we also suspect that most voters would warmly approve.

Here goes:

Quite simply we assert that a period of ruthless high tax levels – shall we say up to 99% of pre-tax earnings – should be put in place until the all-pervasive greed at the top is squeezed out.

If this policy were to be implemented and graduates of the Arthur Daley Business School were to take flight – then so be it. Holdenforth thinks that the UK could live with this.

Which groups do we have in mind:

My files of cuttings are bursting with examples of the fat cat managers.

Just a few examples to be going on with.

• Senior managers in the utilities  – one senior manager in the water sector collected a reward package of £6m last year. Does anyone seriously believe that the lady in question should be allowed to cling onto the 55% remaining after payment of the higher rate of tax.  
• University Vice Chancellors
• Senior managers in the BBC
• Senior managers in the finance sector 

To close this section off – it would be a simple matter to bring in a sliding scale of tax for our higher earners – I use the term earners loosely. Sharp practioners might be more appropriate.

That’s it for now. Holdenforth must rush to clean the cat’s litter tray, and to ensure that stocks of trivia like bread and milk are adequate – you get the picture – the work of dual carer is never done.

Holdenforth manifesto following the Westminster Regime change

Recently the UK public has been a close if apathetic observer of the Tory party version of regime change, masquerading as democracy at its best. Holdenforth outlined our thoughts on this farce in a previous blog and we have nothing to add to what we said then. We still believe that this unedifying spectacle has provided a suitable overture to the tragi-comedy that is now unfolding under the shaky grip of our new Prime Minister.

In that same blog we listed the formidable problems that awaited Ms Truss in her new role.

 We said that these problems included:

• The challenge of climate change, especially the challenge of exactly how to assuage the understandable fears of the poor as they face the problem of how to keep warm in the coming winter, and;
• The threats posed by a pugnacious Mr. Putin, a decrepit Mr. Biden,  ex-President  Trump avid for vengeance, an impatient President Xi Jinping  anxious to take Formosa back into its historical home, many if not most senior politicians in the EU, a small but raucous band of voters who feel that they have been short changed by nature and bigots in  the allocation of sexual inclinations, the reluctance of would be immigrants to submit to assessment of their status in Rwanda, a queue of hostile trade unions eager to impose their undoubted power on the public.

And so on and so on – a formidable catalogue of problems all bawling to be the top priority of Prime Minister Truss.

Holdenforth has to confess that we had not anticipated having to add another regime change – that from Elizabeth Two to Charles Three –  to an already complicated scenario.

However – like our newly promoted king we can only do our best – and we will do just that. 

Our new PM has outlined to the public her policies for dealing with the  problems listed above. Thus far her responses have been an adroit mixture of clear policy positions on some issues, vague slogans on others and simply ignoring the remainder.

Doubtless some commentators will press her to fill in the gaps, including Holdenforth.

Holdenforth doubts if Liz Truss devoted the whole of the protracted period of mourning to activities associated with the changes triggered by the Royal regime change. We suspect  that she used this phase to put some flesh on the bones of her slogans and of the policy lacunae in other areas.

Holdenforth readers will want to know where Holdenforth stands – not just on the formidable catalogue of problems in the LT in tray – but also on the equally formidable catalogue of problems that either escaped her attention or that she thought too trivial to mention.

As for the changes at the top of the monarchical tree we will allow the transition from Prince Charles to King Charles to take effect whilst we ponder the significance of the change.

 A minor but illuminating digression —  a word on the fatuous attempt by BOJO to distort history in his final address to the sceptical UK public

His aim was to spell out the main achievements of his brief premiership.

Brexit. He got Brexit done. Well, yes, indeed he did. Holdenforth has devoted a great deal of blog space in the past 5 years to exposing the fraudulence of his claims about the many benefits of leaving the EU. We remain Remainers.

The vaccine. A successful programme of vaccine development and – as important – of ensuring that the vaccine was widely deployed. We will give him a tick on this one.

Support for Ukraine in general and for Mr Zelensky in particular. This support, raucously publicised, was confined to the supply of military equipment. Holdenforth has argued that the close friendship that developed between Zelensky and Johnson was one between two undoubted masters in the art of specious public relations. Holdenforth also notes that the Zelensky view of the reliability and integrity of his blond chum was not shared by those who knew BOJO  best – his political colleagues in Parliament – hence the issuing of the black spot, the walking of the plank and the Westminster version of regime change.

Zero emissions. BOJO was a little confused on this key policy issue. Holdenforth has argued that the main point at issue here is how exactly the UK can manage to move to a zero emissions outcome whilst ensuring that the public does not freeze to death whilst making the transfer. This has become THE number one issue as the public – especially the old timers – worry about their ability to fund the purchase of the required supply of kilowatt hours and therms in the coming possibly chilly months.

 Holdenforth’s take on the problems awaiting Ms Truss.

 Firstly, the aforementioned challenge of climate change, and of exactly how to assuage the understandable fears of the poor as they face the problem of how to keep warm in the coming winter.

We understand that Ms Truss has specified what is to be done to protect the public but not everyone is happy about the support being in the form of a long-term loan.

Not a problem for we of the octogenarian persuasion but some of the younger set are not best pleased.

The Opposition Labour party has proposed a substantial windfall tax on energy suppliers currently in receipt of huge and fortuitous profits.

Well done Sir Keir  for your fair and sound suggestion.

The threats posed by a pugnacious Mr. Putin

We have set out our stance on this one at length in previous blogs. We beg the key players – Putin and Biden – to seek jaw jaw and not war war, and to put Churchill’s slogan into a search for an immediate  negotiated formal settlement. 

Two additional points here:

• Gorbachev?  A naive simpleton and good, trusting, well-meaning man who was taken for a ride by cynical American politicians such as James Baker.  Gorbachev should have insisted on having informal American promises never to extend NATO eastwards enshrined in an absolute inalienable international treaty. His failure to do so has been a major factor in the subsequent invasion of the Ukraine by Russia.
• Current state of play – Russia on the back foot – Ukraine on the front foot – Ukraine soldiers doing the fighting using state of the art of weapons supplied by THE WEST.

The threat posed by ex-President  Trump avid to wreak vengeance on his successor following recent FBI activities.

We at Holdenforth have to confess ourselves baffled by this disturbing war of words between the current and previous holder of the most powerful position in the world.

By an impatient President Xi Jinping of China  anxious to take Taiwan aka Formosa back into its historical home

Holdenforth can see some merit in the position adopted by China and our view is influenced more by geography than by ideology.

We also noted that some 200 years ago US President Monroe asserted that the USA would oppose any attempt by Europe to seek to interfere in American affairs and that the USA would avoid getting entangled in non-American issues.

Holdenforth noted with some dismay the less than helpful recent bellicose jaunt by Nancy Pelosi into this tense area.

Are the US Democrats seeking to demonstrate that they can be as bellicose as the US Republicans?

The threat posed by the perceived hostility towards the UK by many if not most senior politicians in the EU following Brexit

Holdenforth fully understands this hostility. We have argued at inordinate length in previous blogs that the UK Brexiteers have behaved disgracefully and that were we in the shoes of the EU top brass – we would adopt the same hostile approach on just about all issues.

The threat posed by a small but raucous band of voters who feel that they have been short changed by nature and bigots in  the allocation of sexual inclinations.

Holdenforth will pass on this delicate issue. As octogenarians we have been given to understand that the arrangements of yesteryear have become rather more diverse.

In our youth we were told that “ if my aunt had balls, she would be my uncle but she doesn’t and she isn’t.”

Holdenforth will move on hastily.

The threat posed by the reluctance of would-be immigrants to submit to assessment of their status in Rwanda.

Holdenforth notes that Priti Patel was adept at slogans, but less than effective in implementing these slogans.

Liz Truss was understandably evasive on this contentious issue -and Holdenforth will be similarly discreet

But – we note that UK continues to be the destination of choice for many asylum seekers.

And – more in sorrow than in anger – we noted that the Mail columnist Richard Littlejohn put forward an absurd solution to stem the flow of illegal immigrants – bus them immediately to areas that welcome them in theory but are not too keen on them being sent to where they live.

Not one of your more plausible ideas, Mr Littlejohn.

The threat posed by the queue of hostile trade unions eager to impose their undoubted power on the public

Holdenforth can understand the wish of those workers in the public sector to seek to minimise the decline in their living standards.

Their readiness to compromise will not have been helped by the decision by HMG to remove caps on the bonus payments beloved by the banking fraternity but not by the wider public.

WE also repeat our plea to Sir Kier Starmer to adopt the policies suggested by the Roy Jenkins

The gist of these policies:

• Return the utilities to the public sector
• Allow market forces to prevail where there is genuine competition.

Holdenforth on the serious problems NOT listed by Liz Truss

At this stage Holdenforth will restrict itself to one line statements of the issues in this category.

In our next blog we will  expand on these issues and, as is our wont, cautiously and diffidently suggest solutions.

These issues are as follows:

• The continuing decline in the performance of the NHS
• The failure of HMG to act against those guilty of the persecution of wholly innocent post office managers

Together with the threat posed by:

• The woke sector – those who seek to rewrite history  
• The readiness of single-issue zealots to impose their policies
• The  ever-growing size of the gambling sector
• Those seeking to prey on the vulnerable and the aged

 No shortage of candidates for scrutiny here.

 A word about King Charles III

Holdenforth hopes for the best but fears the worst with the promotion of the Prince of Wales to King Charles III 

Obviously Charles will not be able to emulate his predecessor in terms of years on the throne but we have reservations about his abilities – more on this in a later blog.

For now we hope that his performance will not trigger the arrival on the scene of a latter day Cromwell anxious to curb the ambitions and clip the wings of the new monarch.

And Finally 

We opened this blog by saying it would serve as our manifesto.

We hope that the policies outlined will secure your support but we fear that Holdenforth  will have departed the scene before sanity will prevail.

For a change we will conclude on an optimistic note.

 “Till the war drum throbbed no longer and the battle flags were furled
In the parliament of man, the Federation of the world.
There the common sense of most shall hold a fretful realm in awe,
And the kindly earth shall slumber, lapt in universal law.”
Tennyson, Locksley Hall

How Better to Utilise the Utilities

How is the privatised utility sector performing?  

In a word – badly.

Holdenforth  would like to inform our readers about the many failures across the sector, how these problems have arisen and what should be done to improve the situation.

A brief  stroll down memory lane.

Some 20 years ago – before the arrival on the scene of Holdenforth – I wrote a book which I called A Cushy Number. It had long seemed to me that there were significant differences between the facts about employment and the all-pervading myths about employment and I opted to explore the subject in some depth.

Let me set the scene with a brief extract from the book.

 “Let us begin our analysis with some definitions. We will define a cushy number as a well rewarded sinecure. The word sinecure is defined as an office of profit with no duties. We are looking for a lot more than an office of profit, although we are quite happy with the absence of duties. We are looking for, indeed we insist upon, a job which combines the minimum of effort with the maximum of reward. It must be stressed at the outset that we cushy number seekers insist on having both criteria satisfied. We don’t want a demanding well rewarded job although we accept that this would be a step in the right direction. Equally we don’t just want a sinecure. We want a well rewarded sinecure.”

I proceeded to set up a cushy number model which enabled me to examine the facts behind the fantasies as to who did what and who got what for performing their professional duties.

I also established a league table of cushiness for some 20 professions.

• At the bottom of the league there languished Engineers
• At the top of the league table were the senior managers in the newly privatised utilities.

What had I to say about those at the top of the cushy number league table?

The story of the privatised state monopoly businesses is one not to be missed by the student of the history of the cushy number. The first item of good news is that many jobs in this area are the ultimate cushy number. The bad news is that many of the jobs have gone.

The businesses which we will now consider were all taken into public ownership by the Attlee Government in the late 1940’s. They were all natural monopolies and included Gas, Electricity, Water, the Railways, and Coal.  The Labour Government did not have well thought out plans about what to do with them once they had taken them over. 

These industries were formed into huge monolithic corporations with the management answerable to Parliament for performance. We need to note that the main  task in building up any utility sector is the (often painful) accumulation of capital equipment. This task had already been accomplished in the Utilities and all that remained was to operate the equipment to generate the various products and services, a reasonably straightforward job. The coal mines, power stations, reservoirs, gas works, telephone exchanges, railway lines and so on were all in place. The hard work of capital formation had been completed. Thereafter it was just a matter of ensuring that additional capacity was brought in to meet increased demand.

Not surprisingly these public utility corporations continued to be managed on a day to day basis by the same engineers and accountants as before.  Also, and to no one’s surprise, the nationalised utilities all experienced from their respective vesting days a startling growth in managerial bureaucracy.       

This state of affairs drifted on for the next 30 years or so, that is from the late 1940’s to the election of the Thatcher Government in 1979. The performance of the nationalised industries varied from the poor to the abysmal during these thirty years. The miners maintained their spirited tradition of aggressive trade unionism but the consequence of this was a marked improvement in their reward packages rather than significant interruptions in the supply of coal, at least until the arrival of Arthur Scargill.  Their example was copied by the other nationalised sectors to greater or lesser degrees and the outcome was an increasing burden to the taxpayer rather than failing supplies.    

One key point to note with reference to the years from 1950 to 1990 was a general improvement in the cushiness of the managers’ jobs right across the sector both in terms of job demand and, to a lesser degree, in terms of job rewards. Other general developments in this sector included a significant rise in the number of managers and, especially, of senior managers. Unkind souls might describe this as over-manning and I will be one such unkind soul. The combination of these factors resulted in year on year deficits with the taxpayer footing the bill. This was possibly the start of the double whammy syndrome in which the private sector saw its own terms and conditions decline in relative terms whilst their taxes rose to fund the deficits of the nationalised industries.       

We have already noted that these industries were managed by the same people who had managed them before nationalisation and these same people presided over the appalling performance decline. Collectively they took the line of least resistance, made token protests about this or that abuse of trade union power, but effectively abdicated their responsibilities throughout. We have also noted that the cushiness of managerial jobs in this sector at that time showed a low and reducing level of job demand coupled with relatively modest reward packages. To use a phrase borrowed from the Eastern Bloc economies the managers pretended to work and the Government pretended to pay them. 

All this changed with the arrival in No 10 Downing Street of Mrs Thatcher in 1979.  The Grocer’s daughter had observed what was going on in the Nationalised Utilities sector and she had not liked what she had seen. Accordingly she launched among other policies a determined assault upon trade union monopoly power coupled with an equally determined plan to return the nationalised utilities to private ownership. She won both fights by knockouts. A timetable for the return of the nationalised industries to private ownership was drawn up and pushed through. These newly privatised industries continued to be managed by the same people who had managed them in their previous life.  What happened next is crucial in any study of the cushy number. Quite simply one consequence of the sell offs was that the new managers (ie the old managers) became enormously rich merely  by restyling themselves Chief Executives or whatever and applying the most favourable comparisons available to them from the private sector.        

It will rightly be argued that things did get better and performance did improve, and, most significantly, the requirement for huge annual subsidies from the taxpayer to bridge the gap between income and expenditure ended, at least in most cases. Every circus has its clowns and we will look at the Railways later!  And things did get better by means of just one highly effective expedient. The biggest cost item for most of the privatised industries was the wage bill. The managers solved the massive over-manning problems which they themselves had created, and then, in gratitude to themselves, transferred significant amounts of the employment costs thus saved to their own reward packages. 

What a thing of beauty, what a joy, if not forever as ordained by Keats, then at least for many years. This is the stuff that we cushy number seekers can only dream of. This happy breed, this band of brothers, managerial mediocrities all, cock things up on an Olympian scale, and then, given intestinal fortitude and anti-union legislation by the Iron Lady, partially correct their own failures by dint of a one-off productivity improvement, and become rich beyond the dreams of avarice.

The first name to hit the headlines as a fat cat in the privatised utilities was Cedric Brown, the then Chairman of British Gas. His name has now faded but he became briefly unpopular in the 1980s when his generosity to himself raised eyebrows and then ire in the city pages. His example swiftly became the norm in this managerial paradise. Where Cedric led, others followed. A string of similar acts of generosity towards themselves hit the headlines and it was at this time that the term fat cat assumed common parlance. Among many examples from my cuttings I select the following as being broadly typical.       

• Wynford Evans: – Chairman, South Wales Electricity. A 60% pay rise to £192k in 1992 plus share options worth £350k 
• John Baker: – Chief Exec of National Power.  In 1992 a salary increase from £135k to £348k plus a performance bonus of £92k plus other taxable benefits plus a  FISIL aka Final Salary Index Linked Pension. Nice one John!

There were  frequent complaints in the media about the greed shown by the managers in this sector. In 1991 a letter in the Daily Telegraph from a Mr Roland Rench spoke feelingly about “the blatant exploitation of the private monopoly position which the public is powerless to prevent”. True then, and equally true today. Mr Rench offered no solution and his successors have made about as much impression.

In the mid nineties Simon Jenkins and Andrew Neil used their columns in The Times and The Sunday Times respectively to lambast the greed of the bosses of the privatised utilities, and to what effect?  Quite simply-none! The excesses (as defined by Neil and Jenkins, not by me) have continued to this day. In vain did Simon Jenkins declare that “it is abundantly clear that the people running what are still regulated utilities have spent the past 5 years paying themselves as much as they dare”. In vain did Andrew Neil fulminate against “the unrestrained greed of the few, (which) has cast a dark pall over privatisation”.  Both columnists rightly noted that these nouveau riches were conveniently free from tiresome commercial competition and of any effective shareholder control of their activities.

The columnists, commentators and pundits sought in vain for mechanisms to curb these excesses. The solution which always appeared to me to lack bite was that shareholders in these companies should exercise control over boardroom excesses (for that read greedy bastards).  Broadsheet editorials talked  loftily of the need for shareholders to exercise their responsibilities and combine to mitigate and moderate these excesses.  I noted in a previous chapter on business tycoons that I would gladly face an annual meeting composed of  500  sober Jeremy Paxmans  and 500 drunken Bernard Mannings all howling for my blood in return for the fat cat rewards typically on offer. For the reward packages granted by this group to themselves you can make that 1000 of each, all drunk. The ordeal would be trivial as compared with the rewards. As we know, most threatened revolts just peter out, maybe a few clearly deranged shareholders are allowed to bellow out abuse, and then, it’s hey ho and off to champagne and oysters.         

We suspect that one aspect in particular of the fat feline phenomenon in this sector really upsets people. It is the fact that in the main this group chose to follow careers in the old nationalised industries precisely because of the high degree of job security. They opted at the outset for modest reward packages in return for low- demand, very secure jobs. They ended up with reward packages at the King Midas level. The ardent apostles of free enterprise, which is based on the premise that high rewards are the consequence of high demand and a readiness to take risks, were collectively furious. 

Unlike Simon Jenkins and Andrew Neil, you and I do not bemoan the distribution of riches beyond the dreams of your and my avarice to the executives in this sector.  For my part the only marginal resentment I feel is when I see this group described as managers. Whenever I see them so described, I recall the comment of Bernard Manning, when hearing a fellow artist say that it was hard work being a comedian. “How would you know?”

Can you picture the scene at a board meeting of a privatised monopoly? The first and most important task is to finalise the remuneration of the Directors for the next accounting period. The updated reward packages of Mr Paul Getty, Mr Bill Gates and Her Majesty the Queen will be tabled and reviewed, and the gaps noted and regretted. The meeting will then finalise a plan to close these gaps as quickly as is politically possible. The accountant will be instructed to ensure that he does not lose a nought in his calculations.  With this core task accomplished the second task is to readjust the price of the commodity in order to fund the package increases. The numbers boy will be sent away to do the necessary sums. The third task will be to sort out a plan to cajole, persuade, and bamboozle the regulator into nodding through the price increases required. This can be tricky and may require some thought. 

The one issue which is never considered because it never arises is whether the customer will pay. He will pay because he has no choice. Governments have thrown dust in the eyes of the voters by seeming to bring in an element of competition. All nonsense of course. Why bother with a regulator if we have competition? 

This sector of dreams (for those at the top) continues today to exhibit the same features. As I write the top 6 energy companies are being subjected to angry media scrutiny because of their reluctance to reduce prices following the halving of the global (free market) price of crude oil. The top boys eye each warily in the best cartel tradition before announcing trivial cuts in across their  complex price schedules. The top boys have rightly noted that the great British public are a bunch of suckers and what do the sharp boys never but never give to suckers. You have got it – an even break. As Jim Royle of Royle family fame might have put it – “competition, my arse!”   

 Let us now establish the cushy number index of  the jobs of the senior executives in the privatised utilities sector. The job demands are negligible. There is a normally a total absence of stress because that is why they entered the sector in the first place. Such stress as does manifest itself from time to time arises when this group get carried away by their own greed to a degree that brings them to the attention of the public. There will be a brief flurry of indignation, new news stories emerge and back they go into affluence and torpor.

Job security is total.  Performance measurement is in line with the honourable tradition of the public sector. There is no competition to set performance targets so you set your own. To no one’s surprise these are always hit.

 Now for the big one. The reward index. What can we say about the boys who have huge everything, speaking financially of course. Huge salaries, huge pensions,  huge share options.

We have arrived. We have identified the perfect cushy number, the cushy number in excelsis. The rest of us can eat our respective envious covetous hearts out.

We should close it off at this point.  However we felt that we could not say goodbye to the sector without a tribute to Sir Peter Bonfield from BT. In November, 2001, came news that Sir Peter  was to step down as Chief Executive, following a protracted run of bad results. His pay-off for presiding over the decline was estimated at £2.5M when all the various cunningly planned elements were totted up. In The Sunday Telegraph of Nov 4,2001 Mary Fagan reported that “Bonfield was often blind to weakness among senior employees”. Evidently this weakness started with his own superabundant weaknesses. Richard Stott noted in The Sunday Mirror that “BT waved its chief executive goodbye trumpeting abject failure as being well positioned for the future. The truth is the opposite. Staff and Shareholders were stranded up a foul smelling creek while Bonfield paddles off in a golden canoe in the opposite direction”.

 We offer a  couple of  tips at this point. If you fancy your chances:-

• Always but always keep a close eye on what Governments are up to.  They  almost always get it wrong when they dabble in matters other than the protection of the citizen at home and the defence of the realm abroad. Try to anticipate what they will do and put yourself in a position to benefit from it. 
• Then –  grease the palm(s)  of selected law  makers and ensure that you get there first. Whether Governments are  moving in or moving out there will be easy money and rich pickings available .

 It is appropriate to end this chapter with a brief word about events in Russia following the ousting of Mr Gorbachev by Mr Yeltsin back in 1991. During these years the Russian economy was, and I use the term loosely) privatised to the benefit of Yeltsin and of his paymasters,  the oligarchs, and to the corresponding detriment of everyone else in Russia. This was the privatisation to end all privatisations, the largest and most successful mass looting in the long and colourful history of sharp practice.  

Prior to privatisation industrial assets such as power stations, mines (coal and metals), energy supplies and so on were wholly owned by the state, that is, in theory if not in practice, to the Russian people . Almost as quickly as it takes to write these words, these latter day sharp practitioners  saw their chances and took them .

It could be said that the Thatcher privatisations served as a rehearsal and a model for the much larger scale operation in Russia.

I have quoted enough from what I wrote in 2003 to show that nothing has changed in the past 20 years.

Let me now bring my Cushy Number story up to date.

As I write this blog (August Bank Holiday 2022) there is a lively ongoing public debate about what should be done to improve the performance of the privatised utilities. Gosh – even some Tories are starting to question the appalling performance of the sector.

“From water shortages to soaring energy bills and chaos at airports, greedy bosses have betrayed Thatcher’s privatisation dream”
Alex Brummer, Daily Mail August 9

Greedy Bosses: What greedy bosses?

Let us take a look at who gets what at the top in the water sector.

• Severn Trent Water  – CEO – Liv Garfield, Pay – £3.9M 
• United Utilities – CEO -Steve Mogford, Pay – £3.178M 
• Pennon South West Water – CEO – Susan Davy, Pay – £1.6M
• Northern Ireland Water – CEO – Sarah Venning, Pay – a measly £210,000- oh dear – oh dear

Holdenforth simply notes that that of a lot of very hard work has gone into the challenge of ensuring that those at the top are paid fortunes and the energy that has gone into establishing this agreeable outcome leaves no time to spare for trivial activities such as ensuring that the organisations they lead arrange a reliable supply of clean water to what are laughably termed customers and – just a thought – to ensuring that reliable facilities are installed to eliminate the possibility of the discharge of untreated sewage into rivers and the sea.

A quick look at what has been going on in the privatised rail sector.

An abysmal performance by senior managers too busy lining their pockets to concern themselves with trivia like ensuring that  points and signals work properly and that enough staff are employed to drive the trains listed in the timetables.

The would-be travelling public should not be surprised at the militancy being shown by the rail unions given the unseemly combination of ineptitude and greed displayed by senior managers in the sector.

If the organisation is corrupt at the top we, the long suffering UK public ought not be surprised if the workforce decides to follow the example of those at the top.

And so it has come to pass.

 Holdenforth outlines a plan to improve the situation.

1. Renationalise the privatised  utilities.

2. Build in safeguards to ensure that those running the new organisations focus on meeting the requirements of the wider pubic

These safeguards to include:

• No bonus payments to be made to senior managers
• Effective managers are allowed to keep their jobs
• Ineffective managers – the prompt issue of a P45 – why not appoint Alan Sugar as P45 Czar – a task he would relish.
• This approach to be adopted throughout the organisation

On a personal note, I have some experience in this area because at one time I worked in an organisation which pioneered the concept of emaciated management – and this was several years before the allegedly innovative approach of lean management became fashionable.

3. Poor productivity is said to be a feature of the privatised utilities.

Holdenforth suggests that this feature has arisen because senior managers were simply sleeping on the job.

4. As a sop to Tories sulking about this drift towards socialism – a progressive government should swiftly privatise the BBC .

As I write there is only a week or so to go before Liz Truss is announced as our new prime minister. We mentioned in our previous blog that her in tray will be over flowing.

Very few of the problems bawling for her attention are more serious and more urgent that those outlined in this blog.

I commend our analysis and our suggested solutions to her.

How Not to Change Horses in Mid Stream

“Whatever was required to be done, the Circumlocution Office was beforehand with all the public departments in the art of perceiving – HOW NOT TO DO IT”
Thus Charles Dickens writing about the Circumlocution Office in “Little Dorritt”

Well put, Dickens.

 Holdenforth believes that the words could be applied with equal validity to the performance of the Tory Government in its handing out of a P45 to Boris Johnson on July 7 and its subsequent attempts to choose a successor. The great British public has been informed that the new Tory leader and our new Prime Minister will be asked by HM the Queen on September 6 to form a government. Good to have that confirmed but the public is also mindful that the outcome is and will continue to be a disturbing power vacuum at the top in an era of almost unprecedented turbulence nationally and internationally.

 The theme of this brief blog was nicely put by Shakespeare albeit in a different context.

“If it were done when ‘tis done, then  t’were well it were done quickly:”
Macbeth considering the most effective way to get rid of the obstacle to his ascent to the throne.

The Tories were having none of this unseemly haste – hence the shambles.

 What does Holdenforth advise in any future perceived failure by the Prime Minister?

“The loyalties which centre upon number one are enormous. If he trips he must be sustained. If he makes mistakes they must be covered…..if he is no good he must be pole-axed”
WS Churchill, Their Finest Hour.

The two months that will have elapsed between the pole axing of Boris Johnson and the announcement of his successor will not be the finest phase in our long island history.

The Tories have opted not for an abrupt pole axing but for death by a thousand painfully protracted cuts.

Let us come straight to the heart of the matter, given that time is of the essence:

• The electorate should comprise solely the elected Members of the party commanding a majority in the House of Commons.
• The procedure to select contenders to replace the ejected PM to overcome a high initial hurdle designed to weed out those seeking publicity – say a minimum of the written endorsement of 10% of the eligible electors.
• The procedure to get under within 48 hours of the departure of the previous PM.
• The procedure to proceed on a daily basis until one candidate secures a majority.
• HM The Queen to summon the successful individual immediately and utter the time-honoured words – “I want you to form an government.” 

Holdenforth urges all the current parties in the House of Commons to write these obvious arrangements into their respective rule books although we accept that as things stand it is more important that the Tories and The Labour Party do it now.

Is  there anything else?  Does Holdenforth  have any other concerns?

“Depend on it, Sir, when a man knows he is to be hanged in a fortnight, it concentrates his mind wonderfully”
Dr Samuel Johnson – not to be confused with Boris Johnson.  

 “It is unfortunate, considering that enthusiasm moves the world, that so few enthusiasts  can be trusted to speak the truth.”
A somewhat cynical comment from Arthur Balfour in 1918

Holdenforth has no problems at all in removing party members from the electoral register in these circumstances. If the previous supporters of the ejected PM in the House of Commons are not capable of assessing and selecting from their colleagues in the house, what is the likelihood of the grass roots being any more reliable?

Back in 1986 Harold Wilson resigned as Prime Minister less than two years after his narrow victory in the 1974 general election.  His resignation triggered a contest to succeed him. The membership of the electorate consisted of Labour Members of the House of Commons – exactly as recommended by Holdenforth today, and a method designed to fill the vacancy with all possible speed.

“ The country, I thought, needed a new Prime Minister quickly and not the long drawn-out agony of a third or even a fourth slow round … that Prime Minister was not going to be me …. I therefore immediately decided to withdraw”
Roy Jenkins, A Life at the Centre.

It is difficult to imagine any of the aspiring ten Tory candidates behaving as Jenkins did back in 1976.

Observations on the hustings thus far

The various events organised to enable the candidates to proclaim their respective views and virtues soon became part of the TV schedules and as the campaign proceeded, the exchanges  got more and more boisterous as the interest of the public dwindled.

 “It’s always best on these occasions to do what the mob do” said Mr Pickwick.
“But suppose there are two mobs?” suggested Mr Snodgrass.
“Shout with the loudest”  replied Mr Pickwick.
Volumes could not have said more

From The Pickwick Papers – Mr Pickwick reporting on the lively events occurring during the Eatonswill election circa 1825. 

 “Most people are interested – not so much in the result. As in knowing what the result will be in advance, in order to ingratiate themselves with the new themselves with the new regime”
From Alan Clark’s Diaries – November,1990

Holdenforth has not been impressed by what he has seen and heard and read about thus far. Promises have been made and declarations of loyalty to Conservative principles solemnly asserted. To what purpose? To grasp the levers of power without having to endure the tiresome experience of a preliminary general election.

As we write, with your blogger a little confused by his recent experience  of an operation to remove cataracts – an experience which has left him seeing the world in a different light –  it appears that the most probable outcome will be the elevation of the bawling, brawling Liz Truss to the role of Prime Minister of the UK .

An appalling outcome to an unedifying coup by Tory MPs.

Can the electorate expect any encouragement from the main opposition party, the Labour Party, in this matter?

No – it can’t. Sadly the Labour Party had a sensible arrangement as illustrated earlier, but this arrangement was jettisoned in order to allow the grass roots to have their say.

For the Labour Party the current system has still to be tested because there was only one candidate when Tony Blair, sensing that he was about to be handed the black spot, left No 10 and was replaced by Gordon Brown. Given the present divided state of the Labour Party under the fragile leadership of Sir Kier Starmer, any ejection of a Labour  PM would trigger even more chaos than that currently being experienced under the Tories.

“What I tell you three times is true”
From The Hunting of the Snark, Lewis Carroll

“When I use a word” Humpty Dumpty said – “it means just what I choose it to mean- neither more nor less.”
From “Through the Looking Glass”, Lewis Carroll.

A  word on the many experts who have been galloping from studio to studio to pontificate on the rights and wrongs of what is going on.

The general quality of their collective contribution has been and continues to be abysmal – a tsunami of hot air with points more likely to confuse rather than clarify the issues being discussed.

Holdenforth is especially uneasy about the shaky track records of some of the more ubiquitous experts. You and I would be rather more diffident about expatiating on air if we had on our CV the details of Christine Hamilton, David Mellor, Norman Lamont, Gordon Brown and Peter Mandelson – to name just a few. I would have added Lembit Opik but I have difficulty spelling his name, let alone recalling what triggered his fall from grace. (A Cheeky Girl was involved in some way – Ed.)  

At this point in the narrative we found ourself struggling to make sense of what had happened, of what is happening and what the outcome might be.

Accordingly – and with some trepidation –  we opted to switch to a nautical narrative to see if we could make progress.

In the beginning there was a mutiny in Westminster. The Mutineers initially consisted of a motley somewhat scurvy crew of malcontents, sensing that the captain had got too many things wrong, including being too ready to make those who disagreed with him walk the plank and being too ready to leave control of the ship of state to juniors and, fatally, of being too ready to partake of the pleasures of grog.

The mutineers, with a collective eye to the main chance, bided their time, and, when the right moment arrived, handed the captain the black spot, and he got the treatment previously reserved for the junior officers on the ship.

With the captain out of the way, the mutineers promptly went their separate ways and engaged in unseemly if entertaining plotting and scheming.

The 10 who came forward to initially to seek to replace BOJO as captain have now been whittled down to two. The entire crew of HMS Tory is being consulted about who should take over. This aged crew are a languid bunch, but they have assured those watching on shore that they will inform HMQE of their decision in early September.

Some shore-based observers of this grisly process are confident that the favourite to take over, Ms Truss, will be more than capable of running a steady ship when the ship leaves the comparative safety of the shore to brave the challenge of the wild and restless ocean.

Holdenforth does not share this complacent confidence.

Why not?

Here’s why not.

Once the new captain has made herself comfortable in the luxury stateroom she will find her in tray overflowing with daunting problems.

In no special order these include:

• The challenge of climate change, especially given the current heat wave, and the challenge of exactly how to assuage the understandable fears of the poor as they face the problem of how to keep warm in the coming winter.
• The threats posed by a pugnacious Mr. Putin, by a decrepit Mr. Biden, by ex- President Trump avid for vengeance, by an impatient President Xi Jinping anxious to take Formosa back into its historical home, by many if not most senior politicians in the EU, by a small but raucous band of voters who feel that they have been short changed by nature and bigots in  the allocation of sexual inclinations, by the reluctance of would be immigrants to submit to assessment of their status in Rwanda, by a queue of hostile trade unions eager to impose their undoubted power on the public – and so and so on – a formidable catalogue posed right now.

The chanting of slogans is fine in tranquil waters. How will she cope with the buffetings that are about to come her way?

What do you think?

For our part we confidently predict that sooner rather than later she will join the ranks of  Cameron, May and Johnson – not wanted on voyage; that in no time at all the anchor will have been dragged, that she will have been handed the block spot and having to make the short but dismal walk along the plank and be despatched to the foaming brine.

Remember  – you read it here first.

Don’t say that you were not warned.

The decline and fall of Boris Johnson

Boris Johnson has gone – or is on the point of going.

Long may his replacement as our Prime Minister stay in post – or not, as the case may be.

As we write – the contest to succeed him is underway with the outcome to be announced to an apathetic country on September 5^th.

Holdenforth is unable to summon up any enthusiasm for this most unedifying struggle. We noted that Nigel Farage has said that the least worst outcome would be a victory for Liz Truss  – not exactly a ringing endorsement of  M/s Truss.

What does Holdenforth have to say on the regime change under way in the UK and on the squalid bickering masquerading as a splendid example of democracy in action? Recent and current events in the UK are demonstrating to those countries not committed to THE WEST in the war in the Ukraine how civilised countries arrange regime change.

“Lest any of you ever forget what I’ve done for Britain”
Headline in the Mail On Sunday above extracts from BOJO’s final speech – for the time being – to Parliament. July 24

The extracts summarised what BOJO considered to be the main achievements of his government from his arrival in Number 10 to date.  

Let us consider them.

1. Brexit – achieved.

Holdenforth’s view: In the long and disgraceful catalogue of policy failures under BOJO – this was the most disgraceful of all.  The attempts of Brexiteers to portray Brexit as a success merely serve to rub salt in the national wounds. Nigel Farage has and continues to be prominent in this rewriting of history. His frenetic campaigning on the issue makes the Wokers appear reasonable in their re-interpretation of history.

Holdenforth has had its say at great length in recent years on the betrayal of the UK by the Brexiteers.

For now – let us just list the main guilty politicians.

• Boris Johnson
• David Cameron
• Theresa May
• Nigel Farage 
• Jeremy Corbyn

The track records of the first four are well known and require no excoriating further comment.

The inclusion of Corbyn may raise a few eyebrows. The gravamen against Corbyn is quite simple – he simply opted out of deciding and campaigning on the crucial issue of leave or stay and instead planned to sub contract out the decision to the voters – an abject shirking of responsibility.

2. Immigration. Johnson’s claim that the UK is making progress in this admittedly difficult area is impossible to sustain.

Holdenforth argues that it would help if it were to be made clear that those coming to the UK in small boats across the channel are departing from France, a country where there is no threat of persecution. Those in this category had achieved their wholly understandable goal of fleeing from persecution when they entered the EU.

From that point on they become economic migrants – again for understandable but for rather less convincing reasons.

3. The Pandemic. BOJO is justified in claiming that there were notable successes in the management of the problems posed by the CV19 virus and notably for the commendably prompt production and distribution of an effective vaccine.

4. Climate change. The record of the BOJO government on this vexed issue is shaky. Holdenforth accepts that the case to minimise the emission of the gases which are the main agents of global warming has been made – and made very effectively.

On the debit side Holdenforth  believes that the straightforward job of spelling out how we get from where we are to where we need to be has been bungled.

It would help if the need for global cooperation was  accepted and acted upon.

5. Afghanistan. BOJO absurdly claims that the task of ensuring that those with legitimate and wholly understandable wishes to leave Afghanistan was successfully accomplished.

Holdenforth suggests that this claim be reviewed by the hundreds of thousands of would-be escapees abandoned to the none too tender mercies of the Taliban.

Would they endorse the BOJO claim? 

6. Ukraine. BOJO argued from the very first appearance of storm clouds in the Ukraine that it was a clear responsibility of freedom loving democratic countries to throw their collective weight – THE WEST – on the side of The Ukraine against the war mongering Mr Putin.

Holdenforth has argued elsewhere that the actions of HMG under BOJO in and around the Ukraine have been a classic example of the enduring policy of the Tory party to engage in aggression abroad as a cover for corruption at home.

Were Holdenforth to be in Putin’s shoes we would be uneasy about the thrust by THE WEST to extend the frontiers of NATO to the north, east and south of Ukraine.

However, we also take the view that the quickest way to put an end to the slaughter triggered by the war and the appalling forced departure of hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians from their homes would be a negotiated permanent peace .

It is worth noting that the two main players in the conflict are Russia and the USA. Mr Zelensky is a most accomplished PR operator but little more. 

Holdenforth on the race to succeed BOJO

Holdenforth is mystified by the speed with  all the original contenders hastened to jettison policies that they had been responsible for implementing. As I write, the number of contenders has been reduced to two. Voting papers will shortly be sent out to paid up members of the Tory party to  decide who is to be our next Prime Minister.

This is called democracy – as practiced by the Tory party. 

Sir  Keir Starmer and The Labour Opposition

Might the Labour party under the leadership of Sir Keir Starmer provide  comfort and hope for the future when the bawling brawling Ms Truss moves into Number 10 .

Well – only up to a point.

In no special order:

Holdenforth is NOT impressed by Sir Keir’s slogan of “Growth Growth Growth”. We would refer Sir Keir to the speech made by Harold Wilson in 1963 to the Labour Party Conference in Scarborough.

The newly elected party leader spoke about the need for deploying the white heat of technology as a vehicle to reverse the sluggish performance of the Tories in the previous 12 years.

On a personal note – I was in the hall for the speech and it was very well received.

 The balance between the public and private sector. It appears that Sir Keir is anxious about The Labour Party being saddled with the label of being the party committed to costly ineffective public ownership and as being too close to bolshie public sector unions currently busy preparing plans to disrupt the rail sector, the airports and sea ports and so on and so forth.

Holdenforth refers Sir Keir to the policies given the seal of approval by Roy Jenkins – not a closet Bolshie -at the end of his autobiography. 

The gist of his argument is that the privatisation of the monopoly utilities by the Thatcher government was as absurd as the demands of some in the Labour Party for the nationalisation of sectors of the economy that were subject to competitive pressure.

Holdenforth commends these policies to Sir Keir.

Holdenforth also commends to Sir Keir the need to curb the greed of many senior managers in the Public Sector trained in the Arthur Daley Business school.

Just look at what is going on currently in the publicly owned water sector. For that matter look at what has been going on in the privatised rail sector since the sector was privatised – an abysmal performance by senior managers too busy lining their pockets to concern themselves with trivia like ensuring that  points and signals work properly and that enough staff are employed to drive the trains listed in the timetables.

One final concern – for today – about Sir Keir. Holdenforth was not impressed by the approach to Brexit announced by Sir Keir. He announced that “we accept Brexit but will resume discussions to arrange an orderly relationship on better terms.“  Holdenforth suspects that this approach was not and will not be received with enthusiasm by the responsible officials and politicians in the EU.

Is that it until Sept 5?

Not quite – Holdenforth will use the silly season – or as some would have it – the lull during the next 5 weeks as Tory Voters elect Ms Truss as our next PM  – to  reflect on and report on in our blog on some of the issues of rather greater importance to the voters across the UK.

Putin V THE WEST – A confused old timer writes

What exactly is confusing you, old timer?

What has happened since your last blog to trigger your confusion concerning this most worrying conflict?

Let Holdenforth begin with a confession – we find ourselves Faltering, Floundering, Foundering, Failing, Flailing, Frustrated, Fulminating,  Festering, Furious and Fractious.

We will proceed to outline our concerns and fears on this shaky flaky foundation.

In this blog Holdenforth will outline  some of the issues that have arisen since our previous blog was issued a few weeks ago.

None of these issues affect our wish to see the earliest possible end to the conflict and for war war to be replaced by  jaw jaw.

Our concerns surround the gap that is emerging between the raucous PR war that is being won by a wide margin by THE WEST over the woeful PR performance waged by Russia

AND

What Holdenforth perceives to be happening on the ground. 

Allow us to give a few examples.

Sadly – and unlike hotelier Basil Fawlty – we must mention the war

 Notes on the war, on its origins and on its prospects on the 77th anniversary of the most significant date in the Russian calendar, the end of WW2 in Europe.

We will diffidently jot down a few points which seem to us to be relevant.

To begin with, Holdenforth contends that the root cause of the conflict in the Ukraine is the wish of the USA to extend the frontier of NATO way beyond its current borders. If some in THE WEST have their way Russia would be faced with NATO expanding and extending its boundaries very significantly. Thus:-

• NATO to expand to the NORTH of Russia
• NATO to expand to the EASTERN border of Ukraine, so far to THE EAST as to be further EAST than Moscow
• NATO to expand to the SOUTH by retaking the Crimea. 

The war in Ukraine is in essence a proxy war being waged by the USA in its role as paymaster and policy maker.

The situation in the Ukraine has not been helped by Mr Biden initially denying and then confirming that regime change IS the US policy. He has asserted that his  quarrel is with the Russian leader and not with the Russian people. Change the Russian leader and a most welcome peace will return to this troubled area.

For reasons of his own Mr Putin would prefer the existing border to stay as and where it is. His invasion of the Ukraine is his way of expressing his discontent with the policy of the USA

Who exactly are the main players in the very dangerous game now being played in the Ukraine?

The big 2 are clearly Russia  led by Mr Putin and the USA led by Mr Biden

Significant Cheerleaders for THE WEST include:

• BOJO for the UK
• Whoever for the  EU
• Someone from the USA military for NATO
• Mr Zelensky for Mr Zelensky – a most effective cheerleader on behalf of President Zelensky   

Those managing the highly effective PR exercise on behalf of THE WEST argue that The WEST is on the side of freedom, democracy, and the right of independent nations to act as they wish – you get the picture.

The same Western PR machine argues that Putin does not believe in any of these WESTERN liberal values and instead pursues policies that would ensure that they did not flourish.

A word about one of the minor players in the tragic drama unfolding in The Ukraine

Step forward BOJO.

Where does our Prime Minister stand and what has his contribution to the conflict been?

Holdenforth concedes that we are not ardent supporters of BOJO and this may emerge from our assessment of him.

Dealing with BOJO can be compared with trying to grip an eel that is immersed in snot.

• Holdenforth suspects that our distrust of BOJO is widely shared, not least by most of the leaders of the counties in the EU. We would go further and suggest that EU leaders have no more trust in BOJO than they do in Putin.
• As we write, the political air in the UK is still rife with rumours that the time of BOJO as PM is running out. These rumours  gained momentum following the poor performance throughout the UK of the Conservative Party in the recent elections. His position is thought to have become more secure following revelations about Beergate and the perceived precarious position of Sir Keir Starmer. 
• One school of thought opines that BOJO was saved by the bell, the bell being the invasion of the Ukraine by Russia.

BOJO has re-invented himself as the fearless defender of the values and traditions of THE WEST.

Holdenforth is not convinced that he has succeeded in persuading the UK voters that he carries conviction in this role. Also conviction may not be the most appropriate word in this context!

For PR purposes BOJO distrusts Putin. But why should Putin trust BOJO? Do you trust BOJO? You do? Gosh!

As we stumble and flounder in the world of conjecture – what if Putin were to follow the example of THE WEST and initiate a global campaign for regime change in the UK? There are many in the UK already urging this policy just as there are many in the USA who would like to see Joe Biden relocated to an old folks’ home.

 What is the significance of the results of the elections in Northern Ireland?

The emergence of Sinn Fein as the largest party may trigger some very tricky problems given the violent history of the province.

Many in the mainstream media have been full to overflowing with their condemnations of Sinn Fein and of their foot soldiers in the former ranks of the IRA.

A quick stroll down memory lane at this point:

“The English governing class had killed two million Irish people. They abused the Irish for disliking this… Nothing was done for Ireland until an embittered and more resolute generation of Irishmen acted for themselves”
“Genocide” by AJP Taylor

The points made by Taylor may or not be valid – but what has this got to do with BOJO? Well – just this.

• After decades of patient negotiation agreement was reached between the warring factions in Northern Ireland. This agreement  – The Good Friday agreement – replaced the appalling conflict that had scarred the province for several decades with an agreement that provided an effective and stable constitution to govern Ulster.
• BOJO has been irresponsible because in his pursuit of Brexit – he ignored the potential threat to the stability of the Good Friday agreement . He now has the gall to argue that the EU should amend its position so as to resolve the problem in Northern Ireland that he himself created .
• Just one more point – It has been suggested that  Mr Biden – a dedicated supporter of the Good Friday agreement, will be opposed to any move which in any way poses a threat to the integrity of this agreement. BOJO cannot say on this occasion that no one warned him of this threat. 

Holdenforth must press on – we will be here all day if we stray too far into the very delicate area that is Northern Ireland. 

Anything else to say about Brexit?

We have already noted that most EU leaders do not trust BOJO.

In some of our previous blogs we suggested that Brexit was a very bad idea and that the day of reckoning for BOJO’s squalid opportunism was still to come.

As I write voters are being softened up to prepare them for the hard times that lie ahead. Damaging inflation, soaring costs in the shops, soaring energy costs, CV lurking in the shadows – a bleak prospect.

And Boris, in another of his disguises, that of Dr Pangloss, suggests that “all is for the best in this best of all possible worlds”

To which Holdenforth adds – “Up to a point, BOJO“

Let’s get Brexit done – A PR masterpiece from BOJO.

Holdenforth would add – courtesy Oliver Hardy –  “Another fine mess you’ve got us into”  

How does Holdenforth make that out?

A word of explanation. In the beginning there was a stable institution – The EU. Some 5 decades of discussion and give and take had been devoted to this splendid, civilised organisation, an organisation which sought to replace hundreds of years of conflict in Europe culminating in two appalling world wars with cooperative arrangements thrashed out  between the previously warring nation states.

Sadly, a handful of squalid but very effective UK politicians injected a phase of unprecedented disruption and distraction.

Today France for wholly understandable reasons is reluctant to assist the UK on Brexit or indeed on any other matter.

The UK hit team of Truss and Wallace 

 In WW1 Britain had the rousing support of Horatio Bottomley in the life and death struggle with Germany.

Today we have the formidable team of Wallace and Truss (or Liz and Ben, whichever you prefer) to fulfil the same role.

 First up, the bawling, brawling Liz Truss, our Foreign Secretary.

As we write  Ms Truss is leading THE WEST in terms both of tone and content in her assault on Russia. At times she makes even Mr Zelensky, the new International Treasure – and PR maestro –  look like a moderate, a considerable feat. 

If the war should end – sooner or later or whenever – with the retreat of Russia from all the territory now in dispute and with NATO guns on the very eastern frontier of Ukraine – then Ms Truss might claim to be the cheerleader of the claim of The WEST to be the bastion of democracy, a freedom loving collection of like-minded peoples and the standard bearer of liberal values – you get the picture.

Holdenforth can’t quite see the Truss policy prevailing but she has spelled out her war aims in no uncertain terms.

Mr Ben Wallace – this hit man is the quiet one of the pair – but equally resolved to rout the Bolshies with his hard rhetoric .

A truly formidable pair – Putin must be quaking in his boots as wave after wave of threats threaten to overwhelm the Kremlin.

Just one slight concern here – in some of the many conflicts around the globe since Vietnam where the USA has intervened to preserve democracy and freedom one outcome has been a disagreeable end of life experience for the vanquished dictator -the cases of Saddam Hussein, Colonel Gaddafi and President Mubarak spring to mind.

Putin might not relish the prospect of being hauled before some court or other in THE WEST to answer for his actions. Indeed he might go further and take whatever action he deemed necessary to ensure that this does not happen. Unlike all the others rash enough to tangle with the USA he is in a strong position to ensure that it does not happen. 

Just a thought.

The Channel migrants, the Ukraine refugees and the Rwanda factor.

Prior to the eruption of the war in the Ukraine the UK had observed a steady flow of illegal migrants from around the world across the English Channel and into the UK.

The main features of this flow had been:

• Initially transported in lorries, then latterly in small boats.
• Denunciation of the criminals in charge of the transport arrangements by  HMG. These denunciations had no discernable impact on the situation.
• Significant successes by the illegals in terms of managing to land safely on the English side and then digging in to ensure that they were able to remain in the UK
• A perceived lack of support and indeed of sympathy by the French

Latterly the perceived need for the UK to accept significant numbers of Ukrainians forced out of their homes in the conflict coincided with the announcement of an effective solution to the problem of the arrival of non Ukrainian refugees – simply sub contract out the tiresome task of deciding who could be accepted by the UK and who could not. The country selected for this formidable task was Rwanda.

A couple of points to make here:

• Holdenforth does not blame anyone for seeking to improve their prospects – who wouldn’t  seek to do just that.
• Is there a case for a global policy of completely open borders? There is such a case but just try to persuade those in affluent countries to endorse it.

Crucially – if the UK can’t cope with  a bunch of gangsters – those arranging travel for the illegals –  what hope is there of forcing the second most powerful nuclear power on earth to behave or else?

Whatever your view about the values of the Bolshies – they are what they are whether THE WEST likes it or not – and THE WEST doesn’t like it – Putin is a more formidable opponent than Iraq and Libya and Afghanistan.

As I write the situation is said to be fluid.

 A word  about Zelensky

This  international treasure, this maestro of the mysterious world of propaganda, this star of zoom shows in the TV stations of THE WEST as he pleads for more and more weapons to help him to turf the Russians out of the Ukraine has been transformed in a few short weeks into to a  global mega celebrity.

However as his fame has grown – so has the intensity of the spotlight that accompanies his every move.  

Holdenforth suspects that the Zelensky star is on the wane as more and people question if the aim of encircling Russia was sensible and whose idea was it in the first place.

Was this possible transfer of NATO from east Poland to east Ukraine really worth all this aggro. I mean – was it really?

And was his love affair with BOJO a wise move – what do you think?

The media have been full of images of Zelensky and BOJO walking through Kiev to assess the damage.

Holdenforth cannot recall any such photo opportunities taking place in war torn Stalingrad as that ferocious battle neared its end. 

Notes on democracy

“The democratic method is that institutional arrangement for arriving at political decisions in which individuals acquire the power to decide by means of a competitive struggle for the people’s vote”
From “Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy” by Joseph Schumpeter

THE WEST has rightly stressed its commitment to democracy as a key policy difference between Russia and THE WEST.

Holdenforth would like to look at how this principle has been and is being applied in practice in the UK.

Step forward Lord David Frost.

The well-nourished Lord F flourished for a time as a senior Civil Servant in the Foreign office. It was said of him that on occasions he dared to dissent from the prevailing orthodoxy of that organisation.

At some point his ability was recognised and he was speedily elevated to the House of Lords and then put in charge of the UK side of the discussions with the EU about the arrangements between the two bodies post Brexit. For whatever reason or reasons Lord F speedily resigned from the Johnson cabinet,  but Holdenforth gathers that there is a campaign gathering momentum for him to exchange his Cushy Number in the Lords for a selected safe seat in the Commons.

This farce is UK democracy in action and Holdenforth sees a significant gap between PR and real life.

“One telling criticism of the current upper house is that on a busy day it resembles an old folks home and, on a quiet day, a morgue.”
Extract from Holdenforth blog on the weaknesses of the House of Lords

It would be difficult even for the most talented master of PR to sell this farce as democracy in action.

Mr Lavrov, the Russian Foreign Minister might be tempted to put this point to Ms Truss.

 At this point we would like to mention a few issues that illustrate why we are reluctant to buy into the policies of THE WEST as proclaimed by its admittedly effective PR machine.

 Firstly, on May 10 Prince Charles announced the legislative measures planned by his government in the next parliament. Holdenforth found little to disagree with in terms of policy but, cynics that we are, the measures read more like a wish list than a realistic to do list.

We would like to see just a little progress, if you will a little tangible evidence that things are on the move before we can see our way clear to endorse THE WEST in general, and the BOJO-led UK government in particular.

 For our part we regret that many critical issues were simply ignored. Let us cite a few that seem to us to be important.

THE WEST stresses that citizens in THE WEST are free but that those in Russia are not.

That boast would not be appreciated by the post masters wrongly convicted of fraud by The Post Office.

Where is the plan to take swift action  against the Senior Managers in the Post Office responsible for this most appalling miscarriage of justice?

Holdenforth would be more impressed with the BOJO defence of freedom if he were to act much more quickly to remedy the appalling treatment  endured by hundreds of wholly innocent sub post masters.

 “Winning Euro lottery ticket worth £184 million sold to UK purchaser.”

Holdenforth noted the unseemly dispute between Mr Richard Desmond, newspaper proprietor, in the UK corner and a Mr Komarek, described as a Czech Oil and gas tycoon, over the operation of the UK national lottery. We also noted that the Chairman of the body responsible for awarding the contract “has links to Russia”.

Most importantly we have wholly justified suspicions that those managing these mega gambling operations have a licence to print money for themselves.

Who decides which charities will get what from the vast sums available?

And – while we are on the subject – how much attention is paid by HMG to exactly how much of the money paid to charities finds its way to the intended recipients?

Holdenforth understands that Mr David Miliband picked up a significant consolation prize as a Charity administrator.

The Grenfell Tower scandal

Holdenforth noted that the various bodies responsible for ensuring that the correct materials used to clad buildings were used have gone strangely silent and remote.

These groups are evidently relying on the time-honoured practice of hoping that the problem will go away.

That may well be one outcome but try persuading the residents of buildings that cannot get insurance until all cladding complies with the standard.

They might well be unhappy with what is going on or rather with what is not going on.

The British Virgin Islands

The claim that the financial arrangements are in place in  various off shore tax havens took a bit of a knock when the Prime Minister of the BVI was caught in a sting in Florida as he arrived with a jaunty smile and a bag of incriminating papers.

A sad day for British financial probity when the FBI exposes our man in the BVI.

Throughout the Brexit campaign BOJO argued that Brexit would allow the UK to take back control.

How does he now square this assertion with the struggle for control of Chelsea FC  between Mr Abramovich – whose side is he on by the way – and various vultures from around the world?

One scandal that has just emerged is the shaky performance of some companies that do funeral deals – the issue here is that  people pay money up front up front to pay funeral costs when the named person dies.

Sadly some companies in the pre paid funeral business – latter day Burkes and Hares – have spent the up front money leaving those left behind required to pay all over again or abandon the Loved one to a pauper’s funeral.

The trail from Gupta to Cameron

This scandal drags on and on.

Holdenforth was interested in this particular scandal from the time the story broke because Holdenforth  – aka John Holden – spent much of his working life in the UK steel sector.

Mr Gupta was believed to have resorted to some sharp practices as his Liberty Group got into financial difficulties. As if his business short cuts were not complicated enough the investigative trail meandered through Greensill to former Prime Minister Cameron Enquiries are said to be ongoing but this will be no consolation to the many steelworkers with very uncertain futures.

A change of emphasis to close.  Holdenforth has absolutely no sympathy for the activities of the Extinction Rebellion activists. We noted via the Queens Speech that sterner punishments are to be meted out to the sticky activists but we have doubts that even these will deter the zealots.

A more general criticism from Holdenforth about the current political scene in the UK

We believe that UK politics resembles a gigantic Tammany Hall. Some readers may recall that Tammany Hall was the HQ of the Democratic party in New York more than 100 years ago. It was said to be mired in corruption but its supporters argued that Tammany always saw to it that its supporters  were suitably and promptly rewarded.

The UK version offers a great deal but leaves hug gap between promise and delivery

I could go on – and on – and on – but you get the picture – Enough already

Closing points

1. My future  – writing as a soon to be 82 year old – I see a bleak future under threat on a variety of fronts – a bit like the threat to Russia from NATO..

Extinction Rebellion activists argue that unless we accept their policy that sooner rather than later we shall fry to death

Economic forecasters are predicting that we face the prospect of having to choose between freezing to death or maybe starving to death as economic chickens rather than real chickens come home to roost.

Mr Putin has hinted at the possibility of nuking us unless we back off

Holdenforth does not relish the prospect of any of the options

What do you think?

 2. Our core stance is not that Putin is right – far from it – but that THE WEST is in no position to try to occupy the high moral ground in the conflict.

Notes from The Editor

The editor of this blog would like to suggest an alternative to the narrative outlined above, namely that “the root cause of the conflict in the Ukraine is the wish of the USA to extend the frontier of NATO way beyond its current borders”.

To begin with, it suggests that NATO and the US had a coherent policy for the region, which (to judge from its activities over the past decade) seems unlikely. Certainly, the relative indifference with which the Russian occupation of the Crimea in 2014 was met was itself an indicator that the US was not particularly keen to cross swords with Putin on this issue.

Secondly, American policy under Trump was broadly to minimise involvement with NATO and play nicely with Putin, largely (one suspects) to enhance Trump’s own property portfolio in Russia and perhaps because the American President was also being blackmailed by the FSB. Instead, the US bogeyman became China, with the net result that numerous Chinese companies found it difficult not only to do business within America but also in other Western nations.

Thirdly, the American withdrawal from Afghanistan was not only one of the most shambolic and ill-considered military procedures of the past 50 years or so, but also an action that led Vladimir Putin to suppose (not without reason) that the West was weary of conflict and (as per Crimea) would make only token protests should he invade Ukraine and replace the existing regime with a Russian puppet.

In reality, the root cause of the conflict is Putin’s desire to re-establish Soviet-era borders, with the possible additional buffer of satellite sites. While US intelligence had accurately flagged how the war would begin (Russian insurgents in the east of the country claiming that they had been attacked and calling for help), the US’s actions (and those of its NATO allies) have been reactive rather than proactive: Zelensky may be an effective television performer, but he is certainly no NATO stooge: those performances have been crafted to persuade NATO to engage, rather than follow its narrative. His actions have been the driving force here.

Similarly, neither Sweden nor Finland had given much thought to joining NATO before the invasion. Putin’s “exercise”, designed as the next stage in recreating an enlarged Russia, is likely to leave him facing NATO on a far greater stretch of his borders.

Finally, it has always struck me that one of the fundamental tests about whether a society is free is when individuals are permitted to protest that it is not so without fear of receiving a stuffed eelskin to the back of the head. Hence, Piers Corbyn, David Icke, Uncle Peter Hitchens and all can shout the odds from Speaker’s Corner or the Daily Mail and (unless those protests become particularly boisterous) finish the day in the comfort of their own home rather than in a cramped cell replete with a few additional cuts and bruises. This is patently not the case in Russia, where even a mild disagreement with the state line is liable to see you wind up in chokey and more vigorous objections tend to result in a nasty case of fatal Novichok poisoning.