Wednesday, 3 May 2017

The "I just can't write another 1500 words today so here are some pictures" election - day 15

Tory campaign


Amber Rudd was very positive on Today, about very little.  She put on her best stentorian tones to remind those EU wallahs that the question of expats' rights should be a top priority in the Brexit negotiations.  It's as if she hasn't read the EU negotiating guidelines, which put it at... top priority.

She also mumbled spomething about this election being called to avoid having to fight one in the middle of Brexit negotiations.  The government line is that everything will be done, dusted and tied up in sparkly bows byMarch 2019, and "we're going to make a success of it".

Success or otherwise is a matter for later evaluation, but nobody outside the UK believes in the "everything in two years" idea, so this might be a rare bit of honesty - fear of an election in the middle of a transitional period which the voters had been told wouldn't happen and when many things have yet to be finalised.

But very odd to come out with it.  Not #StrongAndStable™ at all.



Labour campaign


The main story of the whole day though, and it's probably already lined up for the first three slots in the review of 2017's news, was... a Diane Abbott brain fade.  I heard her on Today, then saw/heard her on Nick Ferrari's LBC programme.  Repeatedly.  She was weak on the former and, honestly, seemed to have lost it on the latter.

But first item on every BBC news bulletin for the rest of the day, plus analysis on Daily Politics, PM and Newsnight?  Is there really nothing else going on?  Abbott was doing the rounds to promote Labour's proposal of 10,000 new "bobbies on the beat", a truly New Labour combination of tradition and community.  There's some strong police support for the idea, and some warnings that any extra money might be better directed.

Abbott didn't have her numbers ready to put the obvious questions down and move on to the guts of the policy, so mostof the news didn't go on to the guts of the policy.  The number the party finally came out with - £300 million - might be enough to pay 10,000 police officers, but it isn't enough to recruit, train, equip and employ them.

@DannyShawBBC @BBCWorldatOne Around 60k per capita plus recruitment, equipment and training cost - around £700m
There are serious worries that a long period of general decline in crime figures is coming to an end, especially for violent crime, and that hitherto uncounted sexual, fraud and online offences need attention, so Abbott & co will have to do a lot better than this.


I'm sorry, even Corbyn's first eleven isn't much good, but constant reports of Abbott "appearing to be confused" abvout the numbers are disingenuous attacks.




Theresa May goes to Cornwall




Is there a Theresa May impersonator out there?  Surely Lynton Crosby wouldn't allow this to happen. 

When you really love chips...















Jennifer Williams from the Manchester Evening News recalls a piece she wrote in 2015 about cutting real people out of election campaigning, then muses "Mind you 'effective' and 'democratic' are not always known to go hand in hand."


And Ed Miliband shows them all how it's done.



At some point during the day there was a security lapse and Theresa May actually encountered a voter!


And which party is #MrsME standing for?



George Osborne new job - as saboteur



Osborne finally clocked on at the Evening Standard, 30 minutes later than his predecessor was wont to do.  Was this all his own work, or did they have today's headline in the bank already?


London cabbies came out to protest outside demonstrated his reportedly corrupt closeness to Uber and the Committee on Business Appointments ("toothless" - Private Eye) has told Osborne that he's a very naughty boy.

“The committee is very concerned that despite the press statement noting you were still seeking the committee’s advice, you subsequently signed a contract of employment with the Evening Standard on 20 March - without having received the committee’s advice.

“It was not appropriate for you to do so.

“You did not disclose any intention to do so to the committee when you originally submitted your application, nor have you provided an explanation for this during the course of the committee’s consideration.”


Saboteurs department

Watching Jeremy Corbyn mixing with people, while May avoids us, is educational.  If he had time to meet everybody in the country Labour might have a chance.  Except maybe in Barrow, where John Woodcock (Labour, majority 795) has declared himself an anti-Corbyn Labour candidate.  There have always been Labour candidates trying to get elected without taking much notice of the leader (Corbyn used to be one), but making it a central part of your campaign, including TV interviews, is a novelty.

The government has finally given in to a court decision and will issue its air pollution strategy next week.  A good opposition would pick that up for the election campaign, especially if it doesn't figure in the Tory manifesto.  A good opposition.

Philip Cowley of Queen Mary University of London told Daily Politics that May will benefit from German reports of the leaks about a Downing St dinner.  She'll be happy to be seen standing up to those nasty Brussells bureaucrats.

Richard Michael John Ogilvie Graham (Conservative, Gloucester, majoority 7,241) is not a widely known figure, but he might get noticed this week.

One of my favourite (largely because his voice reminds me of Ivor Cutler) MPs Roger Mullin tried to point out potentially corrupt Tory money dealings while he still had access to Commons headed notepaper.




David Allen Green, law and policy commentator at the FT, put out a Twitter thread (16 tweets) on #MrsME's problems with expats' rights (you might have to do a bit of clicking if the thread seems to end prematurely).

at

Monday, 1 May 2017

How is this Brexit negotiating thing going to happen? Two views

Notes from a dinner


An account of last Wednesday's Downing St dinner has been leaked to the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung and picked up by some British media outlets, including, rather belatedly,  the BBC.  Downing St "doesn't recognise the account" of what they say was a "constructive" meeting.

The report is summarised nicely by Judith Knott, with links to other, fuller accounts, so there's no need to present it all again here.  Ms Knott enters the caveat that this has clearly been briefed by the European Commission, but most people seem to be taking it fairly seriously.  The Economist's Jeremy Cliffe, who brought the story to many people, agrees.  In interviews through the day he's said it's obviously one-sided, but at the very least it "talks to a perception" in many EU countries that May's expectations are unrealistic.

Suffice it to say, there seems to be a failure of comprehension between the UK (Theresa May and David Davis in this case) and EU (Jean-Claude Juncker and Michel Barnier), which should worry us all, whether we're pro- or anti-Brexit (apart, perhaps, from the UDI brigade, for whom the negotiations are no more than a distraction).



Negotiating positions


Let's look at the negotiating guidelines agreed in Brussels on Saturday and compare them with what the UK government has said about its approach.  The Telegraph has reproduced the guidelines document with annotations to explain changes made in the run-up to Saturday's council meeting.  The guidelines respond to the letter Mrs May sent on 29 March to trigger the Article 50 process.


In case you hadn't noticed, Mrs May wants to agree a "deep and special partnership" with the EU.  The phrase is used seven times in a six-page letter, usually followed by some version of "taking in both economic and security cooperation".  It's as if she really has little to say.

A striking quality of May's letter is her repeated praise and promotion of European cooperation (and the EU does agree it wants the UK "as a close partner in the future").


First, what do the two sides appear to agree on?


Both sides advocate cooperation and certainty during the talks, and both use similar language on the evils of disruption and cliff edges, and therefore the need for an implementation/transition period (the EU calls it transition because they don't feel the need to pretend everything will be agreed by March 2019 and then it just needs a bit of implementing).

Security is on the agenda. For the EU it's something to be considered along with judicial cooperation, law enforcement, the fight against terrorism and international crime, defence and foreign policy.  For May "in security terms a failure to reach agreement would mean our cooperation in the fight against crime and terrorism would be weakened" which some, including the more strident UK press, took as a threat.


The rights of citizens (and their businesses) are a high priority, and agreement on the millions of expats must come early (though "nothing is agreed until everything is agreed").  May's letter observes "there is obvious complexity in the discussions we are about to undertake" when she argues that the interests and rights of expats should be put first (contrasting with her reported hope to clear up residence etc rights over the weekend of the next EU summit).

The objectives for Northern Ireland seem pretty well identical, based on avoiding a hard border, though the EU will work "respecting the integrity of the [European] Union legal order" and "recognise existing bilateral agreements and arrangements between the United Kingdom and Ireland which are compatible with EU law" which means it's not just a bilateral thing between UK and Ireland.

The EU guidelines note that May doesn't want to be in the single market or customs union, and that there can be no cherry picking (both documents use the phrase).  They work on from there (though there's some push back on the ECJ, which will no doubt cause some wrangling).

And what do they disagree on?

The EU intends the negotiations to be transparent.  We know from many sources that May & co want nothing known until the end.  Feedback and consultation between the bodies of the EU has been written into the process for a long time now, so May will be disappointed.  For a rather overblown view of the way the EU sees the process, click on this diagram to enlarge it.


The various lines labelled "reports" and "informs" show official information flows, and leaks can't be ruled out (one of the recipients of information is one Nigel Farage, as leader of a party group in the parliament.  Can he keep his mouth shut?)


The EU27 say nothing about May's sudden and inexplicable decision to withdraw from Euratom.

May intends to negotiate withdrawal and the future UK-EU relationship in parallel negotiations.  The EU27 don't ("giving priority to an orderly withdrawal").  May argues (twice) that it should be easy because we are currently aligned and "only" need to "prioritise how we manage the evolution of our regulatory frameworks to maintain a fair and open trading environment, and how to resolve disputes."  Here is the relevant paragraph from her letter:

"We recognise that it will be a challenge to reach such a comprehensive agreement within the two-year period set out for withdrawal discussions in the Treaty.  But we believe it is necessary to agree the terms of our future partnership alongside those of our withdrawal from the EU.  We start from a unique position in these discuss ions - close regulatory alignment, trust in one another's institutions, and a spirit of cooperation stretching back decades.  It is for these reasons, and because the future partnership between the UK and the EU is of such importance to both sides, that I am sure it can be agreed in the time period set out by the Treaty."

One straw in the wind for May might be EU27's "In accordance with the principle that nothing is agreed until everything is agreed, individual items cannot be settled separately".  She might take this to include the future trade deal, but to the EU27 the Article 50 process is only about the withdrawal agreement.

The EU guidelines identify separate processes:
  • negotiations on an orderly withdrawal
  • preliminary and preparatory discussions on the framework for a future relationship
  • [discussions of] any form of transitional arrangements

In EU thinking the integrity of the single market means there can be no sector-by-sector approach, and to preserve the rights of the Union, no separate negotiations with single countries are allowed.  Both approaches have been raised from time to time as desirable to the UK.

The question of a financial settlement is a major difference between the parties.  May's letter says they must "discuss how we determine a fair settlement of the UK's rights and obligations as a departing member state.  The EU says there must be a single financial settlement taking into account "issues" from the multiannual financial framework (pre-agreed budget and priorities for 2014-2020), the European Investment Bank, the European Development Fund and the European Central Bank.

If we give any credence to the leaks about the dinner, May believes there's nothing to pay because there's nothing about it in the treaty.  Is there anything in the treaty about expats' rights?  It seems a strange argument.

The order of discussions in the EU guidelines is:
  1. citizens' rights, and "guarantees must be effective, enforceable, non-discriminatory and comprehensive";  some countries are reported to be concerned about holding the UK to commitments over time.
  2. financial settlement, with the loss of the UK contribution to what is in fact quite a small EU budget being a major concern
  3. Northern Ireland
  4. Other aspects of withdrawal, including rules for handling outstanding ECJ cases
  5. Then... when the EU Council decides enough progress has been made to be sure that a withdrawal agreement will be forthcoming, the shape of a future relationship and transitional arrangements until it is negotiated can be talked about - "preliminary and preparatory discussions on a framework", as they put  it.
It must be noted that any future deal will have to include rules on state aid and who sets rules on things like financial services - if you want good access you have to agree to behave.  And any dispute resolution system has to be equivalent to the ECJ (that's going to be a battle)

The requirement to agree any deal involving Gibraltar with Spain is still there, and the EU talks about Cyprus, where the UK maintains military bases with many Cypriot staff and with a free and easy arrangement on borders/periphery.

Another thing about the EU document is that it simply covers more.  Article 50 is their process, so they've thought through the implications.



When does it all start?

While we're having an election the EU27 will be agreeing further detailed instructions for Michel Barnier (see the arrow feeding in to the top of the central circle in the diagram above).  We should actually see the talks start some time before the end of June, leaving perhaps 15 months before we really have to start putting agreements together and getting approval from assorted parliaments.




at

Sunday, 30 April 2017

The "Strong and stable leadership should be enough, surely" election - day 13

Sunday morning is politics time, and we nerds faithfully sit down to watch and listen to an array of old blokes (and Sophie Ridge) failing to tie various political leaders down on the issues of the day, coupled with all too familiar faces reviewing papers and leading us though Politics Past, Present and Future.  Pitiful, isn't it?

And yet we're in the middle of an election, facing the biggest change this country has seen since the Second World War, so it should bloody matter.  And the prime minister of this great nation of ours turns up to address her electors after a week and a half of hiding from us (see yesterday, and the rest).

Overnight we'd heard that the Tory manifesto "wouldn't mention" Heathrow expansion.  "A spokesman for the Tories told the Sunday Telegraph there is 'no need' to mention Heathrow as the decision on airport expansion was reached by the Government last year."  And it wasn't just the LibDems who wondered who that would help.  Apart from one Zac Goldsmith, who seems to have rediscovered his Conservative party card, there must be somebody.

The next vote on probably doing something about a third runway at Heathrow, or something, comes at the end of the year, and I'm sure another review or two will be found necessary.  How the hell can a government be #StrongAndStable ™ enough to sail the country out into global waters with no deal to cover millions of people and half of our exports if they can't say Yes, or was it No, as directed?

Anyway, it was Tory time


#MrsME was booked to appear with Marr and Peston.  Both of them tried similar tacks, and both were met with a broadside of answer-came-there-none.

Q. Why are nurses, after a 14% real terms pay cut going to food banks at the end of the week?
A. Increases will be possible with economic growth, and #StrongAndStable ™ leadership (S&SL ™) will ensure that we have growth.


This called to mind my only-just-post-schoolboy economics, the first time I met the political cake which our top diplomat wants to consume but retain.  To slice a cake at all, the theory goes, we must have a cake in the first place.  And if the poor have no cake we must bake a bigger cake so that one day they might hope to share a small slice between their indefensibly large families.

"Why can the cake not be shared out now?"  demand various ne'er-do-wells.
"Because it must be bigger to support all the demands on it,"  is the reply.
"And when will it be big enough?"
"Oh, is that the time?"


Peston reminded #MrsME that she had made a pledge last July, standing in the middle of Downing St (not on the steps), to help those who are struggling, those who might or might not be able to get by.  I'm sure she had a better phrase for it in those heady July days.  Given that “every leading thinktank” says the poor will be disproportionately hurt by benefit changes at the same time as slow wage growth, #wotchergonnerdoabahdit?

Apparently the Tories (careful #MrsME, you might have to mention that Cameron bloke and his sidekick Osborne) have done things to ease access to mortgages (well yes, but that doesn't really help here) and lots on mental health (it's a start, it might even be relevant, but is that it?).  And then it was back to growing the cake.

Q. What about the cuts in school funding per pupil?
A. Spending on schools is at record levels.
Q. But per pupil?
A. That's a small number;  I have a big number.
Q. What are the chances of a UK-EU trade deal?
A. Ah, you must be asking about #StrongAndStable ™ leadership.

Asked about Cameron/Osborne's stupid pledge not to raise the taxes that raise 60% or so of government revenue - you know, the one they hatched to trap Labour into committing to something stupid, and hoped to bargain away in a coalition deal... and then had to make law - she went for "there are no plans to raise taxes".  So that's all right then.

But the loneliness must be getting to her.  It can't be easy, going around day to day in the company of security men, close personal advisers and trusted party members, and not seeing a real person for weeks on end.  She did eventually commit (or did she? the media think so) to not raising VAT if re-elected.

Then those ingrates at the Labour party said it had been their idea!


Oh yeah?

Pensions? Wait for the manifesto.  Social care funding?  Wait for the manifesto.  No deal would be better than a bad deal but I want a good deal.  But the EU27 won't talk trade until the bill's settled. So we need leadership.  Debates?  I want to get out and meet people (and nobody asked how many she'd actually met).





Some people had managed to stay awake through all that.

Royal College of Nurses chief executive and general secretary Janet Davies said:
"Theresa May was explicitly asked to admit that it is wrong for nurses to be forced to use foodbanks in 2017. Not only did she fail to acknowledge it is wrong, she failed to even mention nurses or their work in her reply.

"Nurses should not have to fund the NHS deficit from their own pay packets. Too many are struggling to make ends meet, turning to foodbanks and hardship grants in desperation.

"Every year that the government holds NHS pay below inflation, hundreds of thousands of nurses get another real-terms cut to their salary.

“The government pay cap is fuelling a recruitment and retention crisis that is as damaging for patient care as it is for the nurses themselves. A growing number feel they can no longer afford to work in the profession and others are deterred from joining by the meagre pay on offer.

“After the election, for the sake of patient safety, the government must scrap the pay cap and fill the tens of thousands of vacant jobs.”

Chris Bryant MP (Labour, Rhndda, majority 74,55) was a bit more direct.




Fraser Nelson of the Spectator observed,  "Theresa May has perfected the art of saying nothing in interviews. The most any journalist can hope for is a subtle shift in position, or an absence where a position once stood. She seems to think that, if you refuse to give the press anything, the public won’t care. Worse, she seems to be right – for now, at least."


Labour

John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington, majority 15,700) came out and told us "the manifesto will be fully costed" (which is much less interesting than "the revolution will not be televised") and that he would not put VAT up, or income tax for low and middle (undefined - he's fallen for that one once already) earners.

Ian Lavery (Wansbeck, majority 10,881, Labour's joint election co-ordinator) came out and delivered his script.  Andrew Neil was asking boring but reasonable questions but the script just kept on coming.  Sticking it to the man doesn't work if you don't get heard and end up looking a prat.

Pity, because Labour actually had some ideas out this morning.  Their 20 point plan for the workplace included ideas on workers' rights, minimum wage, controlling takeovers, blacklisting and many (20 minus that lot, approximately) more areas.


Corbyn was more interesting when he addressed the National Association of Head Teachers at their conference.  He proposed that local authorities, which are legally required to provide adequate school places, should regain the ability to build schools to do so, and even take over the academies in their areas.  The mechanics of  it would of course be complex, but this looks like a logical and inexpensive idea which could end up being popular.


Kezia Dugdale meanwhile has announced a gender-balanced team to lose all the Sciottish seats for Labour


and she has a good line on meeting people, unlike #MrsME





There's more, but no time


Paul Nuttall came out to tell us why white rapists are better than brown rapists and show how little he knows about his new pied-à-terre, Boston and Skeggy.

Tim Farron said things about being leader of the opposition in a world defined by #MrsME (I can see three leaders of the opposition bobbing up and down in the Commons to attract attention).

Pressure has been building up in recent days about employment (with Matthew Taylor's report, commissioned by #MrsME coming out as early as the end of June) and Northern Ireland, the land whose name the UK government dare not speak, but I'll have to put those off to another post.



Never knowingly informative, Theresa May won't tell us anything about the Brexit negotiations.  We'll have to go to the EU for that, or useful MEPs like Richard Corbett (not useless MEPs like Farridge), but discussions continue about what our own government is going to dump on us.

at

Saturday, 29 April 2017

The "Did you notice that thing they did in Brussels today" election - day 12


Where's Mrs ME?

Somewhere with no mobile signal in Aberdeenshire is all we can say.




Making that same speech - every vote for ME and MY team is a vote for strong and stable verbiage. When I took over,  people said the country was divided, but I see a new unity of purpose [oh really].  Other parties are lining up to back Jeremy Corbyn [they really aren't] to block Brexit [but Corbyn's only interested in what happens after Brexit].

The next stops in Theresa ME's tour of the country (because, after all, all she really wants to do is knock on doors (and run away if she thinks somebody's coming)) are said to be...







Saboteurs department

Jeremy Corbyn was in London (I know, but it's a big place) making a more personal speech (a personal speech, Mrs ME, is one from which we might learn something about the speaker, not one in which 30% of the words are first person pronouns).  I could summarise or satirise it, but it's a rare thing, so you might want to read it as it was written.  Don't expect it again (very often).

Tim Farron was in Leeds, setting himself up in opposition to the government.  None of that "Go back to your constituencies and prepare for government" stuff, Little Timmy is preparing his troops to do well and come Not First - "You can differ with me on some things but you must agree we need an opposition" and Jeremy Corbyn leads the least effective opposition in history (not interplanetary history this time;  perhaps the Leeds Whovians weren't out of bed yet).

We have to include UKIP in the Saboteurs because they are definitely in opposition to Mrs ME.  News from Kipperland is that Paul Nuttall travelled to Hartlepool to announce that he would be standing for election on 8 June... in Boston.



No, not that one, Boston and Skegness, Lincolnshire, a mere 170 miles down the road and currently the domain of Matt Warman (Conservative, majority 4,336).  Mr Warman is an interesting Tory, having followed the development of various parts of the tech industry as a journalist, and being a Remainer in the country's top Leave area.



Meanwhile, in Brussels




Negotiations were the thing today, and the EU27 council (you know, the heads of government of the other countries in this club Mrs ME is leading us out of, strongly and stably) took somewhere between one minute (BBC) and fifteen minutes (BBC) to agree the document they've been preparing for nine months, and particularly during the few weeks since Mrs May's Article 50 letter dropped through the corporate letter box.

This is the negotiating mandate, the starting position and rules of negotiation for Michel Barnier, who was appointed as the EU27's lead negotiator two weeks after Mrs ME stood in the middle of Downing St and told us she would fight for those who are Just About Managing.  The document shouldn't surprise anybody, having been developed in public over the last few days and other meetings during April.

The Today programme was surprised.

The top three priorities in the Brexit negotiations, say our "friends and partners", should be:

1.  The status of EU expats in the UK and UK expats in the rest of the EU

"Agreeing reciprocal guarantees to safeguard the status and rights derived from EU law at the date of withdrawal of EU and UK citizens, and their families, affected by the United Kingdom's withdrawal from the Union will be the first priority for the negotiations.

"Such guarantees must be effective, enforceable, non-discriminatory and comprehensive, including the right to acquire permanent residence after a continuous period of five years of legal residence. Citizens should be able to exercise their rights through smooth and simple administrative."

2.  The "divorce bill" settling assets and liabilities the UK have got into [watch this space; this will be fun]

"A single financial settlement - including issues resulting from the MFF as well as those related to the European Investment Bank (EIB), the European Development Fund (EDF) and the European Central Bank (ECB) - should ensure that the Union and the United Kingdom both respect the obligations resulting from the whole period of the UK membership in the Union. The settlement should cover all commitments as well as liabilities, including contingent liabilities."

3.  The position of Northern Ireland

The Union has consistently supported the goal of peace and reconciliation enshrined in the Good Friday Agreement in all its parts [this is the bit that set unionists and their friends in the press panicking about Ireland and Republicans grabbing Ulster], and continuing to support and protect the achievements, benefits and commitments of the Peace Process will remain of paramount importance.

In view of the unique circumstances on the island of Ireland, flexible and imaginative solutions will be required, including with the aim of avoiding a hard border, while respecting the integrity of the Union legal order. 
 
In this context, the Union should also recognise existing bilateral agreements and arrangements between the United Kingdom and Ireland which are compatible with EU law.


Is there actually anything here which a British government could object to?  Apart from the sum of money which might come up under No 2, and the fact that "sufficient progress has [to be] achieved to allow negotiations to proceed to the next phase"?

There's more to the document, but the Telegraph has already presented it, with annotation, so you can read it there.


Remember...
 

at

The "Where is Mrs ME" election - day 11

One little Brexit question

Not for the first time, David Davis (Haltemprice and Howden, majority 16,195) admitted that the UK's residency application process for EU nationals can't handle Brexit.  Some people read that as meaning simply that there's no hurry to apply for permanent residency because "we've got two years", but people have been told to sign up for an email alert, which surely means they're waiting for a new system to come in.

Oxford University's Migration Observatory told the DExEU select committee that "at pre-referendum rates of processing, giving residence documents to all potentially eligible applicants would take the equivalent of 140 years" while "the Home Office has also seen its full time equivalent staff reduced by 10 per cent since 2010".

Other witnesses told the committee that the rules of eligibility for residence (at the most basic, when you have to have arrived to qualify) and the rights and responsibilities that residence confers on an EU expat have to be established by the withdrawal negotiations. Even those who have already been granted residence might have to re-apply if the finally agreed status is different from the current definition.


Housing again


It was another housing day, with a number of themed reports by the Radio 4 Today programme.  They gave the current housing minister Gavin Barwell (Croydon Central, majority 165) a platform to attack Corbyn for pledging the same number of homes as the Tories - a million - but proposing that half of them would be council housing.

This continued to present the Tories as the "party of home ownership" but didn't really look at the effect a large number of social rents would have on the private rental market.  It also avoided the more detailed Labour proposal I reported yesterday:  "100,000 new affordable homes each year to rent and buy, with councils playing a big part in that".

One interesting feature of current Tory policy Barwell reminded us of was "accelerated construction", in which government gets into a joint venture with a builder rather than just selling off surplus land.  This might get things moving (or it might not) but, importantly, it might improve the returns on disposal of public land which are reported to be too low in fire sale circumstances.


The day's economic figures


"We need to get over ourselves,"  wrote Chris Giles in the FT, describing Britain's misplaced sense of economic superiority.  Theresa ME and others talk of the UK's "strong economy" but we're not specially good on any measure - "stuck in the middle without low US tax rates, without German public services and without even Italian productivity levels".

GDP was reported to be 0.3% up in the first three months of the year - a slowdown was expected, but this was below initial expectations, from a quarter in which Brexit was finally sketched out and kicked off.  The pound has continued to trickle up since the election was announced, which will be taken by some as a hankering after Strong And Stable Leadership ™.  House prices fell for the second month running and "only" rose by 2.6% (on average, across the country) over the year to April.

As one of George Osborne's old mates in finance said:





Press commentators observed:








Political responses were predictable.  Philip Hammond (Conservative, Runnymede and Weybridge, majority 22,134) said the numbers show the requirement for continuing strong economy, high employment, and strong and stable leadership (yawn).  Vince Cable (LibDem candidate, Twickenham, majority to beat 2017) said GDP slowdown could continue, or might not (thanks for that).  John McDonnell (Labour, Hayes and Harlington, majority 16,700) was careful not to mention Brexit but told us that growth is falling away under the Tories and threatening living standards.


Kipper time

Paul Nuttall launched the party's campaign, claiming that this is an election on UKIP's (policy) turf.  UKIP will be targeting its resources and standing aside for "true Brexiteers" in "tens" of constituencies (if the local parties obey) and UKIP has a great future (asked whether he'll resign if he loses again, Nuttall said no).  Nigel Farage will be around during the campaign, which "would never have happened" without Channel 4's reporting on Tory election expenses offences.

Nuttall set out a few policy themes - PR, an English parliament (sound of five hands clapping), get rid of the House of Lords,  strongly anti-FGM (good as a headline, but this is UKIP remember), cut the aid budget...

Somebody asked why Nuttall was no longer committed to Stoke Central (what with his extensive property empire in the city). He went into any-politician-you've-ever-seen mode, praising the local party branch and the dedication they would show to whichever candidate they select that isn't him.

Nuttall thoroughly enjoyed teasing the journalists about where he will stand - maybe tomorrow.  Eyes were on Heywood and Middleton, Hartlepool or Bootle, although the Telegraph reported it will be Boston and Skegness.  This will be his sixth attempt to get into the Commons, close behind Farage's seven failures?
I was informed at the end of the day that candidates are already selected for Heywood and Middleton and Hartlepool, so... Nuttall is going to Hartlepool on Saturday to do what?


He fended off questions about Anne Marie Waters, the UKIP candidate and Pegida activist who's praised Wilders and le Pen and called Islam "evil".  Her case would be dealt with at an NEC meeting on Saturday.

Nuttall insists on calling Dame Louise Casey "Dame Casey", and has little time for Welsh ex-leader Nathan Gill who's been reported as saying UKIP has more ex-members than members.  I'm sure they all have fascinating thoughts on the EU council's reassurances on Northern Ireland's incorporation into the EU (IFF there are affirmative votes in both parts of the Ireland, AND a lot of other work).


Today's new saboteurs

After yesterday's huge addition of the whole EU27 to the list of those lining up to oppose the strong and stable leadership project, today didn't look promising at first.  But then they started to creep out of the woodwork.

  • Boris Johnson - maybe he can be trusted to read a speech to the security council, but the ME campaign can only take him very sparingly.
  • the Annals of Oncology, for ripping the Cancer Drugs Fund apart (it was Cameron's baby, so ME can fend off the blame, but she did go along with it for years)
  • the Public Accounts Committee, for accusing the government of lack of ambition on housing and homelessness
  • the National Association of Headteachers - 72 per cent of heads say their budgets will be untenable by 2019/20, and 18 per cent of school leaders say they are already in deficit.
  • new work by the IFS which shows that benefit cuts will continue to hit


Nitty gritty

A small point of vocabulary:  You don't "stand as an MP", even if you were elected to the parliament soon to end.  There will be no MPs from next Wednesday.  You stand as a candidate.

The Green and Women's Equality parties have reached an electoral pact.  Greens will have a fre-er run in Brighton Pavilion, Bristol West, Bath, Isle of Wight and Sheffield;  Women's Equality will have a fre-er run against Philip Davies (Conservative, Shipley, majority 9624)

Some might be surprised that David Mackintosh (Conservative, Northampton South, majority 3793) is not standing again.  Others, who know the ins and outs of an "unperforming" loan the borough council made while he was its leader might be less so.

(To keep track of incumbents' decisions to stand or not look here.)

Theresa ME's control freakery persists:


Good news for any Tories who still take any notice of polls:  YouGov on Scottish voting intentions: SNP 41% (-9), Conservative 28% (+13), Lab 18% (-6), LibDem 7% (-1).  This could leave the Commons seats as follows:  SNP 47 (-9), Conservative 8 (+7), Labour 1 (-), LibDem 3 (+2).



Register to vote


Registrations to vote spiked at the announcement of the general election, especially among younger voters.  It's important that as many as possible do it now - don't wait for the deadline of 22 May. 


at

Friday, 28 April 2017

The "Other side of the negotiating table Means Other side of the negotiating table" election - day 10

The unifying (to coin a phrase) theme of the day was Unity behind Theresa ME.

We saw an appeal to supporters of other parties to give ME the strongest (and presumably the most stable) negotiating position possible.  Speaking in Leeds East (currently held by Richard Burgon for Labour with a majority of 12,500) she told voters to put aside traditional allegiances and vote “in the national interest”, and we know what that means.

Of course she was addressing another invited audience and, as at her earlier visit to an eerily empty factory in Derby, there was no danger of her coming into contact with anybody real (or be seen to rely on however many security officers are travelling with her).

The EU27 held a meeting on the Brexit negotiating mandate they will hand formally to Michel Barnier.  To the apparent astonishment of  the UK government (and nobody else) there was unity of purpose.  The EU commission's vice-president Frans Timmermans argued that the size of the UK's new government's majority would be irrelevant to the negotiations.  Angela Merkel reiterated the message that no country outside the EU could have "exactly the same benefits" as those inside.  She observed that some within the UK (no names) had "illusions" about the way things would go.

Theresa ME appeared to exhibit astonishing naïveté in reacting to these developments, but whether she really was surprised or not, she'll be attempting to turn it to her single project of getting the largest possible mandate in this Brexit election.  The line was "Our opponents are already seeking to disrupt those negotiations – at the same time as 27 other European countries line up to oppose us.”

The Czech Republic's Europe minister Tomáš Prouza told the BBC that negotiations of a future relationship (including trade deals) would not be completed until the EU27 were certain that the UK will deliver on the withdrawal deal.  Others were briefing that a united Ireland within the EU might be countenanced.

Perhaps our strong and stable leader needs a new, more educational slogan - "Other side of the negotiating table Means Other side of the negotiating table".  Or perhaps she could fall back on a Carry On line.



The afternoon's Whitehall incident, with a man arrested while carrying knives, seems likely to be grist to the unity mill.  And the ranks of the Daily Mail's Saboteurs will be swollen by the whole of the EU27.




It had been supposed to be Johnsonday, after his little outpouring in the Sun (Corbyn might be amusing but he's dangerous, and everything will be wonderful with me and ME running the show).  Most of his "interviews" were the usual waffle-with-no-answers, but he did manage to tell us that it would be "difficult to refuse" a request from the US to join an attack on Syria in the event of a chemical attack.  There might be no need for parliamentary approval (that had to be "tested").

The BBC's Laura Kuenssberg observed that we're entering a few weeks when there's no parliament around to be consulted anyway.  (She also pointed out later that he'd said something similar in the Commons on the day the election was called.)

One of his favourite themes was a trade deal with the US, which would have to wait until the 2020 presidential election process is well underway but would necessarily be wonderful.  As usual he had a couple of idiosyncratic examples (though not necessarily of high value to the UK or particularly relevant to his case).

A great benefit of such a deal (still the pretence that a single deal will suffice), thought Johnson, would be removal of the US's ban on haggis, which is of course a purely UK-US affair and nothing to do with the EU for a change.  Similarly he wants better access to India for sales of Scotch.  The EU has a complaint in at the WTO that high Indian tariffs on spirits break the rules. A lone UK might have to start that one again from the beginning.

Johnson's first day on the campaign trail was so successful that his sister joined the LibDems, and we had a tiny insight into head office's editing of his article.

Oh, and the great diplomat's deliberations on travelling to commune with the great men of Russia came to light for a moment.



One thing Johnson blustered through in more than one interview was the old "£350 million for the NHS" lie, though the morning's was a version I can't remember hearing from him - "£350 million which we have no control of".  How much of that "money we don't control" is the rebate which we do control, I wonder?



Corbyn was down to deliver a housing speech, trailed by John Healey, who as usual sounded supremely confident but not entirely in command of exactly the facts being quoted against him.

The housing headline was "a million homes in five years [a very familiar figure from all sides], half of them council houses".  As more was said it became "100,000 new affordable homes each year to rent and buy [my emphasis, and more familiar still], with councils playing a big part in that".  What will matter is how much, if at all, Labour would change the current definition of "affordable".





Paul Nuttall has finally confirmed his intention to stand, but not where.  UKIP’s north-east regional chairman, Steve Turner, has defected to the Tories, saying his old party is riddled with “infighting and poor organisation”.  He said Nuttall wouldn't fight Hartlepool, because losing there would be fatal for the party.  Expect an announcement when Nuttall visits the town on Friday... that he's standing.

Meanwhile UKIP face critism for selecting as a candidate a Pegida activist who's praised Wilders and le Pen and called Islam "evil".  Tim Farron jumped in, perhaps wisely, perhaps not, after his dealings with David Ward on Wednesday.  More significant was the disquiet within the party itself, perhaps among those (including James Carver, who resigned as a spokesperson) who were uncomfortable with the "integration agenda" earlier in the week.



Tony Blair was out again, saying the same old same old - we need a  strong oppostion, though we know who will be PM, and what matters is fighting against the blank cheque and for the single market. 

George Osborne has dumped one of many lucrative speaking roles as he realises that newspaper editors actually have to do some work.  Only another three or four jobs to go.

The Northern Ireland inquiry into the failed renewable heat initiative has opened.  This will embarrass the DUP on the door step.  Might it also make it difficult for them to reach agreement with other Unionist parties not to stand against each other?  Minister James Brokenshire has confirmed that attempts to restart the Stormont executive are off until after the UK election, wth a latest deadline of 29 June.

Theresa ME will be on Robert Peston's ITV show this Sunday. 

In answer to today's last question to ministers before parliament was prorogued, DExEU minister David Jones reasserted that "we" would be willing to walk out with no deal at all if necessary.

Parliament reconvenes on 13 June, with the state opening on the 19th.  It'll be limousines not coaches, and curtailed flummery.  The Queen has had to cry off a church service for Knights of the Garter, and the ceremonial calendar including trooping the colour may have had to be adjusted.  So thoughtless Mrs ME!



The Work and Pensions select committee has warned that universal credit implementation is stikll pretty bad.  Claimants are waiting 12 weeks or more for their first payments, with the most vulnerable claimants often struggling to adapt to monthly payment schedules, making them reliant on food banks and pay day lenders; and landlords warning that universal credit was adding to problems of rent arrears, with at least a quarter of tenants on universal credit running up debts.  No surprise there then.

A High Court judge has told the government that election "purdah" is no excuse not to publish its air quality plan, which might well be represented during the campaign as an attack on diesel drivers.



I see many crowdsourcing appeals to finance the campaigns of various parliamentary candidates, none of them so far for Tory hopefuls (my echo chamber is broad enough, I hope, to have at least a chance of seeing some if they were there).  Instead the party has put out a call for £19 million, after a sharp decline in income after the EU referendum. Apparently pro-Remain donors and friends of David Cameron are keeping their cheque books shut.

So many more Saboteurs to add to the list.


at

Thursday, 27 April 2017

The "It's looking a bit more like a normal election today" election - day 9


GDP figures are expected on Friday.  These should be viewed together with Thursday morning's claim that unsecured borrowing is currently rising at 10% a year, and recent evidence that personal borrowing is approaching the level it hit just before the global financial crash.  Consumer spending has been propping up growth figures recently.




Labour attempted to shift the debate on to the NHS, with shadow health secretary Jon Ashworth making a number of pledges:
  • lift the 1% cap on pay rises for NHS staff.
  • move towards public sector wages being agreed through collective bargaining and the evidence of independent pay review bodies.
  • require NHS trusts to have regard for patient safety when setting staffing levels.
  • reinstate bursaries for students of health-related degrees.
Ashworth says the changes would be funded by reversing government cuts to corporation tax and tried to dismiss criticism that "Labour has spent this money many times already".

Jeremy Hunt came out and had little to say except that NHS staff are doing an amazing job, nurse training applications will recover when people get used to the fact there are no bursaries, more training places become available when they're no longer government funded, leadership and Brexit are important, Labour is a bit crap... and nothing about NHS funding

Hunt agrees with May that they must "stop ducking" the problem of social care, but neither of them seems to have anything concrete to suggest.

Both Ashworth and Hunt depended on "wait for the manifesto", but it appears the Tories will have a whole week of campaigning, from 8 May, when they can work from a published manifesto while Labour continues to parrot "You'll have to wait for 15 May".

"Where does the money come from?" will keep coming up.  I'd hoped that Labour might use some of its recent work to recast public spending generally, but I don't hold out much hope, given John McDonnell's craven proclamation of a "fiscal credibility rule".




Gina Miller the "Brexit campaigner" presented the Best for Britain project.  They plan to offer money to approved candidates.  As she did more interviews during the day I was less convinced it's a coherent campaign, though information to support tactical voting is useful.  If it's right.

Peter Kellner observed that some traditional Labour voters who went UKIP have now moved over to Tories, and that it's very possible Labour will have no MPs in Scotland and the Tories half a dozen.


The Nuffield Trust confirmed that there has been a 25% drop in nurse training appications since bursaries were withdrawn.  Their research shows a 14% real terms drop in NHS pay levels since 2010, that NICE safe staffing levels are threatened by a shortage of bodies and skills, and by pressures on staff.  They have observed cuts in continuing professional development of nurses, and the gap being filled by agencies and expensive overseas recruitment.



The EU Council meets on Saturday to finalise its mandate to the EU negotiator Michel Barnier who visited Downing St on Wednesday.  We should expect stronger demands on EU expat rights and for transparency during the talks.  Transparency might be the UK government's sticking point.  Where is the British equivalent of Michel Barnier's website?

The Public Accounts Committee published a report on capital funding for schools, from which a headline story on free schools emerged.

"The DfE is spending well over the odds in its bid to create 500 more free schools while other schools are in poor condition. Many free schools are in inadequate premises, including many without on-site playgrounds or sports facilities …

"The department is in a weak negotiating position and commonly pays well in excess of the official valuation. On average, it has paid 19% over the official valuation, with 20 sites costing over 60% more."

Please note, as BBC News did, that local authorities are still held responsible for ensuring there are enough school places in their neighbourhoods, but free schools and academies are accountable not to local authorities but to Whitehall.



It's long been thought that a Brexit withdrawal agreement would be relatively straightforward to approve on the EU side - a qualified majority vote in the council and a simple majority in the parliament - while an agreement on a future UK-EU relationship was pretty well certain to be much more complex.  As a "hybrid" agreement, it would require unanimity in the council and ratification by each of 27 national parliaments plus a handful of regional assemblies.

Research for the Germasn parliament has concluded that any transitional deal (which even the UK government has begun to admit will be necessary) will itself  be complex enough to require this fuller approval process.  This would reduce the two years available for negotiation so much as to make even a withdrawal agreement and a transitional agreement very difficult.

It looks as if this will have to be yet another "top priority" on the negotiation schedule, and that an extension to the negotiaions might have to be agreed vey early.



David Cameron has been hard at work again, speaking at a tourism conference in Bangkok.  The Guardian reports that Cameron thinks a general election victory would give Theresa May "more time" to deal with Brexit.  It would be easier to sign a transtion agreement in 2019 if an election wasn't hovering in the following May, which has been my assumed reason for the election being called from the start.



Paul Nuttall really knows how to tell them.  "I'm like Ghandi," he says, on the basis that his party's "integration agenda" (rejected by a good number of his own party) will be acknowledged when everybody else catches up.

It's nothing to do with the election as such, but I listened to Radio 4's Costing the Earth, and it's certainly something to do with our poor planning within the EU and our unpreparedness for surviving outside.




The last PMQs of the poarliament was reviewed by the Guardian's Andrew Sparrow:  May resorted to carpet-bombing Corbyn with the the “strong and stable” leadership stuff. Her message discipline is outstanding, and conventional wisdom has it that you cannot repeat these slogans too often (although May seems to be testing that theory to destruction.)

May argues that she has no need to join TV debates because she debates with Corbyn every week at PMQs.  I'm not sure even her own side agree that PMQs is any kind of debate, let alone an adequate one to replace the TV events which polls tell us are actually popular with voters, giving them a view of the leaders in action.  Not everybody gets to see more than the odd 15-second clip on the news.

My view of PMQs - questions and answers, head to head.



Now Corbyn has backed out of any TV debate in which Theresa May does not take part.  It's a better argument then May's - a debate between opposition leaders doesn't help people choose between a Tory and a Labour government - but it will still be seen as chickening out.  Will this help May to kill off debates altogether for a couple of elections?



Then this one came up for further consideration tomorrow.


at

Wednesday, 26 April 2017

The "It's not all about Brexit, honest" election - day 8


I woke up to this judgement.



Before we forget, many of us have local elections next week.  A Political Studies Association briefing this morning brought out the main points.  This is based on work by Rallings and Thrasher from Plymouth University, who have something of a reputation in this area, and John Curtice at Strathclyde University.

Labour is heading for a kicking in Wales, with 100 fewer seats and control of Cardiff, Swansea, Newport lost.  Also a disaster in Scotland, losing control of all the councils it currently controls.

SNP is generally up for the locals.

The Tories are up in Scotland, can expect 50 gains in Wales and 115 gains in English county, unitary and metropolitan council areas.

The LibDems should expect 85 gains in England and some gains in Wales.

Plaid should manage some gains from Labour.




Iain Conn of Centrica was concerned by May's proposed cap on energy prices (and more by his share price falling by 3.5% no doubt).  The language was similar to that used in response to the freeze/cap Ed Miliband proposed in 2015, though the accusation that a Tory government "doesn't believe in free markets" was something new.

Diane James, (no longer UKIP and now not Tory either?) told May & co off in similar terms - too much meddling in markets.



Keir Starmer's much trumpeted Brexit speech is in the Labour press pages.

His initial thrust was that Labout would use a more cooperative tone in negotiations, which would certainly be an improvement on the Tories' repeated but unconvincing insistence that the EU27 are our "friends and partners" (especially as that's often accompanied by an "if they know what's good for them" connotation).

Labour would not start by taking half the potential options off the table (May would start low and hope to build up, while Starmer wants to start high and work down where necessary) and No Deal would be the worst possible deal (I'd add that no deal on trade might be bad, but no deal on Brexit would be disastrous).

Starmer positioned his "smart, flexible" approach against the Tories' "rigid, reckless" one.  He characterised May's approach as "Out, out, out, and we don’t want anything to do with the single market, we don’t want anything to do with the customs union, we don’t want anything to do with the European court, we don’t want anything to do with the European agencies, and we are going to pretend that no deal is a reasonable or good deal" and claimed that it had not gone down well in the EU countries he had visited.

EU expats in the UK would have their rights guaranteed unconditionally from day 1, and Starmer maintained this was the "right thing to do" in the face of suggestions that Leavers would see an offer of full recognition of EU ex-pats' rights as something for nothing.


The Labour emphasis would be on jobs and the economy, though freedom of movement would have to change.  Labour would tear up May's Brexit white paper and recast the #GreatCopyAndPasteBill as an "EU rights and protection bill".

Starmer said that Labour would ensure that Britain does not just implement existing EU laws guaranteeing worker rights and environmental standards, but future ones too. This marks a key dividing line with the Conservatives, and it would help a Labour government negotiate a deal guaranteeing good access to the single market, because the EU would not have to worry about the UK cutting standards post Brexit to make its economy more competitive.

Just leaving after two years, with inadequate agreements on customs arrangements or criminal justice information sharing (plus membership or proper links with key EU agencies such as Euratom, EMA, Europol and Eurojust) would be unthinkable, so transition might mean not fully leaving until around 2022.
 
Repatriated powers would go to the devolved assemblies and regional government - something the Tories are terrified of guaranteeing.

But there would be no second referendum, no EEA option, and no guarantee that parliament would have the option of rejecting a bad deal and retaining the status quo.

This was one of the more positive immediate responses.
Barry Gardiner was out with the same brief for Labour, but his vocabulary was "nice Labour" rather than "nationalistic Tory", tough in negotiation, but starting from a cooperative position.  Susanna Reid on ITV observed that his tablet still carries an "I'm In" sticker.

Image: ITV, via Daily Mirror


Various Tories, throughout the day, labelled Starmer's Brexit negotiation scheme nonsensical and incoherent.  We must be able to back out, they said, opt for No Deal rather than a bad deal.  Offering rights for EU expats unconditionally is dangerous - something for nothing (didn't they once deny that expats are bargaining chips?).  And of course Corbyn is so bad we couldn't trust him with the negotiations.

This was simply repeated by the media, with no analysis, as if May's approach is generally accepted as a pearl of clarity and precision.  Yet her Lancaster House speech was widely criticised as saying very little about the actual negotiating position, and the white paper received several negative reviews when it finally came (after the Article 50 had begun its progress through the Commons).

Professor Steve Peers called the white paper "basically content-free" in his analysis for EU Law Analysis.



Whichever intern stayed up until the early hours to complete it made howlers such as the following presentation of leave entitlements.


But it's not today's document, so the media seem to assume that the government simply has an established position which must be OK.

On the subject of expats' rights, Faisal Islam of Sky points out that the Tories' position takes some interpreting (thread)
Tim Farron for the LibDems didn't think much of Starmer's prescription either, pointing out that it accepts non-membership of the single market and doesn't offer a second referendum, and wondering why Labour didn't press harder on all these issues when they were whipped to pass the Article 50 bill through Parliament.

Paul Nuttall's analysis was that Mrs May intends to fudge exit so we leave in name but not in reality; Labour’s plan is to not even pretend to have left.




UKIP was still fending off criticism of yesterday's "integration agenda".  From their own side, Arron Banks labelled parts of it a "war on Muslim religion" and James Carver MEP has resigned as UKIP's foreign and commonwealth affairs spokesperson on the same issue, supported by several other MEPs, who say

“I consider the policies to be authoritarian, grossly insensitive and targeting one particular group within society to the point of persecution.
“It’s vile and it’s not something that I can possibly defend. I’m not alone in that feeling...
"At least half a dozen MEPs are considering withdrawing support from the leadership of the party and across the country. There’s a groundswell of unhappiness."

One MEP said there would be “some settling of accounts” after the 8 June vote, adding: “This is all tarnishing us."

From the Muslim Council of Britain, Harun Kahn hoped instead for unbigoted leadership to unite the country.  But UKIP deputy leader Peter Whittle prayed in aid the "biggest party in the EU", by which he means the centre-right party group the Europeans People's Party.  The EPP has adopted a resolution which "supports" an EU-wide ban on "Islamic face veils" but acknowledges that such a ban would not be within current EU competencies.


A copy of Labour's election script has leaked, with an attack line that Tories are for "the privileged few" and Labour is "for the many not the few".  Contrast that if you can with May's pledge to produce a "country that works for everyone, not just the privileged few" - the poverty of sloganising.




Theresa May went to south Wales.  The Monday poll giving Tories a 10-point lead over Labour in Wales was surely a coincidence.  She visited the mandatory factory, then on deepest, darkest Bridgend to talk to a nest of nice, safe people.

The stump speech, which we're all going to be bored with, then angered by, can be summarised easily.  Lynton Crosby can do this stuff with his eyes closed.

Abandon tribal attachments

Strong and stable leadership to form strong and stable government to produce a strong country, with a plan, a country for everyone not just the privileged few

The Conservative party was, is, and will be the party of lower taxes.
This is the most important election in MY lifetime.

Every single vote counts.  Every single vote FOR ME and for conservative candidates will strengthen MY hand in Brexit negotiations.

Give ME a mandate to lead Britain.  Give ME a mandate to speak for Britain.  Give ME a mandate to fight for Britain.  Give ME a mandate to deliver for Britain.

Why do interviewers bother with detailed questions?  The May-Crosby machine will deliver the same, horrendous boilerplate until half the country feels it's been trepanned to within an inch of its life and goes out to vote Conservative to make it STOP.



I really tried to ignore this one, but too many people kept throwing it at me.  Perhaps she's still a bit human.

at
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)

Letter to the Laura Kuenssberg programme - Farage, Musk and "free speech"

Dear Ms Kuenssberg, I hear from BBC TV and Radio News that you will this morning be giving a platform to Nigel Farage to defend attacks on t...