Before the election I predicted that UKIP would not win any Councils, and would not win more Council seats than the Conservatives, or Liberals, or Labour. The final results show the Conservatives won 1124 seats, Labour 560, Lib Dems 371, Independents 165 and UKIP 147. The Conservatives won 18 Councils, Labour won 3 Councils and 13 are now in no overall control. Despite doing much better  in the popular vote where they did stand, UKIP got very little representation.

      The curious thing is the BBC published adjusted figures for vote share designed to adjust for  the fact that some parties did not fight all the seats, and adjusted to allow for different voting patterns in parts of the country not facing elections. All this requires difficult judgements based on past voting, at a time when there are big changes in voting behaviour where there are elections. Did they adjust enough and in the right directions?

        I would like to see the unadjusted date, so we can know what share of the actual votes cast each party recorded on Thursday.  This information is normally easily available, but for some reason is not this time. It would be useful to compare this with the adjusted figures.

 

        Some of the EU’s critics see current times as similar to pre Revolution France in the later eighteenth century. The EU Commissioners keep telling discontented voters to eat cake. The modern equivalent is to tell them obeying EU rules and targets will get them a job in due course.  Mrs Merkel, the nearest to an EU sovereign, occasionally pops out and assures us that bit more German discipline around the place will soon solve the problems of the troubled states.

            So the EU critics think there will be sudden outburst from the ungovernable hordes. They think  it may take the form of a move on more weak  banks as in Cyprus, or voting for anti establishment parties as in Greece until they have a majority, or a trans EU strike by taxpayers and voters refusing to co-operate any more with the Ancien regime officials and their constant demands for more money and more obedience from their subjects.

          I do not think there will  be a single trans EU revolution. The forces against the EU are very split by geography, preoccupation, language and  political affiliation. One of the ironies of the situation is that because the EU has not succeeded in making a single European demos, there is no single political community to unite against it.

           This does not mean, however, that the current EU is stable and proof against opposition. I suspect rather the change will come as it did in the Reformation in sixteenth century Europe. Peoples in different parts of the Catholic empire had different reasons for disliking Catholic authority. They adopted different means of getting out from the Catholic supremacy, and did it at different times. Although the Catholic powers at the beginning seemed to have all the cards, they lost much of their empire in a devastating thirty years. The Catholics started with the intellectuals, the lawcodes and the armies all on their side. They ended by losing most of Germany, Scandinavia, the Netherlands, and the UK . The fault lines from this can still be seen in modern EU negotiations.

 

            So how did the Reformation work? It began with the thoughts and writings of intellectuals using the new technology of the printed book and pamphlet to  good effect to spread new and rebellious ideas. Today the anti forces have the more powerful and immediate internet.

           It passed to the Princes and Parliaments. In the UK we held a Reformation because the Catholic government of Rome did not undertsand how serious the issue of the King’s marriage was to UK politics. In the Netherlands popular displeasure with the Catholic Church was bound up with the wish for self government, out of the hands of the Hapsburgs. In Switzerland their progress to a unique independent democracy took a step forward with a quiet Reformation, secure behind their mountain passes.

           Today the Parliaments have still taken a pro EU line, but as the votes stack up complaints with the Ancien regime we should look for change to come in the more Eurosceptic countries. May it be peaceful, and may it be soon.

 

          A majority of those voting in South Shields voted Labour, the very party that gave away many of our rights to self government in the federalist Treaties of Nice, Amsterdam and Lisbon.  It was also the party that gave away our right to control our own borders, and invited in so many new migrants from the rest of the EU  after years of a more restrained migration policy. A federalist MP replaces a federalist MP who has found a better  job in the USA.

          Meanwhile more people have voted UKIP, just as more people are voting for anti EU establishment parties in Italy and Greece without getting them into government.  The gap between the governed and the governing EU establishment has just got bigger, with the frustrations becoming ever more evident. So far the Conservatives have retained control of 5 Councils, and 2 have passed to no overall control – probably to bureaucrat controlled.

          The truth is EU government is not working in the interests of the voters. It is deeply resented and opposed by many, especially in the Euro zone where it is at its most powerful and most damaging. So far those who oppose it have not found a way to win majorities and turn their anger into practical politics that can solve the problem. The UK ends up with dear energy, too many rules and regulations, and far too much interference in what we can and cannot do, and a split Eurosceptic majority that still does not have a majority where it counts. Greece and Spain end up with more than half their young people unemployed, and with 1 in 8 who want work not finding jobs through the Eurozone as a whole. One quarter of one percent off interest rates will not solve that.

 

        I will be pressing again for a Mandate referendum to ask the voters soon if they want the government to negotiate a new relationship with the EU based on trade and poltical co-operation. I think we could get this through the current Commons if all Conservatives will vote for it — unlike an In/Out referendum – and get some movement at last on the UK’s need to do something different now the Euro area is pressing on with complete political, fiscal and monetary union.

         I am posting this today to remind readers that I have been pushing for this for some time, and that any action I take next week is not a belated response to any improvement in the UKIP vote that some are forecasting. I would still want people to have an In/Out referendum after the renegotiation, based on the new terms.

The BBC has had much sport displaying and increasing the splits in the Eurosceptic vote between UKIP and the Conservatives.  There are always UKIP people and even some Conservatives who will play along with this BBC agenda.

The BBC  have spent an equal amount of energy ensuring the real splits between the Greens and the Lib Dems are not brought to light, though the Lib Dems are defending the second largest number of Council seats and the Greens have a better track record at winning seats than UKIP, including one in Parliament.

I realise the BBC is never going to represent the majority  of people who value the flexibility of their car for work and pleasure, and resent the strident anti motorist stance of the ultra greens. I understand the BBC will not stand up for Granny when she complains that green energy is too dear for her to keep warm -or they will run a piece demanding more public subsidy. BBC journalists as a whole just do not understand how most of us feel, that we like  belonging to the modern world, so we can use some of the great technolgy it offers, and need cheaper energy to enjoy it to the full.

I would like the BBC to even up their coverage of other  parties by submitting the Greens and their more mainstream Lib Dem big brothers and sisters to some scrutiny for their policies of hounding the motorist and pricing people out of the energy market. They could seek to answer the important question “Are the Greens truly much greener than the Lib Dems?” Which of these two green parties has the best way of torturing motorists to get them off the roads? Who has the most devilish plans to drive energy prices higher to control its use?

The journalists should press until one or other says “Let them all walk”. Will one of them tell Granny that energy prices on their watch do need to rise until she either wears extra woollies or shivers at home?  That would make as entertaining box office as the Eurosceptic  scraps we have been hearing.

 

 

The bruising rows about whether individual budgets should be ring fenced have always struck me as an odd way to build a budget. Whitehall public spending debates are all set up for the parade of the bleeding stumps, as departments claim that if they are going to face a “cut” they will have to discontinue something sensitive or popular. The system is designed to protect the paperclips and the new computers, the travel budgets and the recruitment of more staff or consultants.

I asked recently how much departments spent on  travel  for officials and Ministers in 2012-13.  The Foreign Office, Health and Environment Departments did not bother to reply. The Treasury said £1.5m,  Business £2.9 m, with International development coming up with an eye popping £11.25m. I accept they need to visit the places they are giving money to, but Business needs to visit places we are selling goods to.

I asked how many new computers and tablets each Department had bought over the last two years.Education said 2624, Health 3090 and International development 4027. Only the Home Office bought more, at 7766. The Treasury kept their buying spree down to just 2. Once again the Foreign Office did not stoop to  a reply.

All this shows several trends. Firstly, government does not treat Parliamentary questions as seriously as they used to. Secondly, if you give a department a large increase in its budget, as with International development, they spend much more on  themselves on items like new computers and travel. Thirdly these two simple questions, even allowing for under recording and non answers in some cases, seem to show that departments are still spending on things that could be cut.

 

          I warmed to President Obama when as a candidate he pledged to shut down this US prison.

          I thought the US and the Uk fought for liberty, for the right of everyone under suspicion  to a fair trial, for habeas corpus.

           The men in this prison should either be charged and tried, or let go. Guantanamo is incompatible with our ideals of liberty and democracy.

 

        The gopvernment has a long wish list of new infrastructure projects. Some of the items on it are necessary and desirable. A few new power stations and some extra road capacity would be most welcome. Some of the dearest ideas, like HS2, are far more contentious. They have keen supporters, but also many strong critics claiming they are a waste of money.

     As I have written before, it is a strange idea that any item of public spending classified as capital spending is now thought of as good. We are told it must be a good idea, because it creates jobs for the building industry, and offers us the prospect of returns in years to come. The trouble is, some of the public sector capital spending does not offer us future dividends but guarantees future public spending to service the debts and pay the running costs of the new facilities. It is not a good idea to agree to everything with the label of capital spending.  We have to consider future affordability.

         My view is the government’s £310 billion wish list is too big, and includes some projects that are not going to produce a sensible future return. Doubtless it will not all the built in a hurry anyway.It also excludes some other projects that could be good value and are needed.

       The government has to ask itself how does it pay for all this? £310 billion is  a large sum of money. Let’s look at it per head. It runs out at £5000 each for every man, woman and child in the UK.

        We could raise this money in tax if the government decided to take over all the projects, or if private finance was difficult to come by.

       We could borrow it for now, and then get people to pay extra taxes or user charges over a period to pay back the debt. This will be dearer than an immediate tax rise, but spread over a longer period. If the investment broke even people would pay around £10,000 extra tax or charges   if it was borrowed for around 25 years. If the investments lose money or require susbisdy then taxpayers will end up paying a lot more.

         The government could print the money and not aim to raise it through borrowing or taxes.

         The government could borrow it but aim to inflate away some of the real cost of repayment.

          None of these options sounds great. The last thing we need to day is higher taxes. Relying on more money printing or inflation is not a good call. Borrowing more when we have too much debt already has been ruled out by government rhetoric.

          So what should be done?More of the necessary investment, like new energy capacity, and broadband, should be financed in the private sector and subject to a market test. That way we are more likely to get investments that add to our total wealth and income in years ahead, instead of cursing taxpayers with more tax and borrowing bills.

         What new infrastructure do you want, and how should we pay for it?

 

          I have been very tolerant of the UKIP bloggers who regularly use this site to tell us UKIP is about to make a breakthrough. Unlike the supporters of other parties, they also write in a more party partisan way, a course of action more appropriate to confine  during elections  to proper leaflets under normal election expense rules.

       I have been regularly criticised by UKIP supporters for pointing out their lack of electoral success so far in Council and Parliamentary elections.  I argued prior to 2010 they would not win a single Parliamentary seat, even though they fought Buckingham where there was no Conservative, Labour or Lib Dem candidate. They have not  won a single by election for Parliament either.

         So let me indulge them again, by asking this simple question. What would constitute a “break through” for UKIP in the County elections? How many Councils would they need to win outright? How many seats in total would they need to take? Anyone can express a view, as it is the question UKIP have wanted us all to consider.

          If  UKIP members now think their party will not this time make a break through by winning control of County Councils, what would they regard as a good result?  Is the main aim in effect  to get more Councils into Labour hands, by taking more votes from Conservatives than from Labour?  How many such results  would represent a “UKIP victory”?

Memo:  There are 2409 seats up for election. Conservatives currently hold 1477, Lib Dems 480, Labour 255 and Others 197. I think UKIP is defending 3 County Council seats, but would be happy to be corrected if I have missed some.

 

 When some politicians talk of red lines I start to count the spoons.

The worst offenders were Labour Ministers telling us they had defended the UK’s essential “red lines” when agreeing to the wide ranging federal Treaties of Nice, Amsterdam and Lisbon.They assured us  the UK would still be free to settle its own tax, welfare and benefits policies, and would still have its own criminal justice systems.

 Try telling that to Mrs May as she tries to find a way of deporting someone, or to Iain Duncan Smith as he loses yet another case on benefits at the ECJ, or to the Tresasury as they witness yet another European Court judgement on corporation tax, or further requirements on VAT, a common EU tax, or to Mr Harper as he considers the latest Commissioner demand that we help more EU migrants to receive our benefits.

This week-end the issue is Mr Obama’s use of the red line phrase over Syria. Let’s hope the delay and the spin in taking action in response to the likely use of chemical weapons in Syria is a sign that he did not really mean his red line after all, just like Mr Blair in Europe. The administration is rightly demanding more proof that chemical weapons were used, that they were used by the Syrian government, and that the user had the full authority of Assad. If this is forthcoming then it is a war crime. War criminals need prosecution once they have been toppled from the protections of state power.

Let us suppose they can prove war crimes – there is plenty of evidence anyway  of how loathsome this Syrain government is, and how cruel it is towards its own citizens with or without using chemical weapons. Shelling and bombing civilian populations with conventional munitions can impose horrendous injuries and deaths. The issue should be how could western military intervention help, rather than whether there is sufficient pretext for such intervention.

The problems with any military  intervention are manifold. How could western bombs rain down without killing some people who are not part of the government and state armed forces?  If the west uneashes some of its might to tip the balance in  favour of a rebel victory, what kind of a government might replace Assad’s?  How would any such replacement government heal the wounds of the current civil war? Is there a danger that more people who do not share the west’s beliefs in democracy, freedom and human rights take over in this blighted state? Could a change of government usher in a new instability, as pro Assad forces became the new rebels?