It would seem to me that whether to support the Corbyn plan for bringing Johnson down, or not, is the only question of relevance to Remainers right now.
Corbyn has appealed for support from opponents of No Deal to help bring down the government, and to then support him as prime minister so that Article 50 can be extended, a general election can be called, and a second referendum be held, in that order.
Of course there are problems with the proposal. It would seem to make sense to use any unity to call a second referendum before a general election. Unless that is done the referendum might not be held. And any general election would be about the referendum and not how to create policy to move on from it. The sequencing does appear wrong.
And there are doubts about Corbyn's control of Labour. But it seems nothing will stop some Labour members pushing their own self-destruct buttons.
So I get the reservations. But I suggest that they are misplaced. This is a moment of crisis. The greater good has to prevail. The greater good is preventing No Deal. And that requires uncomfortable compromises.
Whether Corbyn's demand is the best, or not, does not matter. Without Labour there is no plan. This is the one they propose. And it is decidedly time limited, with anyone backing it knowing that he only has to deviate one iota from it and they can pull his house down. As such no one will be giving him a blank cheque by supporting this move.
And there is no other option.
Caroline Lucas tried, and backfired, badly.
The LibDems are not going to drive this process right now: their only chance is to capitalise on it.
The SNP have said yes. They like making it clear Labour depends on them.
So it is the only show in town.
And in that case, and because of its limited but appropriate aspiration, I think it has to be supported.
The job is to block No Deal. Heaven help those who say that's what they want and then assist Johnson's survival.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
I tend to agree but, even with the Lib Dems on board, isn’t the bigger problem persuading enough Tories to support this in a VONC? I have mixed feelings about him personally but I just can’t see any Tories lining up behind him on this.
I don’t dispute that…
But I am a pragmatist
This is now the only game in town
After years of talk it is now decision time. Those opposing no-deal now have to swallow their pride and cooperate.
The Liberal Democrats trying to insist on a different leader of the Labour Party is ridiculous and an irrelevant distraction.
It’s up to them to get around the table and agree on a plan for a temporary coalition. To say they won’t even get around that table unless Corbyn goes is both petty and dangerous. Corbyn’s Labour are the only show in town.
The Lib Dems 14 MP’s are not in a position to be making demands, but they do have form for this type of nonsense: “Nick Clegg: I could work with Labour, just not Gordon Brown” https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2010/apr/26/nick-clegg-hung-parliament-labour
I’m undecided re. the timing of referendum first, election later. What would be on the ballot paper, and what happens if we lose again? Brexit is toxic but this government is rotten. It has to go.
I heard Jo Swinson on Today this morning in as close to a car crash interview it is possible to have without running off the road.
Jeremy Corbyn’s letter lays out the only realistic path.
There is no time to legislate for another referendum, so a GE is the only possibility.
He is talking of time limits for a replacement government, and other parties and No Deal opposing MPs have expressed interest in discussing the offer.
Basically, the Lib Dems leadership has not been cured of it’s Tory affections.
If I were a Lib Dem member or voter, I would be very worried as to where Jo wants to take them if her 6,000 majority in her Scottish seat is not overturned at the next GE. It doesn’t look good from here……..
There’s another reason for Jo Swinson being utterly opposed to Corbyn becoming PM no matter how short his tenure might be: Corbyn has stated that he wouldn’t prevent a Scottish Independence Referendum if Scotland shows a desire for one. If this were to happen and Scotland were to vote for independence (as polls are increasingly indicating), there would be no job for an MP for East Dunbartonshire, so no obvious career path through the Commons to the House of Lords for Jo Swinson.
True….
The view in my Labour and Green voting household?
Corbyn should have suggested someone else as the leader. He is asking No Deal avoidists to rally to him. It does look like self aggrandisement and Labour pinching the upper hand. He is still a controversial character – or at least painted as one – playing to too may crowds in his own party.
Surely the first point was to organise a meeting and hack the method out? See how the various ‘sod No Deal’ parties could abide each other?
We believe he should have used more emollient language which would have enabled Labour’s plans to breath some air. He should have sacrificed himself for a the greater cause. It would have gone down well. Leadership is also about taking back seat and knowing when you are NOT needed.
I would be quite happy for Heidi Alexander or Caroline Lucas to be leader of such a group because lets face it – the old monotheistic politics is finished. We need new combinations of interests to push us forward.
All heard
But the time for arguing on anything but No Deal is over for now
Oh I agree Richard – but Corbyn’s approach play was flawed and will not help or unite the anti-No Deal contingent.
Having said that, Swinson seems to be down playing her initial irritation now and seems more open. It could very well be that a message is getting through somewhere.
Maybe….there is time
I’d much rather Lucas, she’s more…everything really…a cut and a half above the others. But she blew her chances with a rare but significant mistake this last week. We have no time. We need to swallow our dislikes/reservations and “get on with it”, as Leavers would say.
We have to get this No Deal dead and buried.
I really, really don’t give a damn what Corbyn&co are trying to aggrandise.
I just want to use them and their ambitions to get this done.
Then we can get to grips with policies and politics, in detail.
We can always see if Corbyn will agree to a PV first while negotiations are on the table.
“So I get the reservations. But I suggest that they are misplaced. This is a moment of crisis. The greater good has to prevail. The greater good is preventing No Deal. And that requires uncomfortable compromises.
“Whether Corbyn’s demand is the best, or not, does not matter. Without Labour there is no plan.”
Well said Sir!
Moreover, the anti-Corbyn centrists hereby check their relevance and their legitimacy. Quite a few of them are testing the support of their CLP membership and the wider Labour Movement.
Agreed – it is a national (and international come to that as the 27 other EU countries are involved as well) in this emergency. Although the ultimate solving of this crisis is to revoke Article 50, in the meantime Parliament must be steered through various stages. All parties must work together and all MPs of goodwill too, It is a pity that the Liberals are reverting to opportunistic sectarianism especially when trust in them was so shattered by the student fees fiasco, supporting Tory austerity, privatising Royal Mail et al. Party co-operation woked with the Brecon bye-election, the Liberals should develop from this rather than pursuing their apparent wrecking policy now.
The appalling self inflicted wound that has been created within the Union and in England has been to divide both utterly. Unless there is a clear and unequivocal majority either in favour of leaving or to remain within the EU, and it doesn’t really matter which for political stability, then this divide and ongoing instability will exist for a long time.
The clear Tory policy is to campaign hard now so that they mop up the UKIP and Brexit Party votes by promising “Leave means leave” and rely on a split remain vote in an attempt to get a small majority in Parliament . They will then broker that as a mandate to leave with no deal. It is clear that the Tory party expects an election and as such don’t really care if there is a confidence vote which is why they have begun their election campaign now.
Disappointingly Corbyn has been largely silent letting others do the tv appearances and press so giving the Tories the head start.
Dominic Grieve has said in the last hour that he will not facilitate putting Corbyn into number 10. We have to face facts, and whether we like it or not, there are a number of people on the Tory benches who are looking at Corbyn and No Deal and thinking the former is worse than the latter. These people are willing to join a unity government and under a Labour politician, but Corbyn is a non-starter for them. If Corbyn was a genuine Remainer (and of course he is not) then he would see that his position as head of a unity government, temporary or not, is a non-starter and he should step aside for Starmer.
The problem with having a General Election before a 2nd Ref is that a number of PeopleVote supporters will be deselected before the HoC gets a chance to vote for a new EURef, making it less likely to happen. I suspect Corbyn knows this.
Tory MP Sarah Wollaston calls Corbyn ‘the less of two evils’ !!!!!!
I put it to you that some people (including Grieve who I’m knocking a point of two off) still haven’t got it yet.
It’s silly. But it is after all Thatcher’s Britain we are still living in even now…………yes – even now.
Pragmatism I quite understand, so I ask this solely pragmatic question: how many Conservative MPs will back it? If Dominic Grieve will not back it (and he is a viable litmus test), then I suggest that this had better not be “the only game in town”.
Pragmatically, I reserve the right to move to another idea
Some economist or other* once said that when the facts change that’s what we should do
*I do know who
Corbyn’s plan is democratic. That’s why most of the remainder MPs don’t like it – there’s a danger it won’t prevent brexit.
Maybe they’ll realise in time that there is no way remain can be guaranteed and they just have to take their best shot at avoiding no deal.
It is a audacious checkmate threatening move by the Labour leadership. They had to wait until they could see the whites of the eyes – it is not a winning one yet because…
Brexit has always been a project of the neoliberal global robber barons. A Hard Brexit in particular. Their representatives in Parliament with all their song and dance are there to deliver it.
There was never any chance of Mays Withdrawal Agreement succeeding with its inbuilt failure. And she would have walked away from the EU. Except that Labour had expertly managed to get a Meaningful Vote on the WA.
The only way to achieve the hard brexit was to let the clock run down on A50 with its built in 2 year time limit. That is why it was not progressed in the first year and various Brexit ministers were used. May failed and was ousted because she allowed the March 29th deadline to be moved to October by some fast work by the EU under Merkel and co in a corridor, while she sat in a room looking forward to her payoff ‘Seat at the Table’.
The efforts of the neolib representatives: The ‘defectors’; Watson urging his front bench to work with the LibDems rather than the other way round; the associated words of the ex frontbenchers centrists to try to get Mays auto-failing deal to fail once more; the talk of an ‘Emergency’ government without the Labour leadership (the only emergency would be a hard brexit!) to avoid a general election that threatens to let the Corbynites in – ALL of that is aimed to deliver the planned HARD brexit.
So – the numbers since the DUP conspired support after the failed 2017 hit and run Election gambit (to remove the Corbynites control of the ‘opposition’) has always come down to a minimum dirty dozen Tory MP’s to actually vote AGAINST their own party, not just abstain – to get close enough to have a general election. That is the only thing that will allow the EU to judiciously consider a further extension and possible renegotiation of the WA (if the unilateral tory red lines are changed) or if the country wants to confirm or withdraw
a brexit.
This has all been condensed down to the very exact and short letter from Corbyn (hardly publicised by the msm!)
This is about whether we really have a democracy, rather than the pantomime of one, that have been subjected to for 40 years.
Donegroanin’s analysis is absolutely right.
Corbyn, whether he is a leaver or a remainer, has throughout the two years+ been one of the few politicians who has sought to find a solution that could reconcile the two sides. His proposal is eminently pragmatic in allowing the people to make a more reasoned decision (and also in the interests of his Party, why should it not be?)
An election first will provide leavers and remainers with a determining voice, and a clear indication of how the elected Government will mitigate the effects resulting from the second referendum – leave or remain.
Those elected MPs who have talked of voting against their Party whip hold the future the UK in their ultimate decision in the Lobby. Nothing can alter that situation.
As a remainer living in France, I have always had confidence in Corbyn’s judgement and sense of timing. During the first referundum he campaigned to remain, while not overlooking to point out deficiencies in the EU.
I, a total and committed remainer, am coming round to the view that Britain should be plunged ito the consequences of a No Deal Brexit. The simple, sad fact is that our side are not and never have loudly and passionately presented their vision of a Britain fully and whoeheartedly in the EU. When I see the image of Mitterand and Kohl holding hands before the coffins of two soldiers slain at Verdun, one German, one French, and when I remind myself that Kohl was a conservative and (briefly) in the Wehrmacht, and Mitterand a socialist and in the Resistance, former enemies, I genuinely come close to tears. But this fundamental principle, this golden ideal, this sacred gospel, peace and reconciliation between former enemies in a devastated Europe, never was proclaimed from the rooftops around our land. Instead, we heard mere complaints about long traffic jams at Dover, and interference with supply chains to motor car factories. The remain campaign was one long whinge punctuated by mutterings of doom and gloom and apocalypse. The leavers’ however, had passion, and the clarion calls of freedom and sunlit uplands and control and having our country back. Dominic Cummings ensured an inspirational vision was put before the nation. Even now, the Remain camp is divided and peevish and whingeing. No true leader is presenting her/himself to the British nation(s). Progress in science is achieved by testing and either proving or disproving hypotheses. Much of Britain now is convinced by the hypothesis that Brexit means freedom and prosperity and a golden future. The leavers will not be convinced that a no deal Brexit will be a disaster. And should, improbably now, no deal be averted, there will be a sullen and dangerous anger abroad in the land. It is an accepted truth of medical science that physical illness will often be a reflection and consequence of negative emotions in the mind; heat probelms, cancers, other illnesses, are more common in people whose mental and emotional state is distorted and convoluted by conflicting passions. And so it may be in a nation as a whole: abandon Brexit, and half the nation will be convulsed in impotent fury. Where will that fury find an outlet? Would Britain be left a sick and cancerous nation? Reluctantly, I am now saying, Brexit – bring it on. Tesat the hypothesis. Only by disproving the idea that a golden future awaits if only we have “freedom”, only by demonstrating the apocalyptivc consequences of Brexit, do we demonstrate that Brexit is a mistake.
You know Mike I can see where you are coming from. I said it my myself in 2016.
However, I would ask you to consider that the biggest latent threat is how Boris & Co choose to capitalise on the chaos. Because they will.
The other factor that turned me away from the view you propound above is the lack of legitimacy in the original BREXIT voting process – particularly No Deal which is an insult heaped on top of insult.
”The simple, sad fact is that our side are not and never have loudly and passionately presented their vision of a Britain fully and wholeheartedly in the EU.”
This telling point is a reminder that Brexit is not a new phenomenon; it was latent in Britain and is now potent. It may be unstoppable in England; if it is to be stopped Remainers are going to have to do a lot more than they have managed to achieve so far. It crosses my mind that while I have no doubt that Remainers are sincere, it is insufficiently vital to them, a long way short of critical; and certainly less important than the conviction and determination of the Brexiteers, who are unrelenting.
In any case a no-deal Brexit and a Johnson-Cummings government is now quite likely to bring the 1707 Union to an end. A lot of people in Scotland have had quite enough of this. Turning Britain into an elective dictatorship in which a very small majority are casually entitled to dictate the rights, politics and life of the narrow losers in a referendum is quite simply not acceptable: at least in Scotland where a large majority of the opposite opinion strongly prevails. Things fall apart,
“The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.” (WB Yeats, The Second Coming)
I fear you are very right
Mike,
I voted remain mostly for reasons of continuing peace in Europe – that’s the main plus point of the EU IMHO.
My family lived in Germany in the eighties as part of the cold-war NATO forces opposing the perceived threat from the USSR. As a kid growing up on a military base in a foreign land WW1 and WW2 loomed large in my imagination so I totally get your sentiments about the heartfelt love of peace back in those days.
However, power and politics eats away corrosively even on the most powerful memories. I feel all of Europe (and the world beyond) is forgetting the cost of their ancestors’ failure to compromise (witness Greece vs the German led Troika these days).
Consequently I was pretty much on the fence coming in to the referendum due to the Greek debt debacle and just fundamentally did not believe the EU capable of meaningful change away from its current neoliberal form.
I wouldn’t call myself a brexiter but I am happy enough to brexit and I think there is some chance of our leaving actually giving the EU the kick up the backside it needs to change course.
I also just moved to Scotland and to be quite honest, though I am an Englishman I’d be quite happy for Scottish independence.
Because of my MMT understanding (and reading E F Schumacher’s Small is Beautiful at an early age) I think small independent sovereign states can potentially thrive internally through high democratic responsiveness AND get along happily and profitably with their neighbours internationally.
That may seem a pretty forlorn hope right now with someone like Borris in charge but leaders and situations do change – and not always for the worse!
Just don’t assume everyone who is happy to leave the EU is an unthinking fool. It’s honesty less black and white than you think.
Schumacher was a powerful influence on me
Not the only reason I am green inclined, but one of them
Mike Ghirelli wrote: “But this fundamental principle, this golden ideal, this sacred gospel, peace and reconciliation between former enemies in a devastated Europe, never was proclaimed from the rooftops around our land. Instead, we heard mere complaints about long traffic jams at Dover, and interference with supply chains to motor car factories.”
I suggest that Britain’s problem long pre-dates the potential outcomes of Brexit. With the benefit of hindsight it seems to me that Britain has been indulging in self-delusion since 1945. The possibility of invasion of Britain by the Nazis was a close-run thing; much closer than our triumphalist post-war movies and children’s comics portrayed. This triumphalism prevailed even though the Empire shrank and Suez was seen internationally as a humiliation. Decades of bumbling government also did little to induce some reality into Britain’s view of itself as a heavy-hitter in international affairs, so we now have a highly divisive Brexit in which the same self-delusion is evident.
A little humility in the post-war period of the type personified by Mitterand and Kohl might have helped us as we considered Brexit before the referendum.
The “delusion” has a history buried under taboos. The Conservative Party has never had the courage to look into its own soul, or write its history with candour. It has never been able to explain Sir Joseph Ball, even to itself.
He was new to me
Thank you
I think Glasgow Council offers an instructive example of how minority government can work.
After the election the Council was comprised as follows:
SNP 39
Scottish Labour 31
Scottish Conservative 8
Scottish Greens 7
The SNP led the council administration but then needed support from other parties on a vote by vote basis.
The Greens support the SNP, but refused – wisely – to enter into a coalition which they rightly calculated to be Lose/Lose: if successful the majority party gets the credit, and if it fails the minority party gets the blame. Just ask the Lib Dems, who tended to give up principles for power.
So the Greens obliged SNP to share power in the Committees, above all the Executive Committee, which has 23 multi-party members, divided proportionately so SNP is in a minority: 11 SNP, 8 Labour, 2 Conservative, 2 Green.
Translating this ‘Nondominium’ (a neologism I coined a decade ago) to Parliament then we could have Boris (who would drop the current detritus like a shot: if you don’t like his principles, he has others) as a Prime Minister who no longer wields an elective dictatorship.
He would have the ‘Supreme Leader’ right of final veto (precisely the role of Khamenei in Iran’s supremely paranoid and dysfucntional constitution) with Corbyn as Deputy Leader also with a veto right (he would not do it otherwise) and then an agreed sharing around of cabinet seats by party. Then I would propose cabinet members made accountable to their beefed up select committees.
So during the period to 2022, the best individual expertise that could be brought together, based on relevant experience/subject knowledge, would engage in negotiating the Political Declaration based on May’s deal, and this Brexit parliament would continue until an Election which would double as an a Referendum.
In parallel, I think we will see new mutualist (cooperative individualist) policies emerge bottom up at local level. These would be policies for housing, energy, care, food, health etc independence and resilience, for which the enabling factor is decentralised/distributed risk/cost/surplus & data sharing agreements and credit instruments. Doing this would have course also resolve issues with Scotland, Wales and so on.
Living in Linlithgow as I do, I like to say West Lothian Qustions have West Lothian Answers,
I like it
I can’t see the required degree of maturity existing to deliver it
I do think your pessimism is unjustified….but as an optimist I only ever get unpleasant surprises
I mainly get pleasant ones
Perhaps we should see Corbyn’s letter as an opening into negotiation with the other parties and, as talks progress, he might then withdraw as putative interim PM in favour of someone like Keir Starmer. In this way, not only does he get the credit for beginning the process towards stopping a no deal exit, but he might also get the credit for putting the country’s needs before his own desire to be PM.
As to having a second referendum before a general election, there is simply not enough time to organise one. The Institute for Government estimates that a minimum of 21 weeks from introducing the legislation to the day of voting is necessary (the EU Referendum in 2016 took 56 weeks). Primary legislation has to be passed by Parliament and with MPs in their current fractious mood there is no guarantee that this could happen; Johnson’s crew would be a wrecking ball having been ousted. In addition, the Electoral Commission has a statutory role to play both in assessing the referendum question and appointing the lead campaign groups for each possible referendum outcome, thereby determining the number of groups. Then there’s the question itself — leave with deal (whose?), leave with no deal, remain.
I really don’t understand the objection to Corbyn if the purpose is to avoid a no deal exit at all costs. Even if he does become PM for a short period of time after a successful vote of no confidence he will not be able to do anything other than ask the EU for an extension of Article 50 and then have parliament dissolved for a general election which could take place five weeks after dissolution. He will not have a parliamentary majority for any other legislation. The only variable in this will be how long it takes for the EU to agree an extension.
Anyone refusing to countenance Corbyn as a caretaker PM at the outset of this process is effectively voting in favour of no deal, whatever their stated intentions might be.
Your last two paras are my logic
I think Corbyn has basically called the LibDem bluff. They were talking about not supporting another confidence vote back in March and looked ready to jump back into bed with The Torys once more.
Many of the Corbyn critics think it is Corbyn’s gift to hand over the leadership of the Labour Party to someone else like Starmer or Yvette Cooper. What they forget is the democratic process for the election of leader within the Labour Party. Corbyn was elected by near on 60% of the membership on two occasions. Part of the reason behind that vote was that members saw him as a man of integrity who held strong socialist beliefs. At the heart of those beliefs is the immediate need to sweep away the neo- Liberal economic agenda. He therefore faces two major obstacles.
The first are the Labour Party MP’s (PLP), many of whom supported the neo- Liberal agenda under Blair and Brown. Many fear being deselected by their own local Labour Party Members. The fact that Corbyn has managed to remain as leader, seeing off Cameron and May, whilst holding the PLP at bay, demonstrates he has tactical ability that could hold a minority administration together whilst implementing the suspension of article 50 and calling a General Election.
The second, are the Conservatives and Lib Dem’s who hold neo- Liberal principles at their core. There has been a desperate attempt to discredit Corbyn as leader in order to ensure neo- Liberal principles remain unchallenged. This strategy will be undermined if Corbyn is allowed to lead a minority government, even for a short period, into an election and Corbyn is able to demonstrate he is a statesman and a man who can be trusted. It would probably be enough to ensure that Labour are returned as a majority government.
I would therefore argue it is not within Corbyn’s gift to stand aside to allow another Labour member to take over the leadership. The only acceptable alternative Labour candidate would be one that mainstream media saw as a supporter of the neo-Liberal agenda and a supporter of the status quo. For Corbyn to do this would mean his integrity would be compromised and he would have to betray the membership who had supported him. There are also very slow democratic processes to work through within the Labour Party and don’t forget the Deputy Leader is Tom Watson who may claim he is the next in line to replace Corbyn if he was to stand aside. For those of you unfamiliar with internal Labour politics Watson would have no chance of retaining his Deputy Leader position were there to be another election.
The other possibility is for a section of the PLP to abandon the Labour Party and join with the Lib Dems and dissident Tories to form a government of national unity. The chances of this are virtually non- existent if we look at the suicidal attempts to form a new party by Change UK, now the Independent Party in recent months. Some of those Labour MPs facing a real threat of deselection may attempt to manoeuvre Corbyn aside if he successfully wins a no confidence vote in the government, but if Corbyn sees this a real threat then it becomes in his interest to delay the no confidence call until after the Labour Party Conference, at the end of September rather than on September 3. Those genuine believers in Remain would then have no choice but to follow Corbyn’s leadership, allowing him into office, not as a government of national unity, but as a minority administration, purely with the task of suspending A50 and calling an election.
I think this would be a folly strategy, but probably inevitable in the game of brinkmanship that is currently being played out which all the time increases the risk of a no deal Brexit. Those genuine Remainers can play their brinkmanship games for a couple of weeks more by speculating on alternative leaders of a national unity government, but if they want the best chance of avoiding No Deal the sooner they get behind Corbyn, rather than undermining him and then having to save face by backing him, the better.
I think the SNP’s motivation is more than reminding Mr Corbyn he needs them. The SNP have been the firmest, most consistent and best proponents of Remaining in these islands and this is consistent with that. Also if we are to an independent country it would be best if the country we share a border with is not a Xenophobic economic basket case and we have, as EU members to harden that border. Better that rUK and iScotland are both in the EU.
But note that polls have shown over 70% of people in Scotland are very relaxed about and even supportive of hardening our border. But ScotGov has to take the bigger picture around that into account.
Note to to those unaware but there are far fewer crossing points of the Scottish border than most borders. If we regain administration of the Scottish Crown possession of Berwickshire then the border will run down the middle of the Tweed for a lot of it’s length and along mountain tops for much of the rest before descending towards Gretna and Carlisle. The three main points then would be Carlisle, Berwick and Coldstream. Only two for rail. That would hold even if we extended the Borders rail line back to Carlisle, or our side of the border there as it would intersect with the West Coast Mainline.
I also think that if rUK Brexits whilst we Remain having a border in the North and decision makers and media types having to cross customs and immigration when coming up to shoot grouse*, Fish, Walk or deerstalk etc or in August for the Edinburgh Festival will concentrate minds. There will be articles on the inconvenience when once it was so easy.
So it could work to help bring rUK back into the EU in time.
*we won’t be able to kill the industry quickly. It will take a Land Value tax to really bite on the economics of it along with funding for other uses and rewilding (Lynx, wolves and even bears are possible, think of the ecotourism) to inhibit it except for those with very deep pockets.
An LVT might also end the Estates practices of refusing to sell or release plots for housing or business development in Highland and Island communities. Businesses have failed to get going because no premises can be found or built because the Estate simply refuses. An LVT would make finding such funding sources urgent for Estates.
The SNP govt looked seriously at introducing it especially as a replacement for the Council Tax but it foundered on Westminster intransigence. There’s a major direct grant scheme for council funding which is predicated on the number of council tax payers. ScotGov asked if this could be relaxed for other sorts of tax payers but Westminster and Whitehall said ‘No’.
But it means a lot of the planning and design work has been done so it can be rolled out fairly quickly in advance of Independence Day. We know there are better and more productive uses of the vast areas set aside and intensively managed for grouse moors. The public abhors the ongoing raptor persecution. A golden eagle has been photographed Flying just this week near the Balmoral Estate with a gin trap still around one leg. What was it baited with to attract a large eagle? Efforts are underway to find and help it, before more malign actors do or it succumbs.
I still say that BREXIT is a concern of the English ruling elite spanning all political outlooks and they have effectively nationalised this sentiment.
Since the death of one of our parents, my brother and I have ben looking at family trees and we found that in the past, members of our family lived on the East Coast and were taught different trades by the Dutch of all people.
Our history – particularly our economic and social history – has always been entwined with Europe whether the Leavers or the Elite like it or not. Common people (whose output has in turn benefited the country as a whole) have benefited from Europe – the UK Eastern seaboard could be said to owe its existence to this relationship – we know of many families whose ancestors gravitated towards the East Coast benefiting from the interaction/connections with mainland Europe.
And yet we have a No Deal scenario? We want to just walk away from one of the oldest trading relationships perhaps in the world?
Qui bono? I think that the answer to that question can be found in the beginning of the ownership tree in Richard’s post about the PFI police college.