Category: Politics

Mark Meadows is a liar—at least by omission. And newly revealed text messages prove it. 

In 2021, the former White House chief of staff for Donald Trump released a book, The Chief’s Chief, which offered a sycophantic account of his tenure serving the reality-TV-star-turned-president. It made little news because it provided little news. In the book, Meadows fawns over Dear Leader. He blames Trump’s 2020 loss on Fox News’ less-than-enthusiastic coverage of Trump, other purported media conspiracies, and massive fraud. Of course, he cites no confirmed instances of significant voter fraud. But he insists it was clear Trump won. “I knew he didn’t lose,” he writes. How? Well, because of all the “palpable” excitement at the Trump rallies and the “feeling I got during the final days of President Trump’s campaign.” Alrighty, then. But there’s more: “If you looked at the social media traffic from that night—which, I did, constantly—there was no doubt about it: President Trump was going to be reelected by a healthy margin.” Talk about reality bias.

No savvy reader would expect Meadows to present an honest and accurate depiction of what transpired in the weeks after the election and on January 6. But he strives mightily to provide a phony recounting. He cites debunked allegations of fraud and claims the Democrats and the liberal media had plotted for years to set up a pretext in which Trump’s assertions of fraud could be dismissed as conspiracy theory nonsense and labeled “crazy” or “paranoid.” He calls this the “long con.” In Meadows’ telling, Trump and his attorneys merely engaged in legitimate court challenges to “uphold the Democratic process.” (Meadows mistakenly capitalizes “democratic.”) The problem, apparently, was that the courts, including the Supreme Court, didn’t have the guts to support these challenges. And then Trump, on January 6, simply made a farewell address to his followers that “did not call for violence,” and afterward he left the stage, informing Meadows he had no intention to head to the Capitol himself. When moments earlier he had told his loyalists that he would march with them toward Congress, Trump “had been speaking metaphorically.” (According to testimony provided to the House January 6 committee, Trump was intent on leading the throng and even got into a physical altercation with a Secret Service agent who would not allow him to do so.) Meadows shares not a single detail about his or Trump’s actions—or inaction—during the ensuing riot. 

Meadows was peddling disinformation. His book says nothing about Trump’s multiple efforts after Election Day to overturn the results. Missing from these pages: Trump pressuring Georgia election officials to “find” him enough votes to win that state (an effort in which Meadows participated); the fake electors scheme; Trump’s attempt to force the Justice Department to declare the election corrupt; the crazy conspiracy nutters who met with Trump and pushed him to seize voting machines; Trump muscling his vice president to block the certification of Joe Biden’s victory; Trump’s refusal to take steps to quell the January 6 riot; and much more. 

Also missing: any mention of the hundreds of text messages Meadows received from Republican elected officials and conservatives who pled with him to take drastic—and perhaps illegal—steps to undo the election results. 

This week, Talking Points Memo revealed a trove of thousands of text messages Meadows received and sent during the post-election period. Some of Meadows’ text messages had already been made public; many had not—particularly those in this set of messages that flowed to and from Republican members of Congress. A notable one was a text Rep. Ralph Norman (R-S.C.) zapped to Meadows on January 17, 2021, that cited a bonkers conspiracy theory about Dominion Voting Systems rigging the election and declared, “Our LAST HOPE is invoking Marshall Law!! PLEASE URGE TO PRESIDENT TO DO SO!!” (Norman misspelled “martial” law.)

A House member urging Trump to impose martial law—Meadows saw no reason to mention that in his book. 

As Talking Points Memo reports, “Meadows received at least 364 messages from Republican members of Congress who discussed attempts to reverse the election results with him. He sent at least 95 messages of his own… The members who messaged Meadows about challenging the election included some of the highest-profile figures on the right flank in Congress, such as Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX), Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH), and Rep. Mo Brooks (R-AL), all of whom are identified as playing leading roles in the effort to undo Trump’s defeat.” One dramatic message came from Rep. Brian Babin (R-Tex.) on November 6, three days after the election: “Mark, When we lose Trump we lose our Republic. Fight like hell and find a way. We’re with you down here in Texas and refuse to live under a corrupt Marxist dictatorship. Liberty!”

Throughout the post-election months, Meadows received multiple texts from Republican officials sharing crazy and baseless ideas about the election and extreme proposals for keeping Trump in office. Rep. Ted Budd (R-N.C.) texted Meadows a message saying there were links between Dominion and billionaire George Soros. Rep. Paul Gosar (R-Ariz.) shared with Meadows an unfounded election conspiracy theory that originated with Alex Jones, the notorious conspiracy-monger. 

Meadows didn’t discourage any of this.   

As Republican legislators schemed to thwart the congressional certification of the electoral college votes for Biden, they kept in close contact with Meadows, a former House member. He encouraged Republican legislators who told him they were trying to stop the certification. The text messages show he met with these officials and that this GOP effort to undermine the election was supported by right-wing dark money groups, including the Conservative Partnership Institute, which hired Meadows after Trump left office. At one point, Jordan texted him that Vice President Mike Pence should disqualify electoral votes from key states to prevent a certification of Biden’s victory, and Meadows replied, “I have pushed for this. Not sure it is going to happen.” 

For some reason, Meadows did not share any of this with the readers of his book, not the GOP legislators’ endeavors to defy the election results nor his own role in this and other attempts to keep Trump in power. These texts, as well as testimony given to the House January 6 committee, confirm that he was in the center of the storm throughout these turbulent weeks and on January 6. Yet his memoir essentially says, nothing to see. The texts not only illuminate the Republican assault on the 2020 election that Meadows was part of; they reveal his own profound mendacity. 

From a formal Attorney General opinion (no. 2022-L-07) responding to a query by the North Dakota Education Standards and Practices Board; it is dated Nov. 29, but was just posted on Westlaw:

… [Y]ou ask (1) whether private school teachers who are also mentors may participate in the Teacher Support System, and (2) whether private school teachers who are also mentors may receive grants to participate in the Teacher Support System. Nowhere in the applicable statute or administrative code are non-public school teachers prohibited from participating in the Teacher Support System.

However, the context of your question indicates the key issue underlying these questions is whether Article VIII, Section 5 of the North Dakota Constitution (“the Blaine Amendment”) prohibits teachers at sectarian schools from receiving grants from the Teacher Support System. It is my opinion that the Blaine Amendment is not enforceable under United States Supreme Court caselaw, and therefore teachers at sectarian schools may receive grants from the Teacher Support System….

The Blaine Amendment was adopted as Article 152 of the 1889 North Dakota Constitution and provides that “[n]o money raised for the support of the public schools of the state shall be appropriated to or used for the support of any sectarian school.” The North Dakota Supreme Court has held “[a] “sectarian institution’ is ‘an institution affiliated with a particular religious sect or denomination, or under the control or governing influence of such sect or denomination.”‘ Over time, the definition of “sectarian” has broadened to include “relating to” or “supporting a particular religious group and its beliefs.” As a result, the Blaine Amendment effectively means “[n]o money raised for the support of the support of the public schools of the state shall be appropriated to or used for the support of any [religious private school].”

The Teacher Support System is a mentoring program for new teachers operated by the North Dakota Education Standards and Practices Board (ESPB). A teacher who holds an initial, two-year license must participate in the Teacher Support System to be eligible to apply for a five-year-renewal license. The legislature appropriated $2,125,764 to the ESPB for the 2021-23 biennium to provide grants to Teacher Support System mentors. The applicable statutes and administrative code do not prohibit private school teachers from participating in the Teacher Support System as either mentors or mentees. Given that participation in the mentor program is a requirement for renewed licensure and the lack of contrary language in statute, it is my opinion that teachers at private schools may participate in the Teach Support System as mentors. Similarly, it is my opinion that teachers at private schools may receive grants for participating in the Teacher Support System.

However, this does not end the inquiry. As noted above, the Blaine Amendment bars appropriated funds and public money from being used to support any sectarian school. On its face, this prohibition would apply to Teacher Support System grants provided to mentors employed by sectarian schools.

However, in two recent decisions, the United States Supreme Court cast doubt on whether Blaine Amendments can be reconciled with the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. In Trinity Lutheran Church of Columbia, Inc. v. Comer, the Court held a “law … may not discriminate against ‘some or all religious beliefs.’ … The Free Exercise Clause protects against laws that ‘impose [] special disabilities on the basis of … religious status.”‘ The Blaine Amendment functionally prohibits religious private schools from receiving grants from the Teacher Support System, while teachers at non-religious private schools are allowed to receive the grants. This is precisely the type of disadvantage the Supreme Court concluded may not be imposed on the basis of religious status.

The Supreme Court went even further in Espinoza v. Montana Dept. of Revenue. In that case, the Court held that, because Montana’s Blaine Amendment had been applied to discriminate against schools and parents based on the religious character of the school at issue, the amendment was subject to the strictest level of judicial scrutiny. The Court made clear an interest in separating church and State “cannot qualify as compelling in the face of the infringement of free exercise.”  The Court concluded that “[a] State need not subsidize private education. But once a State decides to do so, it cannot disqualify some private schools solely because they are religious.”  Recently, the Supreme Court expanded the Espinoza holding in Carson v. Makin.  In Carson, the Court held the application of Maine’s Blaine Amendment to generally available tuition assistance payments violated the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment. The Court said the Blaine Amendment impermissibly denied public funding to certain private schools solely because the schools are religious.

Here, as in Carson and Espinoza, the state created a mentorship program that is mandatory for licensure renewal. Fairly applied, the Blaine Amendment would permit teachers at public schools and non-religious private schools to receive grants for participating in the mandatory program, while barring teachers at religious private schools from receiving the same grants. Based on Trinity Lutheran, Espinoza, and Carson, the Blaine Amendment cannot be enforced in any situation where doing so would disadvantage a sectarian school as compared to a non-religious private school simply because of the school’s sectarian nature. As a result, it is my opinion the United States Supreme Court has barred the state from enforcing its Blaine Amendment.

Based on binding United States Supreme Court caselaw, it is my opinion the Blaine Amendment unconstitutionally disadvantages sectarian schools. As a result, it is my opinion that teachers at all schools, including both non-religious and sectarian private schools, may participate in the Teacher Support Program as mentors, and may receive grants to support their participation….

UNRELIABLE STATISTICS, Green Party edition

Caroline Lucas is a cornucopia. Unreliable Statistics has to be filled, and the sometime leader of the Green Party filled it by herself from a single speech. In the debate on Wednesday’s Finance Bill, she told the House:

• It is estimated that the UK will lose 10% of its GDP by 2050 if we do not tackle climate change.
• BY 2025, global emissions from existing projects will be 22% too high to stay below 1.5 degrees.
• If the net zero transition is delayed by a decade and global temperatures reach 1.8°, by 2050 banks will face losses of £225 billion.
• Scientific reality makes it clear that fossil fuel assets are uneconomic and financially uncompetitive in a 1.5 or 2 degree world.

You have to love that “scientific reality”.

The two most unreliable computer models in existence are climate models and economic models. In climate catastrophe discourse they combine in fluid and chaotic combinations that Navier Stokes equations can’t describe.

It’s not the science that’s at fault – it’s the science activists. And then the science activist lobbyists. And then the science activist politicians. And then Caroline Lucas. 

RESEARCH HAS SHOWN THAT:

• 38% of people would buy a dog smuggled from another country. Elliot Colburn
• Nine out of 10 disabled people are worried about their energy bills this winter. Paulette Hamilton
• A study of the English concessionary travel scheme shows that for every £1 invested, nearly £3 of benefits were created. Steve McCabe
• Billionaires are responsible for a million times more greenhouse emissions than the average person. Prem Sikka
• We hold our breath when we are checking our emails which denies the brain oxygen. Hannah Bardell (from 2018, but her finding deserves to live forever)

SCOTS WAHEY

At a moment when Scottish support for independence reached a new high, the SNP elected a new leader in Westminster. Stephen Flynn seems a nice man, but troubled. Rishi Sunak welcomed him very nicely and “looked forward to constructive engagement” with him on the future of Scotland (laughter).

But to ask again the perennial question, what is the SNP doing in Westminster?

It’s nice to be able to provide a safe space for a political party to work through their problems. I suppose that’s the sort of people we English are. We welcome, don’t we? We give the Scottish Nationalist Party a quarter of our parliamentary benches to exercise their indigenous practices of abusing and reviling us who oppress and control and deny them democracy.

In our own ways, we English are the Queen, and the SNP is one big, various, multi-dimensional Prince Harry.

Maybe they will achieve the thing they say they want. But Guido worries how Scoxit will end.

If they do get their independence, they won’t be able to join the EU at once. They’ll have to adopt the Euro; they’ll have Greece-style austerity imposed on them, and they’ll go bust before their application goes through. At that point – abandoned by Brussels – as sure as gravity, we will have to bail them out. Our old friends, how could we ignore their piteous cries for help, warmth and shelter?

They’ll be seeking asylum by the million. The Lowlands will clear themselves. The SNP will demand representation in Westminster again.

Every cloud has a silver lining: it would be an ideal outcome for all independence-minded Scots. They will have refreshed their rationale for hating the English for the next 300 years. A country needs a reason to exist; it would cost us little and give them so much.

PAYING TRIBUTE

This last week, on 96 occasions, one MP “paid tribute” to another MP for good work, good effort, good effect. “Passionate advocacy” was applauded, as was “doughty defence” and “stalwart support”. Emily Thornberry got tribute for the tone she was striking.

Ninety-six “tributes” in a week.

Even Andrew Bridgen got some. Alas for Unfortunate Andrew, parliamentary tribute is not bankable.

It was not always thus.

A hundred years ago, Hansard tell us the Cyprus tribute was £215,000 – that has the tang of reality to it. In 1828, Palmerston announced that Greece was to become a dependency of Turkey and pay them an annual tribute, “to be determined by common consent” (smothered laughter).

Having said that, the very first edition of Hansard in 1803 records a tribute “to the criminal jurisprudence” of Ireland. In the following 20 years the term was used, sometimes in its fiscal sense but very often in its current usage, 297 times.

“Paying tribute” has expanded from those modest beginnings to the present day. Since the turn of this century, there have been 50,000 (fifty thousand!) instances of “tribute”. So, in 200 years, its usage has expanded from 297 occasions to 50,000.

It’s an expansion on the scale of income tax – which was introduced around the same time at some few pence in the pound. MPs might bear in mind that what “tribute” actually means is us giving them half our income every year.

COMMONS DÉTENTE

Last week in the Chamber, Michael Gove called a Labour MP, “My honourable Friend”. Johnny Mercer did the same, twice. Other Tories have been doing it, too. Repeatedly. It’s not a mistake anymore.

Even new Tory MPs know their own side is “my hon. Friend,” and the other side “the hon. Member”.

Something else is in play.

The beast was thought to be mythical but it seems that “a kinder, gentler politics” has emerged from the jungle, on soft feet.

We frequently hear a criticised minister respond with: “Can I gently say.” Also, caught last week, the very phrase David Cameron invented: “The hon. Lady is absolutely right and we will do exactly as she suggests.” What a swell of fellow feeling went through Labour women when he said that back in 2010.

Some of us remember the tribal, terrace-end politics under Blair and Brown. There was real angst and aggro there. Nicholas Soames goading John Prescott at the dispatch box: “Gin and tonic, Giovanni,” he’d heckle the minister. The flick on the nose is very much more enraging than the body blow.

Gordon Brown told his backbenches that the fundamental purpose of the Tory party was to suppress and frustrate the ambitions of the working class. He published a briefing document for them. It might have been called The Protocols of the Elders of Eton with its blood libels on the Conservative party.

No one was calling their opponents “my hon. Friend” across the aisle in those days.

That feeling – that opponents were wicked – was resurrected under Corbyn.

Observers say they see Keir Starmer returning to the class war, but he’s not really. Not like it has been. He wants to be friends with the enemy. He wants them to vote for him.

If this détente seems far-fetched, Guido will be collecting examples of this peculiar phenomenon for next week’s Shorts.

‘The protection of a biodiverse environment has been plagued by ill-management and the government’s failure to understand the tangible consequences of poor biodiversity’

Sarah Olney is the Lib Dem MP for Richmond Park

The protection of a biodiverse environment has been plagued by ill-management and the government’s failure to understand the tangible consequences of poor biodiversity. A quick glance at the headlines from over the last twelve months makes it plain to see that the state of biodiversity in the UK has become deeply concerning. The Government has missed its 2020 target for 50% of Sites of Special Scientific Interest to be in ‘favorable’ condition with just 38% in favorable condition in England. This figure has barely improved in the last decade.

As the UK enters the COP-15 UN conference on biodiversity this week in Montreal, it does so with a terrible track record in the arena. The UK has lost nearly half of its biodiversity since the Industrial Revolution and is ranked in the bottom 10% in the world and the worst among G7 nations for biodiversity. This of course comes in quick succession to the Prime Minister’s own initial decision not to attend the COP-27 Climate Change conference in Sharm el-Sheikh.

Time and time again this government has demonstrated that it is neither committed to meeting the ambitious targets promised to other leading nations to improve the global environment, nor appreciative of the drastic and real consequences of climate change and poor biodiversity across the world. It is painfully clear that the UK is underperforming considerably on the world stage of environmental emergency.

This conference must be a catalyst for change in the UK’s performance on improving biodiversity.

The impact of poor biodiversity is depressing. There were 403,171 sewage overflows recorded in 2020. Overflows are meant to occur only during heavy rainfall events, but now it appears that some overflows have been in regular operation, releasing contaminants into the water in all weather. DEFRA have estimated that the number of public bathing sites estimated to be in ‘poor’ condition has increased three-fold in the last 12 months. This is something I notice in my own constituency, with the river Thames being a substantial part of many of my constituents’ daily lives for recreational purposes such as water sports.

The risk of potential health impacts of unsafe public water looms ever greater.

Too often, environmental issues are treated in isolation. Our environment is a complex, interdependent system and it is the foundation of our economic and social prosperity. The government must use this conference to re-address how biodiversity is treated as a national and global crisis.

A lack of biodiversity in the UK has real consequences for the economy. A lack of biodiversity means soils that sustain our agriculture are degraded, the seas that maintain our fisheries are plundered, and our natural defenses against flooding are failing, to sum up, a direct impact of these three consequences is a greater risk to the UK’s long-term food-security. In 2020 UK wheat yields dropped by 40% as a result of heavy rainfall and droughts. With the inflation of food prices hitting a record of 12.4% at the end of November this year, the government must do more to protect the availability and price of food in the UK.

Biodiversity has long been neglected in economic Tory policy, which has led to decades of under-investment. The water regulator, Ofwat, has focused on keeping bills low and maintaining supply at the expense of investment in a reliable sewerage system, and in tandem, regulators have failed to take sufficient enforcement action when pollution has occurred, or even to keep reliable track of the problem. Indeed, on my recent visit to Mogden sewage works in Isleworth to view their treatment for raw sewage spills, I was fascinated by the effect this can have, yet concerned by the frequency with which such operations have to occur because of a lack of investment, and of joined-up thinking between investors.

The Liberal Democrats plan to create a cabinet-level Chief Secretary for Sustainability in the Treasury and a new Department for Climate and Natural Resources, reversing the Conservative’s disastrous downgrading of climate change at the ministerial level in 2016. This would give nature the voice it deserves not only in government but also with the public, increase funding to the relevant areas, and ensure that the plans in place to prevent sewage spills are made coherently.

Of course, biodiversity is above all a health-related matter. While the Environment Bill was in the House of Lords, the Liberal Democrats won a number of votes against the government including that a biodiversity emergency was declared both nationally and globally. We need to emerge with learned lessons from the COVID health crisis, especially given the on-going threats to public health such as the recent rise of Avian Influenza and Strep A infection. In short, far more should be done to tackle the biodiversity crisis which too has serious complications for public health.

There are proven mental and physical health benefits of living in a greener area, with cleaner air. Air pollution alone is the cause of over 40,000 premature deaths each year in the UK, which disproportionately harm poorer and marginalised communities. If the government considered the decline of biodiversity as a genuine emergency, billions of pounds could be saved for the NHS, taking pressure off the system.

Throughout the stages of the Environment Bill, the Liberal Democrats pushed for it to go further. For example, to strengthen the independence of the Office for Environmental Protection and give it further enforcement powers. This week The Times reported that the Environment Agency inspects only around 2% of England’s farms a year to check compliance with pollution rules. However along with the proposal to ensure that the harm caused to the environment and public health by the elimination of discharge of untreated sewage into rivers, these calls were defeated by the government.

As the UK takes its place at COP-15, the government must not only accept accountability for its failings to meet targets set previously towards greater biodiversity, but also commit to plans which mitigate the real economic and health complications of poor biodiversity and strengthen the protection of biodiversity in the future.

The government should now approach the biodiversity emergency with the urgency it deserves.

As you’re here, we have something to ask you. What we do here to deliver real news is more important than ever. But there’s a problem: we need readers like you to chip in to help us survive. We deliver progressive, independent media, that challenges the right’s hateful rhetoric. Together we can find the stories that get lost.

We’re not bankrolled by billionaire donors, but rely on readers chipping in whatever they can afford to protect our independence. What we do isn’t free, and we run on a shoestring. Can you help by chipping in as little as £1 a week to help us survive? Whatever you can donate, we’re so grateful – and we will ensure your money goes as far as possible to deliver hard-hitting news.

Sunak puts Brexit bill ‘on ice’ as hopes rise of EU deal

“Rishi Sunak has put the Northern Ireland Brexit protocol bill on ice until the new year after private talks with Brussels paved the way for a new deal by February. Senior officials say the bill will not be returned to the Lords this year, giving negotiators time to thrash out new trade rules for a St Valentine’s Day agreement. The bill is designed to give Britain the right to unilaterally suspend aspects of the protocol, including excessive border checks, if there is no deal with Brussels. But even Lord Caine, the minister in charge of pushing the bill through the Lords, has privately raised questions about whether it may break international law. Caine said he did not recognise the remarks attributed to him. Any delay to the bill will make the European Research Group…suspicious…” – The Sunday Times

• Truly dreadful stuff from Secretary of State for Northern Ireland – Arlene Foster, Sunday Express

>Today:

Small boats 1) He is planning to ‘seize control’ of the Channel migrants crisis as Red Wall MPs are ‘losing patience’

“Rishi Sunak is planning to ‘seize control’ of the Channel migrants crisis by announcing a crackdown this week on the Albanian people-traffickers linked to the majority of cases. Whitehall sources said the Prime Minister was ‘looking at all options’ to fast-track the return of Albanians who come to the UK, including the use of the Albanian police to check criminal records. It comes as the Prime Minister is under mounting pressure from Red Wall Tory MPs to tackle the issue. Tory MP Lee Anderson tells today’s Mail on Sunday that his Nottinghamshire constituents are ‘losing patience’ with the Government… In what appears to be a veiled threat to leave the Tories, Mr Anderson adds: ‘My party can be a force for good in this great country, but it isn’t yet choosing to be.” – The Mail on Sunday

• Asylum seekers in hotels ‘could be recruited by extremist groups’ – The Sunday Telegraph
• Britain has always been a tolerant country that has looked after refugees. Yet today our warmth and generosity are being abused by the criminal gangs trafficking people to our shores – Lee Anderson, The Mail on Sunday

Small boats 2) Braverman ‘prepares to announce’ a ‘crackdown’ on Albanian immigration ‘within days’

“Suella Braverman is preparing to announce a crackdown on Albanian immigrants within days. It comes as shock stats show a staggering 12,000 Albanians have still not had their asylum claims processed after being in Britain for six months. Rishi Sunak has told Tory MPs in private that fixing Britain’s broken borders is his “number one priority”. He has been holed up in No10 working with the Home Secretary on a top secret plan to get tough on Channel boat migrants. One senior government insider told The Sun on Sunday: “We want to say something soon – before Christmas.” A full package of measures to crack down on Channel boats, slash the ballooning hotel bill for asylum seekers and send back bogus claimants is expected in the New Year.” – The Sun on Sunday

Hunt ‘faces Tory rebellion’ over £7 billion government spending ‘on ‘woke’ projects’…

“MPs have written to the Chancellor to demand that ministers cut spending on equality and diversity measures and grants to charities and quangos in order to reduce taxes. Their letter criticises Mr Hunt’s decision to “tax the British public at levels not seen since the end of the Second World War”, and to “spend more public money in 2023 and 2024 than at any point since the mid-1970s”. It comes ahead of the publication of a new report by the Conservative Way Forward group on Monday, which will claim that £7 billion of public money is spent on “politically motivated and divisive activities” each year. The group’s research is based on an audit of government accounts and Freedom of Information requests to 6,000 public bodies…” – The Sunday Telegraph

…as the Chancellor is warned his ‘tourist tax’ on foreign visitors could ‘spark the loss’ of more than 100,000 jobs

“A controversial ‘tourist tax’ on foreign visitors imposed by Chancellor Jeremy Hunt could mean the loss of more than 100,000 jobs, according to an in-depth analysis shown to the Government. The levy could also mean that Britain forfeits up to £6 billion in tourist spending to other countries, particularly in Europe where overseas travellers are offered tax incentives to spend in shops. Bosses at Harrods and Selfridges have joined a chorus of business leaders demanding a review of Mr Hunt’s decision to scrap VAT-free shopping for international visitors. They say it puts London at a serious disadvantage to rival cities, including Paris and Madrid which are said to be targeting visitors from outside the European Union…by promoting the incentive at airports and shopping destinations.” – The Mail on Sunday

Strikes 1) Barclay says NHS strikes ‘pose a significant risk to patients’ as up to 100,000 nurses ‘prepare to walk out’ this week

“Steve Barclay today warns NHS strikes pose “significant risk” to patients. The Health Secretary said he was “deeply concerned” about the impact of walkouts by nurses and ambulance crews on the sick. They are his toughest comments yet and come as Brits prepare to be hit by the biggest wave of crippling strikes since the early 1980s. Up to 100,000 nurses will walk out this Thursday and the following Tuesday in their first ever national strike. Ambulance crews will down tools next week. And rail workers, posties, and border force staff are all staging rolling strikes…Yet dozens of… Labour MPs are preparing to join the picket lines… The Royal College of Nursing (RCN) are striking over pay after demanding inflation-busting pay rise of 19 per cent.” – The Sun on Sunday

• Britain’s ‘new lockdown’: strikes bring the country to a standstill – The Sunday Times
• Strike action to shut down most of UK rail network next week – The Financial Times
• How long can the unions afford to go on strike? – The Sunday Times
• The only thing NHS strikes will serve up this Christmas is untold misery to millions needing vital care – Editorial, The Sun on Sunday
• A lesson from Mrs Thatcher on how to tame the unions and inflation – Editorial, The Mail on Sunday
• The outlook is not so gloomy, so the strikes can be resolved – Editorial, The Sunday Times
• My ‘deep concerns’ about the ‘risk’ of NHS strikes to patients – Steve Barclay, The Sun on Sunday
• Politicians used to have a vision to save the NHS. You won’t hear them being so bold today – Robert Colville, The Sunday Times
• Sunak has vowed to act tough to end the winter of discontent. But does anyone really believe him? – Dan Hodges, The Mail on Sunday
• No driver, no conductor, no timetable, no plan – Ed Conway, The Sunday Times
• It’s time to stand up to the union bullies, Sunak – Tony Parsons, The Sun on Sunday
• Militant trade unions are in for a shock if they think we’ll tolerate 70s chaos – Janet Daley, The Sunday Telegraph

Strikes 2) Labour joins ‘bullyboy’ Health Secretary in war against ‘hostile’ health unions

“Labour’s shadow health secretary has joined ‘bullyboy’ Steve Barclay in hitting out at ‘hostile’ health unions as he promised to take on ‘vested interests’ to reform the NHS. Wes Streeting targeted the BMA trade union, which represents doctors and medical students, as he urged his party colleagues to see the NHS as a ‘service not a shrine’. It follows Health Secretary Steve Barclay who slammed NHS unions on Saturday night after he allegedly failed to agree to negotiations on pay which could have seen a pause to strikes and saved 15,000 operations from being cancelled. The Royal College of Nursing had offered to ‘press pause’ on planned strike action if Mr Barclay agrees to negotiate properly on pay, amid fears that the winter walkouts will cripple an already struggling NHS.” – The Mail on Sunday

• Streeting says NHS must ‘reform or die’ – The Sunday Telegraph
• Health unions ‘offer to pause’ NHS strikes if the Government joins pay talks – The Observer
• Tell union leaders not to coordinate strikes, Tories ‘urge’ Starmer – The Sunday Telegraph
• NHS patients to be sent to private hospitals for treatment as nurses strike – The Sunday Telegraph
• Starmer must get touch with militant unions causing misery for millions if he wants to be Prime Minister – Ian Austin, The Sun on Sunday

Ministers ‘hold out’ against proposal on reporting hospitality in new MPs’ code

“Rishi Sunak’s government is expected to accept most of a proposed new code of conduct for MPs after the Owen Paterson scandal but has rejected the idea that ministers should declare more details about free hospitality from lobbyists and companies. MPs will debate the proposals put forward by the standards committee on Monday, with Penny Mordaunt, the leader of the House of Commons, likely to accept 18 of the 20 recommendations. Key measures include tightening the rules on lobbying to stop MPs providing paid parliamentary advice, consultancy or strategy. However… the government is holding out against a proposal to ask ministers to register with parliament any hospitality provided by third parties worth more than £300 within 28 days…” – The Guardian

Truss ‘still thinks Trussonomics was right’ and she is ‘selling her message in America’…

“If Liz Truss had still been prime minister she would have been in Montreal this week, attending Cop15 — the international summit to preserve biodiversity. The less glamorous cousin of Cop27 — the climate change summit — is not usually attended by world leaders. But Truss had been planning to call in favours with Emmanuel Macron and Justin Trudeau to up the world leader count…Instead, Truss was last week pictured on Twitter sitting alone in a coffee shop in Washington, where she attended the IDU Forum, a summit of global conservatives. She was invited by Stephen Harper, a former prime minister of Canada. There were no Truss speeches or formal engagements, just a series of networking meetings with others, some of whom have also been ejected from office.” – The Sunday Times

• ‘I haven’t lost the war’ she reportedly claims, as she turns to the United States – Sunday Express

…as Kwarteng admits he ‘got carried away’ writing his mini-Budget

“Kwasi Kwarteng has admitted he and Liz Truss “got carried away” when they wrote the disastrous mini-budget that led to both of them leaving their jobs just weeks after they entered Downing Street. Kwarteng announced a raft of tax cuts without any reduction in spending in September, which led to the pound crashing against the dollar, pension funds nearly collapsing, a £65bn Bank of England bailout, soaring mortgage costs, and the cost of government borrowing increasing. He also said he would remove the cap on bankers’ bonuses. The MP for Spelthorne, who was sacked by Truss after 38 days, has now said that the then prime minister and her team had lost perspective on the budget and its political or financial consequences.” – The Guardian

Cruddas backing new Tory movement aiming to ‘take back control’ of the party

A billionaire Conservative donor is backing a new movement so grassroots Tories can “take back control” of the party following the ousting of Boris Johnson and Liz Truss. The move by Lord Cruddas comes after Tory MPs put Rishi Sunak in No 10 without a ballot of ordinary members. The new Conservative Democratic Organisation has already been compared to Momentum – the Labour group that helped Left-wingers secure their grip on the party during the Jeremy Corbyn years. According to the campaign, rank-and-file Tories feel they are held in “utter contempt by party leaders” and that “their views count for nothing”. The CDO will fight for a raft of reforms to “restore democracy” in the party and steer it “back to the centre-right”.” – Sunday Express

Frost ‘could stand’ as a Conservative MP at the next election…’ahead of a possible leadership bid’

“Former Brexit Minister Lord Frost is considering standing as a Conservative candidate at the next General Election – ahead of a possible leadership bid if the Tories lose to Sir Keir Starmer. Friends of the peer who dramatically quit last year – criticising restrictions to try to contain Covid – say that he has alerted Tory headquarters to his interest in becoming an MP. A source said: ‘If he does stand, it will be because he thinks he has a chance to lead the party at some point.’ A Friend added: ‘Frosty has indicated his interest in standing next time and had a couple of conversations with people in the party. He will consider whether it is a runner in the New Year. When he quit a year ago, he cited concern over the ‘direction of travel’ under Boris Johnson…” – The Mail on Sunday

Hancock ‘plans new career in serious documentaries’

“Matt Hancock is planning a series of “serious documentaries” on assisted dying and dyslexia in his life after public office, The Telegraph understands. Allies of the former health secretary said he believes he should put his public platform to good use and educate the public about political issues after his appearances on reality TV shows. Mr Hancock last week announced that he plans to stand down from Parliament at the next election, telling Rishi Sunak he had “discovered a whole world of possibilities” outside Westminster, including “new ways … to communicate with people of all ages and from all backgrounds”. He is understood to have received offers from major broadcasters and is considering a new career as a documentary presenter.” – The Sunday Telegraph

The Bank of England ‘set to spoil the festive mood’ with another interest rate rise

“Bank of England officials are expected to take their foot off the accelerator when they meet this week to decide by how much the cost of borrowing should increase. The prospect of a year-long recession that will hit living standards, cut business investment and damage the long-term productive capacity of the British economy might have made them think twice about any increase at all, but the betting in the financial markets is that a 0.5-percentage-point rise on Thursday looks certain. At the central bank’s monetary policy committee (MPC) meeting last month, interest rates were pushed up by 0.75 percentage points to 3%, so this week’s rise will probably rate as a more modest twist of the knife for mortgage holders.” – The Observer

Daniel Hannan: First Gordon Brown broke the constitution – now he wants to see it burn

“Gordon Brown is as constant and unchanging as a slab of Grampian granite. Whatever the problem, his solution is always the same: more regulators, more politicians, more money. His proposals for constitutional reform (which we should take seriously, since the latest poll shows Labour 27 points ahead) are a rehash of the reforms he oversaw in the late 1990s. In essence, he wants politics professionalised, formalised and invigilated. That approach was not exactly a roaring success the first time around. Paying councillors did not improve the quality of local government. Scottish devolution did not, as George Robertson had promised in 1995, “kill nationalism stone dead”. Outside regulators did not make MPs more honest…Yet, undeterred, Brown proposes more of the same.” – The Sunday Telegraph

• Abandoning the reform agenda to Labour – Editorial, The Sunday Telegraph
• Starmer huffs and puffs for the centre ground, but he isn’t going to find many voters there – Rod Liddle, The Sunday Times

News in Brief:

After the Allies had held the Nuremberg War Crimes Trials, they engaged in increasingly half-hearted attempts at “denazification” which somehow allowed the full panoply of Nazi judges not just to escape punishment, but to remain on the job. And many Nazi-era industrialists, academics, and scientists who had been enthusiastic Nazis nonetheless also ‘scaped whipping, they had little to fear from fellow Germans once those pesky victorious Allies – the U.S., Great Britain, and France – had left, for while those Allies actually believed that Nazi war criminals would be properly punished by the courts of West Germany, the Germans had other ideas. And in some cases, sentences that had been handed down by Allied courts were soon commuted by the Allies themselves.

Take, for example, the war criminal Alfred Krupp, who eagerly employed slave labor in his factories, most of them Jews, who in some cases were “borrowed” from Auschwitz and often worked to death. Offered the chance to employ Germans for some of the work in his factories, he turned the offer down, preferring to have a workforce consisting entirely of slave labor. Krupp worked closely with the SS, which controlled the concentration camps from which forced labor was obtained. In a letter dated 7 September 1943, he wrote: “As regards the cooperation of our technical office in Breslau, I can only say that between that office and Auschwitz the closest understanding exists and is guaranteed for the future.” According to one of his own employees, even when it was clear that the war was lost: “Krupp considered it a duty to make 520 Jewish girls, some of them little more than children, work under the most brutal conditions in the heart of the concern, in Essen.”

The Allies put Krupp on trial just after the war as a war criminal. He of course tried to paint himself as someone uninvolved in politics; he was just a simple factory owner, an innocent businessman trying to keep afloat in trying times. Until the end of his life, he denied all guilt. At his trial in 1947, he stated:

“The economy needed a steady or growing development. Because of the rivalries between the many political parties in Germany and the general disorder there was no opportunity for prosperity. … We thought that Hitler would give us such a healthy environment. Indeed he did do that. … We Krupps never cared much about [political] ideas. We only wanted a system that worked well and allowed us to work unhindered. Politics is not our business.”

Indeed, the Krupp holdings did flourish under the Nazi regime. According to conservative estimates, the Krupp enterprises used nearly 100,000 persons in the slave labor program. Yes, for Krupp “the system [of slave laborers] worked well.”

Many, knowing that he worked many of those slave laborers to death, thought he deserved capital punishment or, at the very least, a life sentence. Instead, he was given a sentence by Allied judges of only twelve years. And in the end, he remained in prison for only three years.

John J. McCloy intervened, and in 1951 reduced Krupp’s sentence to three years. McCloy was at the time the High Commissioner for Germany, and possibly the very worst person to be in that job. It was clear from his actions that McCloy was full of sympathy for the conquered Germans, including some of the worst war criminals, while he had no sympathy at all for the Jews whom they had murdered. No wonder Die Zeit called him “the conscience of America.” He was post-war Germany’s favorite, because most morally corrupt, American. It was McCloy who, as Deputy Secretary of War, had prevented the rail lines to Auschwitz from being bombed by American planes, which might have saved hundreds of thousands of Jewish lives.

McCloy approved the commutation of the sentences of many convicted war criminals. Among them were the industrialists Friedrich Flick, Alfred Krupp, and Einsatzgruppe commander (and mass murderer) Martin Sandberger, a particularly vicious SS man who lived to the quite unnecessary age of 98. McCloy granted the restitution of Krupp’s entire property, and commuted Krupp’s sentence to three years, which in 1951 meant time served. He commuted the sentence of Ernst von Weizsäcker. Another commutation handed down was for Edmund Veesenmayer, who played a role in mass deportations. The West German public was not satisfied even with this. Hundreds of thousands of them turned out to protest – protest! – that other war criminals had not received similar commutations.

Krupp served three years of his 12-year sentence, after which McCloy allowed him to go free, and to keep all of the property he was supposed to forfeit – property made more valuable by his use of 100,000 slave laborers during the war.

Just to make absolutely sure there would be no further executions of Nazi war criminals, in 1949, the West German government passed a law prohibiting capital punishment. It was, in effect, a way to prevent hundreds of thousands of people involved in mass murder of Jews, prisoners of war, and Resistance fighters all over Europe from ever receiving the punishment they deserved.

Such indulgence brings us to the recent story of three German men who, found guilty of having repeatedly whipped, beaten, and insulted a Jewish man, were nonetheless received suspended sentences. That story is here: “German Elite Fraternity Students Responsible for Antisemitic Assault Receive Suspended Sentences,” by Ben Cohen, Algemeiner, December 8, 2022:

Three German students from an elite fraternity who were charged with beating a Jewish student and subjecting him to antisemitic insults have been handed suspended sentences by a court in the city of Heidelberg.

The three convicted individuals — who all received suspended sentences of eight months and no financial penalties in Thursday’s court verdict — were members the right-wing nationalist Normannia student fraternity. A fourth member of the group accused of involvement in the assault was acquitted.

The incident occurred at a party at the Normannia fraternity’s mansion at the University of Heidelberg on Aug. 29, 2020. A 25-year-old student in attendance who spoke about his Jewish ancestry was berated with antisemitic abuse, whipped with belts and pelted with metal coins by the four assailants.

These students at what is described as “an elite German university fraternity” regularly greeted each other with the words “Heil Hitler” and used the word “Jew” as a pejorative, according to one of the fraternity’s former members, Karl Stockmann, in an article he published in the German newsmagazine Der Spiegel. That disenchanted former member of the fraternity described the antisemitism and glorification of Germany’s Nazi past that prevailed at the Normannia fraternity. He left the group, “repulsed” by the behavior of fellow members of the fraternity, citing as an example their habit of drinking heavily while listening to recordings of Hitler’s speeches.

“Almost every day, somebody greeted me with ‘Heil Hitler,’” Stockmann revealed.

Stockmann stressed that the attack on the Jewish student at the fraternity party could not be regarded as an isolated incident.

“When I was at Normannia, the word ‘Jew’ was considered a common swear word in the mansion, comparable to ‘asshole’ or ‘motherf*****,’” he said.

Another commonly-heard slogan was, “We are Hitler’s people, then and now,” Stockmann said.

During the trial, the defendants insisted that the assault on the Jewish student had been light-heartedly intended, claiming as well that the victim knew in advance that the practice of “belting” [i.e., whipping with belts]was a fraternity tradition he might be subjected to at the party, according to German media outlets.

The assault was “light-heartedly intended.” Yes, think of just how light-hearted that victim must have felt as he was beaten with belts, pelted with metal coins, and constantly insulted as “a Jew.” All in good fun, or so his three tormentors claimed. What spoilsports these Jews are –can’t they take a little light-hearted fun without making a big deal about it? Always complaining, never willing to join in the merriment. No wonder no one likes them.

Judge Nicole Bargatzky demurred, however, stating that “from fun to bitter seriousness, [the victim] was placed in a corner as a Jew.”

During the proceedings, investigators complained about a “wall of silence” from witnesses who were at the party, with many claiming they were too inebriated to remember clearly what had happened, German broadcaster SWR reported. Lawyers for the accused asserted that while the students on trial had engaged in an “inexcusable act” triggered by a “toxic mixture of worldview and drunkenness,” the lack of reliable witnesses meant that it was impossible to determine who was responsible for the assault.

For god’s sake, all three students were involved in tormenting “the Jew.” It hardly matters which ones took part in whipping him, or who joined in the general hilarity of throwing metal objects at him, or who forced him to stay in a corner to be beaten while everyone watched with amusement; they were all participants, all guilty of this atrocity.

Yet the German court did not punish them for those activities that they engaged in, as they claimed, so “light-heartedly.” They received suspended sentences of eight months. No jail time. No fines for those students, who loved to listen to recordings of Hitler’s speeches, to talk of “motherf***ing Jews,” and proclaim “we are Hitler’s people, then and now.” No justice for “the Jew” they had tormented from this court in Heidelberg. Would it be wrong to draw a line connecting this latest miscarriage of justice, and what went on in German courts after the war, when no war criminals faced the death penalty, and sentences that previously were handed down by Allied courts were so often commuted?

Upon becoming Labour leader in 2020, Sir Keir Starmer was characterised as a shifty managerialist by prime minster Boris Johnson. The man in the mask, sat all alone on the frontbench opposite, was a lawyerly naysayer — someone whose career would forever be stained by his resistance to Brexit and for whom “fence-sitting” was not only strategical, but deeply ingrained in his political psyche.

He was “captain hindsight” by name, opportunist by nature. A technocrat leading an unreformed, unreformable party.

Starmer initially showed little political will to try and counter this characterisation. In fact, throughout Johnson’s premiership, the Labour leader stuck to a strict script: he would project competence in the hope that his self-contained professionalism would provide a reassuring contrast with Johnson’s showier, more chaotic style.

So when it became clear that Johnson’s tenure as PM was over, commentators questioned whether the Labour leader’s protean positioning would play against a more measured opponent. For Johnson was the prism through which Starmer constructed his political appeal. And like most in 2020, the Labour leader figured that Conservative regicide with an 80-seat majority was unforeseeable. 

Featured

College of Policing plans will enhance firearms licensing consistency

Featured

Entries for BASC classes at Crufts 2023 now open