Reflections on a 'Special Relationship'

So, Theresa has visited the Donald, and reaffirmed the Special Relationship between the United States and the United Kingdom. She'll doubtless be pleased that she has been seen with the new President before any other major leader, and timing does matter. He's said the right things from her perspective too, as The Times puts it on its front page this morning;

Trump blesses Britain

It does come at a cost though. She has been blessed by a man whose popularity in this country is rather less than that of Jeremy Corbyn, and whose views on a range of key policy areas are a long way from the apparent mainstream of British politics (now I come to think about it, a bit like Jeremy Corbyn). Indeed, in some circles, his views are seen as mad and dangerous. Being pictured holding hands with such a man might not look quite so good when your political opponents have had a chance to play with the images. Mind you, it does beg the question, "Why were you holding hands anyway?".

Theresa will argue that she is influencing Donald in a more measured direction, but I fear that she has allowed her ego and her tin ear to camouflage the reality, that Donald will do whatever Donald wants unless his core advisors can persuade him otherwise. And given that many of them have little experience of government, and appear to have been chosen for their business reputations rather than any understanding of public service, I wouldn't count on that happening much.

My fear is that there will be a price to pay for Donald's blessing. If you're a free trade Conservative, being allied to an America Firster, whose first major trade pronouncements have all been protectionist, you might wonder how this can be reconciled with the idea of signing a great trade deal between our two countries. Deals that can be terminated with thirty days notice might be fine in the hands of people with a measured approach to trade disputes, but might not be so stable in the hands of a man willing to build a big wall and then attempt to charge it to the people most damaged by it.

If you believe that we need to have a mutually beneficial relationship with the European Union post-Brexit, finding yourself allied to a man who is actively calling for its destruction might not enhance the prospects of an amicable divorce. After all, for the Europeans, this is existential in its threat, and Theresa may yet find herself having to choose between an unreliable partner (Donald) and an angry one (the European Union). Trying to agree a beneficial divorce settlement with an angry ex is not a bowl of cherries. And, of course, once Article 50 is triggered, the balance of power in negotiations lies squarely with the European Union.

And, if you believe in 'taking back control', the sight of a British Prime Minister rushing to support a man with such unfortunate views might be an unhappy reminder that we are not the major player we were given to believe we might still be.

In truth, for the time being, Theresa can probably get away with it. A huge opinion poll lead, an inept, disorganised rabble as the Official Opposition, and a compliant media means that it will be some time before the impact of Brexit starts to impact on Conservative support. We haven't even left yet, so the prophets of doom for the British economy haven't really been tested, whilst the markets are still responding erratically to perceived clues in statements made by people who may not have one.

Time will tell, as they say. But I fear that Theresa will find herself forced to choose a side eventually, Europe or an isolationist America. Because the only things you find in the middle of the road are white lines and dead armadillos...

You appointed them, Theresa, so they're your responsibility...

When, as the newly appointed Prime Minister, Theresa May appointed Boris Johnson, Liam Fox and David Davis to lead on Brexit, there were those who suspected that this was a cunning ploy to deal with an inevitably unworkable outcome to the Referendum. And, perhaps, this will turn out to be correct one day. Frankly, I doubt it - one of the modern traits in British politics is the urge to selectively use information to support your preferred outcome regardless of the weight of evidence, and I don't think that Theresa May thinks like that.

Regardless of how you voted on 23 June, however, one must admit that putting the supposedly true believers (judge for yourself how faithful Boris is to anything) in charge made sense. If you want Brexit to work, enthusiasm and a philosophical belief in the necessary stance on sovereignty are surely a must.

So, having campaigned against our membership of the European Union for so long, and yes, Boris, you're excused from that (again), and having had all of that time to consider how our withdrawal might work, they're off and running. It isn't going terribly well so far.

Liam has accused British industry of being lazy, David has indicated that membership of the Single Market is unlikely, and on both occasions, their comments have been disowned as being merely a personal opinion. Well, I'm sorry, Theresa, but that simply isn't true. As a member of the Cabinet, speaking on a subject in their portfolio, their opinion must obviously be an indication as to what they want to do. You might not like it, but you gave them that responsibility.

Either they're lone wolves, in which case they aren't suited to collective Cabinet responsibility, or you do have a plan for Brexit which you don't want to tell us about. Admittedly, whatever plan materialises will upset virtually everybody - Remainers and Brexiteers alike - so silence may be a temporary virtue. But either way, you have a problem.

So, here's a new question for you, Theresa. How many times do you have to deny a Minister before they either quit in frustration or you have to let them go? At least Boris is behaving thus far... Probably...

Is The Best Exotic Marigold Hotel a model for some of us in our old age?

After an evening of killing Ottomans, Chinese and Russians - I'm playing as the Portuguese at Civilisation III - I locked up the office and found Ros in the living room, watching "The Best Exotic Marigold Hotel" on the television. And, as it is a movie that has a happy ending (I do like a happy ending), I sat with her for the last section.

But I was moved to wonder whether or not it is a model that might have some basis in credibility. After all, anyone over the age of fifty is likely to be wondering how they will fend for themselves as old age reaches out towards them.

One hears how much care homes cost these days, amounts that never get smaller, and note that care homes are increasingly staffed by people coming to this country from overseas - I assume that Theresa May isn't planning to get old and infirm - and find myself wondering whether or not it might be easier to just simplify matters by retiring somewhere with lower labour costs, better weather and suitable provision.

In my days travelling on Democrats Abroad business, one thing I noticed was that, particularly in Mexico, there were a number of communities made up almost entirely of retired Americans and Canadians, seeking warmer, drier weather, access to cheap medication and lower nursing costs and, until now, I hadn't thought much about it. But, when one considers it, why not? On the same income as you would have in Europe of North America, you can have a larger home, someone to clean and/or cook and, if you pick sensibly, better weather. In all likelihood, you'd even have money left over.

Now don't get me wrong, I'm not proposing sending Granny to Ahmedabad or Mysore as a matter of public policy, but it does surprise me that someone hasn't thought about this and put together a package. Perhaps, for all I know, somebody has.

Given the increasing crisis in care for the elderly, we may have to become increasingly creative in terms of the solutions, especially given Conservative determination to reduce the flow of migrants to a relative trickle, regardless of the effects. Costs spiral, whilst pressure on staff increases and quality inevitably suffers. Add to that an ageing population generally, and the scale of the problem becomes apparent.

So, just a thought on a Bank Holiday weekend. It's amazing how a slightly enhanced sense of one's own mortality sets you to thinking...

Theresa May - how likely is it that a senior civil servant takes a critical decision on their own initiative?

I am, I must confess, intrigued by the whole UK Border Force controversy. It is, in my view, a classic example of what happens when you set goals which contradict each other.

I've spent enough time at enough airports to have become a bit of a connoisseur of 'good' border controls. What I want, as a traveller, is an efficient and speedy transit through immigration, so that I can pick up my luggage and get to my final destination. If I'm in transit, it's even more essential. As a citizen, however, I want the border to be sufficiently well-policed to exclude as many 'undesirables' as possible. Quick isn't important. Thorough is.

One thing that is emphasised more and more when entering the United Kingdom is the 'customer experience' (please add the rant against the use of the word 'customer' of your choice). The key measure of this is throughput - how many people can be processed per hour. After all, do you care if the immigration officer smiles at you?

And so the news that, at times of peak flows through airports, the scale of examinations was reduced, comes as no surprise. Managers would probably be evaluated on the queues, or lack thereof, and would have an incentive to find ways to improve the statistics. On the other hand, you can't set targets for the number of people prevented from entering the country, so the stringency of checks might be degraded without risk of penalty... unless the Press find out, of course.

But it is a gamble, and civil servants aren't prone to gambling as a rule. Indeed, it seems to this state-sponsored bureaucrat that the trend is towards having your opinion validated by a senior officer just in case.

And now that Brodie Clark, the senior official at the heart of this controversy, has announced that he will be suing for constructive dismissal, one finds oneself wondering, "who did he seek authority to act from?". He will know that any such claim will have no chance unless he can prove that this was discussed further up the food chain.

So, it seems reasonable to assume that somewhere, in someone's inbox, there is a smoking e-mail. Whose that is, I suspect, is going to be a source of much discomfort in the coming days...