Chinese spies rattle the British

Anger has boiled over and screams have reached fever pitch in the British media and amongst a number of politicians following revelations that an alleged Chinese spy had formed an "unusual degree of trust" with the Duke of York, Prince Andrew.

Accusations

The man made headlines in early December after being banned from entering the UK and it was subsequently revealed had a close relationship with the disgraced prince.

Initially identified only as H6, the Chinese businessman is also accused of having developed relationships with politicians to be "leveraged" by China.

The Chinese embassy in London has accused some UK parliamentarians of having a "twisted mentality towards China" and that such "anti-China clamours" were an attempt to "smear China, target against the Chinese community in the UK and undermine normal personnel exchanges between China and the UK" [sic]. [Daily Mail / Guardian]

Iain Duncan Smith, who has often criticised China for its human rights abuses, intellectual property theft and espionage, has said he could not understand why people around Prince Andrew were not being checked by the security services.

Growing concerns

 
The naming of the 'spy' had been blocked, despite his name being in the public domain and easily searched in news articles going back many years. Indeed, the man in question was the subject of some controversy as recently as 2020 when the Daily Mail reported that he had gained access to influential establishment figures, including George Osborne and Prince Andrew.

The article claimed the former Chinese government official had founded the Hampton Group, one of a number of Chinese businesses that facilitated "subtly infiltrating areas of influence," according to the then chair of the defence committee in Britain, Tobias Ellwood. "We have to be very worried about how the regime is manipulating Britain's important areas of interest using these kind of tactics.[sic]"

Yang's background

Yang Tengbo [杨腾波] was born in China in 1974. Having graduated with a bachelor's degree in history from the School of History and Archives at Yunnan University in 1995 he went on to join the civil service [Wikipedia]. While Chinese civil servants are not necessarily members of the Chinese Communist Party [CCP], some 95% of civil servants in leading positions from division (county) level and above are CCP members, thus it is likely Yang had by this time secured membership.

He first came to the UK in 2002 and studied in London for a year, before taking a masters degree in public administration and public policy at the University of York.

In 2005 he founded consultancy firm Hampton Group International - one of five companies he has been publicly listed as a director of in the UK. By this time Yang had become an honorary member of the 48 Group Club, a pro-China lobbying group, and a member of the Chinese Communist Party [BBC / Wikipedia].

In the 2020 book "Hidden Hands" published by Australian researchers, the 48 Group Club was accused of acting as a conduit for the Chinese government to "cultivate" senior British businessmen and politicians, and explored China's covert influence around the world. Meanwhile Yang has reportedly had his membership revoked in light of the allegations against him [Botanwang - Chinese]. 

Yang's rise to importance continued following the founding of his consultancy firm. In April 2009, Yang Tengbo was cordially received by President Hu Jintao in London and the following year he was awarded the title of "Top Ten Leaders of the 11th China Era Who Influence China" in Beijing. He later initiated the establishment of the China-UK Entrepreneurs Association which facilitated the landing of "Pitch@Palace", a venture capital platform initiated by Prince Andrew, Duke of York, to China to support young entrepreneurs. It was perhaps this enterprise that established his close links with Prince Andrew and which later raised eyebrows with the British security service [zgcforum - Chinese / Guardian].

Gaining advantage

China's foreign policy should come as no surprise to anyone who understands the country. Ever since China 'opened up' in the 1980s, it has sought to gain advantage wherever it can.

For example China might conveniently ignore some WTO and other international trade rules while taking advantage of others. Many people might for example be unaware that China is able to take advantage of cheap postal rates when shipping items all over the world. These lower postal rates are set by the Universal Postal Union (UPU) treaty for so-called 'developing countries'.

In practice a consumer in the US or Europe can order an item from China including shipping for less than what a local seller or distributor might be able to offer the same product. While China is still developing in many ways, the fact that it is the second largest economy seems to be somewhat incongruous with its being judged to have access to more favourable shipping rates. 

China has feathered its nest in other ways too. By 'investing' in Africa and other places, building roads and other infrastructure, China has secured cheap copper, oil and other important natural resources.

China has long 'welcomed' businesses to invest and create manufacturing bases in China. However, this has come with a hidden cost as many firms find their intellectual property copied or blatantly stolen.

The world has been coaxed by China's cheap manufacturing base to knock out everything from clothes to hi-tech items. But the factories where these items are produced often have a secret output of items which end up on the 'black-market'.

Stolen IP

Those shanzhai or counterfeit items one might buy at 10% of the cost of the real item at a Beijing store, may in fact be the real item. In other cases, the items are an exact copy since the blueprint is simply passed around between enterprises. Most shanzhai products tend to be aimed at the domestic or tourist market and as such may little dent the profits of some firms. Most Chinese people will be unable to afford a real North Face jacket, Chanel bag or Burberry scarf but will be happy to wear the fake. The tourists are happy too, as they go home with a fake 'Rimowa' suitcase, that normally costs in the region of $1,000, having paid less than $50.

Authorities turn a blind eye to such things for several reasons. The first is 'Bread and Circuses'. Keep the people happy. If people are happy in their lives with their designer clothes, watches, suitcases and phones, they are less likely to create problems. Keep the tourists happy. While the draw to China is more than the lure of cheap designer products at Beijing's infamous Silk Market, there won't be many tourists leaving Beijing without at least a couple of 'knock-off' items.

China, has of course used IP theft to bolster its international position too. It is clear that while many people in the West might buy a branded product, there is a shift towards Chinese brands or cheaper Chinese made products that are essentially copies of well known brands.

Data theft and retention

It will be of no surprise that people's data is worth much to companies. Be it your browsing history on your favourite shopping website to purchasing habits at your local supermarket, collected via a loyalty card, such data is a goldmine.

So it is of growing concern that hacking and cyberattacks are becoming more frequent. And many such attacks are emanating from China. In recent weeks AT&T and other telecoms giants in the US have been targeted prompting the FBI to advise consumers not to send text messages [NPR].

Traditional espionage

Information is everything and can give advantage in business deals and securing contracts. Thus, traditional spying also maintains a place in a world of hi-tech espionage.

It is in this world that the likes of Yang Tengbo play a role. His name was revealed following a High Court ruling on the 16th December. His ban from entering the UK is due to his being deemed a national security risk. He is accused of being engaged in "covert and deceptive activity" on behalf of the Chinese state [Politico].

In part this may be true, in as much as any information, private or otherwise, he gleaned from his contacts would have likely been shared with the Chinese state.

Allegiance to the state

Any member of the CCP [the Chinese Communist Party or Zhongguo Gongchandang 中国共产党] is expected to pay allegiance to the state. Moreover, nearly every professional in China is likely to be a member of the CCP.

While membership is usually by invitation only, without being a member of the CCP an individual is less likely to excel in business or gain a promotion within a company.

Thus the assertion that Yang had 'close links to the Chinese government' is in fact true of probably every top Chinese business person, ambassador or official.

Banned

Yang is reported to have been stopped and questioned by police in November 2021 at the UK border under powers to investigate suspicions of "hostile activity" by a foreign state. This followed shortly after a meeting in London with the Chinese Ambassador to the UK Zheng Zeguang, in his role as Executive Chairman of the Chinese Chamber of Commerce in the UK [UKCBA - Chinese]. 

During that stop he surrendered a number of electronic devices including a mobile phone. From what was found on the devices it prompted a decision by the then Home Secretary Suella Braverman to use exceptional powers to ban him from the UK.

Information obtained from the devices, including a letter addressed to Yang from Prince Andrew's adviser Dominic Hampshire, appeared to suggest that Yang had placed himself in a position "to generate relationships between senior Chinese officials and prominent UK figures which could be leveraged for political interference purposes by the Chinese State" [BBC].

This is all likely to be true. Though there is an element of naivety on the part of the press and amongst politicians that Yang is an exception. However there are some lone voices calling out the Chinese. Iain Duncan Smith, a former Conservative party leader and strong critic of the Chinese government, has said the allegations surrounding Yang were "the tip of the iceberg" of Chinese influence in the UK [Guardian]. 

Chris Yang, has described the claims as "ill-founded" while China has repeated it oft repeated line of not meddling in China's internal affairs.

"The UK side must have a right perception of China, see the historical trend clearly, and handle its relations with China on the basis of mutual respect, non-interference in each other's internal affairs, equality and mutual benefit," a spokesperson from the Chinese Embassy in London said in a statement.

Difficult playing fields 

At the heart of it all, China is not only seeking strength in terms of its economic position on the world stage, it is also establishing a position of self-sufficiency should it decide, in the future, to close its doors and end its open door policy. Should that happen, despite all the criticisms of China, the world beyond its borders would find itself in a world of hurt. The global economy would find itself without the necessary rare earths needed for technology, much of the world's manufactured goods and even food, given China supplies a quarter of the world's grain and feeds one-fifth of the world's population. Moreover, China ranks first globally in producing cereals - such as corn, wheat, and rice - fruit, vegetables, meat, poultry, eggs, and fishery products [CFR]. 

It's all very well to criticise China. Many criticisms are of course well founded. But the West has made decisions over the last few decades that has resulted in the erosion of domestic manufacturing and agriculture in favour of a quick economically viable solution by farming industry out to China. Some resources, such as rare earths, do exist outside of China. But the mining operations have, in many cases, been mothballed, partly due to environmental and other considerations. Thus, should China shut its doors, it would take decades for the world to recover its industry, agriculture and restart mining of natural resources.

The West must plan for such eventualities. China plans for years, decades and even centuries ahead. Most western democracies focus only on the short term, planning only from one election cycle to another. Such short-termism will be their undoing if they don't wake up and smell the coffee. At least one doesn't have to rely on China for the morning brew with the likes of Brazil, Vietnam, Indonesia and Columbia providing the bulk of the world's coffee beans [Wikipedia]. However, an increasing amount is now being shipped to China as their appetite for coffee grows. Exports of Brazilian coffee to China surged 186.1% in 2024 compared to 2022-2023. So even that's not a safe bet [Xinhua].

tvnewswatch, London, UK

HMS Britain sinking as economy slides

When the new Labour government sought office it promised 'Change' and claimed that it had costed its manifesto pledges whilst dismissing in a number of pre-election debates that it would not raise taxes.

Black holes and expectations

Yet within weeks of winning the 2024 general election the new administration took aim at pensioners by cutting winter fuel payments and warned of a 'painful' budget due to a 'black hole' in the economy which it claimed it had not foreseen and that it had inherited from the previous Tory government.

Since the election Labour repeatedly claimed to have inherited a "£22 billion black hole" from the previous government. But there are suggestions the hole could be even larger with the Guardian pointing to a £100 billion hole and Sky News, prior to the budget, that the Chancellor of the Exchequer Rachel Reeves was looking to find £40 billion to plug public finances.

Whether the figure is as low as £20 billion or as much as £100 billion, it should come as no surprise to anyone that the British economy is failing.

GDP falls again

On Friday 13th December new figures showed the UK economy had declined further in October from the previous month, sinking the pound, and providing a tailwind for a FTSE 100 stacked with international earners

According to the Office for National Statistics, UK gross domestic product fell 0.1% in October from a month prior. In September, GDP had fallen at the same rate. Moreover, the UK economy barely grew between July and September, with uncertainty about the Budget being blamed for the weak growth [BBC / Sky News].

Labour had made boosting economic growth its top priority when it came into power but Chancellor Rachel Reeves said she was "not satisfied" with these latest figures which cover the first three months of the new government.

Following criticism of her fiscal policy Reeves claimed that she had seen little in the way of solutions being put forward.

Elephant in the Room

However there is an elephant in the room that most politicians continue to ignore; that of Brexit.

Whether the majority of the British people voted for it or not, the fact is leaving the EU has decimated the economy. And the cost to each individual, on average, is significant.

A government report published in January this year said that the average Briton was nearly £2,000 worse off in 2023, while the average Londoner was nearly £3,400 worse off last year as a result of Brexit. Further to this the report said the UK economy was almost £140 billion smaller because of Brexit. According to the new research, the economic damage is only going to get worse – with more than £300 billion set to be wiped off the value of the UK's economy by 2035 if no action is taken, and more than £60 billion wiped off the value of London's economy alone [London gov / Camecon PDF].   

While the report was commissioned by the divisive politician Sadiq Khan and city hall, the otherwise independent report paints a bleak picture.

It also reinforces what is already known.

GDP loss

Estimates of the UK's GDP loss range from 1.2–4.5%. The UK's real Gross Value Added (GVA) in 2023 is around £140 billion less than it would have been if the UK remained in the EU.

Job losses

The UK has 1.8 million fewer jobs than it would have if Brexit had not happened. Moreover the UK is projected to have nearly 3 million fewer jobs post-Brexit by 2035.

Trade decline

UK goods exports to the EU have fallen by 27% since 2021, and imported goods are 32% lower. However, services have performed better than expected, with service exports now outpacing goods exports.

Regional disparities

The economic decline has been most pronounced in England and Scotland, while Northern Ireland has mostly benefited.

Foreign investment

Inward foreign direct investment dropped by 12.3 billion in 2020, the first drop since 2008.

Productivity

The OBR estimates that the UK's productivity could fall by 4% over the long term.

Living standards

Lower productivity usually means slower wage growth and lower living standards.

The list is almost endless.

It's the economy, stupid!

But while hardline Brexiteers may bleat about sovereignty - which was never really lost by being a member of the EU - to quote the US Democratic party strategist James Carville, "It's the economy, stupid!"

Simply put, if the economy is doing well, everything falls into place. If the economy fails it can lead to recession and even revolution.

Britain is unlikely to revolt. But the risk of a deep recession is very real [City AM] .

Of course money needs to be found to deal with the £22 billion deficit, and fund housing, infrastructural projects, the health service, etc.

But taxing a population who are already feeling the pain of Brexit repercussions, as well as the fallout from the war in Ukraine and the COVID-19 pandemic, will not improve matters.

Britain needs to attract investment, which in turn creates jobs. However, foreign investors are dissuaded from investing in the UK, primarily because of Brexit, due to increased red tape which makes exporting products to the EU more difficult logistically, and more expensive.

Tourism

There has been a fall in tourism to the UK since Brexit, especially school exchange trips. While new rules for French school trips were introduced in December 2023 there are concerns these may be affected by more Brexit red tape to come [Guardian].

And while there has been a slight lift in school parties heading to Britain since the former PM Rishi Sunak made a deal with the French last year, things don't always work out as intended. Earlier this month a minor paperwork error left 100 French schoolchildren stranded and forced to head back to their hometown after UK border officials refused entry.

The group of Year 6 students aged 10 and 11, had been eagerly anticipating their five-day trip to the Scottish Highlands. British border officials in Amsterdam refused them entry, citing incorrect information on the France-UK School Trip Travel Information Form, a mandatory document since Brexit for French students travelling to the UK. The error was a trivial one in that the school had mistakenly entered both identity card and passport numbers into the same section of the form, rather than separating them into their designated fields.

The 'jobs-worth' border guards could not be dissuaded by Dutch port officials who attempted to mediate and the students simply had to return to Saint-Winoc college in Bergues in northern France [La Voix du Nord].

The incident was not an isolated one. And while the news made headlines mostly in the French press, it is not good for Anglo-French relations.

Economically it is a disaster. French educational trips alone contributed around £100 million per year to the UK economy before Brexit [Schengen News]. But after Britain left the EU in January 2020 the numbers of trips fell by 60%. Sunak's deal with Macron last year boosted numbers a little but figures show only a 30% lift [Guardian / East Anglia Bylines]. 

Exports

Heading the other way are British exports. Though since Brexit these too have fallen off a cliff. British food sales to the EU have fallen by more than 16% on average across the three years since Brexit, with businesses blaming new border checks.

The report by the Centre of Inclusive Trade Policy (CITP) equates the financial figure to being a £2.82 billion a year drop in produce travelling from Britain to the EU [Sky News].

And it gets worse as the EU's General Product Safety Regulation (GPSR) will apply as of 13th December making it a requirement for businesses in third countries to carry out and record safety checks for items they wish to import into the EU bloc. Of course, this comes with a cost as well as yet more paperwork. The result, yet more small businesses giving up exporting from UK PLC [iNews].

There are of course other issues that Brexit has affected; immigration being perhaps one of the most contentious subjects. But economically Brexit has severely damaged the British economy and it's only likely to get worse according to economists [BBC].

BoE criticism

Soon after Rachel Reeves' budget the governor of the Bank of England, Andrew Bayley made a speech in which he said that Brexit had "weighed" on the economy.

"The changing trading relationship with the EU has weighed on the level of potential supply. The impact on trade seems to be more in goods than services, that is not particularly surprising to my mind. But it underlines why we must be alert to and welcome opportunities to rebuild relations while respecting the decision of the British people," Bayley said [BBC / Guardian / BoE].  

Bailey was attempting to be diplomatic in stating that the UK should "rebuild relations while respecting the decision of the British people." However, polls are increasingly showing that the British people's position on Brexit has clearly shifted [Guardian]. 

Labour pledges

The new Labour government has dismissed out of hand any notion that Britain should rejoin the EU, the single market or the customs union.

Politically it would be damaging, since the pledge not to rejoin was clearly set out in their manifesto. But at some point the government needs to wake up and smell the coffee before it is too late to turn the boat around.

Rachel Reeves speaks of being "disappointed" concerning figures showing Britain's economic slowdown and merely talks of "hope" that things might improve [Daily Mail]. 

Hopes & Dreams

But futures aren't built on hopes and dreams. Farmers might have hoped for a better harvest this year. Yet inclement weather this year has resulted in the second worst harvest on record. The wheat harvest in England is estimated to be down by 21%, with Britain's wine producers also hit hard. Some harvests are down by between 75% and a third, depending on the region [Guardian].

While this has nothing to do with Brexit, leaving the EU will make replenishing the shortfalls with imported wheat more costly for consumers in the coming months since imports will prove more expensive due to Brexit related red tape.

The economic slump and rising costs is only likely to increase a brain drain. Recent polls indicate that some 23% of UK adults are considering moving abroad in the next five years, with 12% contemplating emigration in the next 12 months [ifammagazine]. 

Such figures are of course speculative. A desire to leave won't necessarily manifest itself in reality since there are practical and financial factors that may thwart such a move.

Nonetheless it is concerning that ever growing numbers of the better educated and qualified are expressing the desire to jump off what might be perceived as a sinking ship, HMS Britain.

Change

So back to that 'black hole'. Should the current government make the decision to rejoin the EU, what would that mean in reality?

There would of course be political repercussions from the hardline Brexit headbangers within the Tory party and Nigel Farage's Reform UK. Such protestations could of course be stemmed by proposing a final binding referendum, now that the British public has seen the fallout from the 2016 Brexit decision.

Negotiations could then be discussed, in lieu of this, with EU counterparts with a proposal to implement article 49, and thus pave the way to Britain's rejoining the bloc.

The mere proposal to rejoin, while upsetting some, would likely increase confidence within business and could bolster investment from abroad if seen as a serious attempt at becoming a key player within Europe once again. This in turn could see deficits reduced and a rebuilding of the economy.

Of course there will be hurdles. And it could take up to ten years before being ratified - though there is a slim chance that this could be sped up if there was agreement on all sides.

A change of direction, rather than the 'make Brexit work' approach - which clearly isn't working, has a far greater potential of bringing back some buoyancy to HMS Britain and help turn the ship around.

Britain may still have some future, but not whilst it is sailing around in a rudderless ship without a clear set course, and from which greater numbers of passengers and crew are fleeing in whatever lifeboats they can find.


tvnewswatch, London, UK

'Pugnacious', 'Rude' & 'Chauvinist' - Prescott dies, age 86

Described as pugnacious and combative, John Prescot, a former deputy prime minister in Tony Blair's Labour administration, has died aged 86. Prescott courted controversy during his tenure once punching a protester who threw an egg during an election campaign walk about. In November 2000 he faced accusations of rudeness towards women after France's environment minister accused him of chauvinism. Mme Voynet said, "Mr Prescott blames me for the failure of the Hague conference and ... adopted a standard macho attitude."

"According to Prescott, a woman is necessarily incompetent and can't physically last the course in such negotiations."

In the commons John Prescott criticised for putting two fingers up at the Conservatives during prime minister's questions in June 2005. At the time the deputy PM dismissed it as a misinterpreted gesture, yet exactly two years prior he was photographed flicking a V-sign at reporters outside No.10 Downing Street.

His rudeness wasn't confined to foreign ministers, the opposition and the press however. He criticised the then home secretary David Blunkett, accusing him of "arrogance" for berating his Cabinet colleagues.

Prescott was nicknamed 'Two Jags" due to having his own Jaguar as well as a ministerial one but was later dubbed Two Jabs after punching a farmer in 2001. This later changed to Two Shags after tabloid newspaper reports emerged of his sexual infidelity with his diary secretary, Tracey Temple, between 2002 and 2004.

The nicknames changed as further revelations and controversy continued. In 2006 he was known as John "no jobs" Prescott and ridiculed for clinging on to his salary, Jags, and grace-and-favour residence whilst his Whitehall super-ministry was scrapped.

Further controversies ensued after he was banned from driving, having been convicted of speeding at 105mph on the M1 in 1991, and banned again after a similar conviction in June 2015, thus earning him the new nickname "Two bans". In the latter case he had been caught by a police speed gun on the A15 at Scampton, in Lincolnshire doing 60mph in a 50mph limit.

Following his death, the current Labour prime minister Keir Starmer described Prescott as a "true giant" of the Labour movement and "a one-off". Former prime minister Gordon Brown described Lord Prescott as a "working class hero" and a "colossus and and titan of the Labour movement".

Prescott was not, in many people's eyes, a hero nor a one off. Accused of sexual assault, the philanderer and brutish thug revelled in his status as deputy PM and the wealth it brought, whilst taking advantage by claiming expenses for house renovations and even two new toilet seats. The nickname 'Two Bogs' did not catch on however.

Sources: BBC / BBC / Guardian / Independent / Mirror / Guardian / BBC / Independent / NBC / Wikipedia

tvnewswatch, London, UK

Fears of a fascist America after Trump landslide

While many - especially those who voted for him - deny that Trump is a fascist, the 47th president elect may potentially follow through with policies that could be considered fascist. Given the rhetoric and speeches he has made, there are many who fear that Trump could turn America into a fascist state.

The least worst scenario is that Trump's presidency will be authoritarian and leaning to the far-right. But there are some who are concerned he may try to establish an authoritarian dictatorship that won't relinquish power after four years.

Trump is likely to surround himself with advisers and generals that are loyal to him. As General Kelly recently stated in a New York Times article, Trump admired Hitler's having loyal generals and staff that carried out his orders without question.

He has also indicated that he has an admiration of leaders that are essentially dictators and even suggested he would like to follow in their footsteps. Of course it could be rhetoric. But it could be a statement of intent.

Scapegoats & enemies within

Hitler is of course known for his disposing of his political enemies and those he considered to be less than human, such as Jews, other ethnic groups, political radicals, such as communists, and homosexuals. These he sent to camps and later exterminated.

Trump has not spelled out an identical policy. However he has indicated that "on day one" he "will begin the largest deportation operation in American history" with use of the Alien Enemies Act of 1798.

Trump has long used disparaging language concerning illegal immigrants, describing them as "rapists" and "drug dealers". In many ways this is little different from the Nazi propaganda of the 1930s that demonised the Jews and enabled Hitler to enact his genocide.

Trump has likened his mass deportation plan to the campaign carried out under President Dwight D Eisenhower in 1954. Known by the ethnic slur "Operation Wetback", hundreds of thousands of people with Mexican ancestry, including some US citizens, were rounded up and deported. Trump's ambition is potentially vastly more draconian. Trump has pledged to expel "maybe as many as 20 million" people from the US.

Trump has claimed that he would use the Alien Enemies Act of 1798, which allows for summary deportation of non-citizens from a foreign country with which the US is at war. In his rationale, he would use it "to target and dismantle every migrant criminal network operating on American soil".

This policy, which sounds like something from the Nazi playbook, has been labelled "Operation Aurora" and would see the unleashing of "elite squads" of federal law enforcement officers to "hunt down, arrest and deport every last illegal alien gang member until there is not a single one left in this country". He has in addition called for the death penalty for "any migrant" who kills an American.

There will be some that will claim due process and law will prevent human rights breaches. But such policies are not too far removed from those carried out in the 1930s in Germany. Indeed, Trump has said removing undocumented immigrants from the country "will be a bloody story" echoing Adolf Hitler when he said undocumented immigrants were "poisoning the blood of the country" [Guardian].

Political enemies

It is not just immigrants Trump has in his sights. Some observers warn of a 'slide to authoritarianism' as Trump promises to crack down on critics and enact hardline policies.

He has suggested using the United States military against an "enemy from within". So who are these enemies? Trump has not been shy of naming some of them. Specifically, Trump has named current President Joe Biden, Vice President Kamala Harris, former President Barack Obama, Adam Schiff, senator-elect from California. former US Representative Liz Cheney as well as former House speaker Nancy Pelosi as targets for investigations. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/oct/30/trump-threats-election-enemy-within

While he hasn't said they would be executed or incarcerated, one can only imagine his intentions given his fiery rhetoric. But it isn't just Democrats and political opponents Trump has cited. He has also insinuated coming after reporters, journalists, prosecutors, judges and anyone else who disagrees with him.

The list is extensive but amongst the names are Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg, Special Counsel Jack Smith, Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg, Former Chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Mark Milley, Former FBI Director James Comey, Former Assistant District Attorney Mark Pomerantz, Former Trump Attorney Michael Cohen, Capitol Police Lt. Michael Byrd, Rep. Jamaal Bowman, up to 51 intelligence professionals for dismissing Hunter Biden's emails as Russian disinformation as well as Hunter Biden himself.

Most powerful US president

Prior to the election John Kelly, the Trump White House's longest-serving chief of staff,  has warned Trump would rule like a dictator and that he believed that the now 47th president met the definition of a fascist.

Having won the 2024 election Trump is set to become the most powerful person ever to hold the presidential office. Not only will he wield the awesome powers of the American executive, powers that, as conservatives used to complain, have grown over the decades, but he will do so with the fewest constraints of any former president, fewer even than in his own first term.

A court system that could not control Trump as a private individual will have even less control over him as president of the United States. Furthermore he will tip the scales in his favour as he appoints his own attorney general and other top officials at the Justice Department. The one check Congress has on a rogue president, namely, impeachment and conviction, has already proved all but impossible.

While he hasn't directly indicated a desire to be president for life, it is questionable as to whether the 22nd Amendment would be able to block him any more effectively from being president for life than the Supreme Court [Washington Post]. 

But what of a slide to a true dictatorship? Many have dismissed this as fanciful and far-fetched [The Atlantic].   

In the 1920s Italy, and in the 1930s Germany moved towards fascism. Both did so by subverting the democratic system that already existed and changed things over time in order to consolidate and establish absolute power over the state.

In simple terms Mussolini used intimidation tactics against voters, resulting in a landslide victory and a subsequent two-thirds majority in the 1924 election.  In the case of Hitler, he became the chancellor of Germany in 1933 following a series of electoral victories by the Nazi Party and soon after passed laws, such as the Enabling Act, allowing him to carry out his plans.

America has long considered itself the bastion of freedom and democracy. However, there have been concerns over the last century as to whether it too could become an authoritarian state.

Dorothy Thompson, a pioneering journalist who observed European fascism in the 1930s firsthand, began reporting on how far-right groups in the United States were aligning under a distorted patriotism, weaponizing democratic freedoms to further authoritarianism.

She warned that American fascism would always present itself as "true Americanism". In 1936, Thompson published a column titled "It Can Happen Here".

"Whom do they hate?" she asked. "Life, which has treated them badly. Who is to blame? Some scapegoat is to blame." These groups were determined "to exterminate anarchists, communists, Catholics, Negroes, and Jews; to restrict immigration and deport all undesirable aliens; to support and participate in lynch law; to arm its members for civil war… and eventually to establish a dictatorship in America." [New Statesman]

Parallels

At Trump's Madison Square Garden event, speakers called Puerto Ricans "garbage", insulted black Americans, Palestinians and Jewish people, and labelled Harris the "Antichrist". Elon Musk attended wearing a black MAGA hat evocative of Fraktur, a font popular with Nazi Germany, while Stephen Miller quoted one of the KKK's 1920s slogans, declaring that "America is for Americans only". The Trump campaign also reportedly played a verse of "Dixie", the popular anthem of the slaveholding Confederacy.

Some observers have also noted the parallels between the 1939 Nazi rally at the same location and the 2024 rally. Thompson, who attended the 1939 rally, observed that Sinclair Lewis's novel "It Can't Happen Here" had foreseen it "almost exactly", including the "Storm Troopers" poised to suppress "unruly elements".

The novel, published in 1935 describes the rise of Berzelius "Buzz" Windrip, a demagogue who is elected President of the United States, after fomenting fear and promising drastic economic and social reforms while promoting a return to patriotism and "traditional" values. After his election, Windrip takes complete control of the government via self-coup and imposes totalitarian rule with the help of a ruthless paramilitary force.

The last election

The 2024 election presented a choice between two visions of America. One offered the continuation of the nation's painful journey toward a pluralistic, multiracial democracy. The other choice which has seemingly been chosen by a huge proportion of the American people looks towards a "herrenvolk democracy" where democratic rights are restricted to the "master race".

Whilst Trump represents, for many, someone that is unhinged and makes crazy remarks concerning Haitians eating cats and dogs, for a large proportion of mainly white Americans who voted for him, Harris represented a direct challenge to a nostalgic view of power as the exclusive domain of white Christian men.

Many callers to UK radio shows on Wednesday suggested that Americans, especially men, weren't ready for a woman president. This is likely true. But her ethnic roots probably posed as much a barrier, especially amongst the red blooded white male Trump voter.

Born in California to Jamaican and Indian immigrant parents, Harris embodies the plural democracy Trump seeks to erase, but currently he only singles out the illegal immigrants - who happen not to be white.

Why has America chosen a 'fascist' over a moderate democrat? One black Harris voter speaking to the UK's Channel 4 News soon after the results came in, alluded to the sexist and racial divide. Asked why America did not vote for Kamala Harris, the voter told Washington Correspondent Siobhan Kennedy, "Number one, she's a woman. Secondly she's a black woman. America, still, is dealing with racial inequalities. So we're a split country right now, and that's the sad thing about it. We need to unify."

Both Mussolini and Hitler drew support for promising economic stability. And Trump's success has been as much to do with his economic policies as his showmanship.

Harris's stance on abortion and attempt to paint Trump as a fascist in waiting failed to pay off. Instead, Americans were drawn to the populism of Trump.

Seizing power

While Trump, like Mussolini and Hitler, has promised to fix the economy and bring back wealth for Americans, much of his stated game plan appears to be one of using an iron fist to implement his policies.

Some believe the US constitution will prevent him from over exerting his power. While he has spoken of using the military to seek out his enemies and immigrants, the constitution does indeed prevent him from doing this. However he does have authority over the national guard. And who is to say the ranks might not be bolstered in order to maintain his position of power.

Even in American history there have been authoritarian policies enacted and carried out. Prohibition and McCarthyism are just two examples where the state has sought to clampdown on Americans, be it their social enjoyment - that of drinking alcohol - or their perceived political views.   

Fascism and authoritarianism doesn't happen overnight. If Trump does intend to establish such a state it will be incremental. Authority over the national guard will at first be seen as 'necessary' to round up 'illegal immigrants'. 'Detainment camps' may be 'needed' to process such people. McCarthyism is a blueprint which could be strengthened to deal with the 'enemies within'.

Many people dismiss the concerns of America becoming a fascist state. Just because Trump and his cohorts don't wear fascist symbols or swastikas, does not make them any less dangerous.

Many novels that warn of a rise of fascism often use such symbols. The Man In The High Castle, a 1963 Philip K Dick novel which imagined a world in which Germany and Japan won the second world war, was heavily saturated in such motifs as was the Amazon Prime TV production that hit screens at the beginning of Trump's first presidency [Guardian]. 

It is unlikely that future totalitarian regimes will adopt symbols from previous movements as often depicted in dystopian fiction. Trumpism already has its own slogans and symbols. It has "Make America Great Again" and "Fight, Fight, Fight" - which became a rallying call after Trump's 'miraculous' escape from an assassin's bullet. It has 'MAGA' and the red baseball cap as well as the American flag.

The author Michael Rosen echoes what many others have said, "I sometimes fear that people think that fascism arrives in fancy dress, worn by grotesques and monsters
as played out in endless re-runs of the Nazis. Fascism arrives as your friend. It will restore your honour, make you feel proud, protect your house, give you a job, clean up the neighbourhood, remind you of how great you once were, clear out the venal and the corrupt, remove anything you feel is unlike you… It doesn't walk in saying, "Our programme means militias, mass imprisonments, transportations, war and persecution."

However in Trump's case he has, in part, warned of some of that [PBS].

tvnewswatch, London, UK

US on the verge of Civil War as Trump heads to victory

With just a week to go before the US 2024 election, there are many who still feel that Kamala Harris has a strong chance of preventing Donald Trump from returning to the White House. However, while Harris is undoubtedly the less worse candidate, it is unlikely that she will make gains in the few days left before Americans head to the polls.

The threat from Donald Trump is clear to anyone with eyes and ears. But there are a number of reasons why he remains a strong contender in the race for the presidency.

Character over substance

Putting aside Trump's lack of vision and policy, he has managed to dominate the news agenda with bizarre comments and off the wall statements. From claiming that groups of Haitian immigrants are engaged in eating dogs and cats to strange ramblings about a dead golfer's penis Trump has controlled the narrative. Week on week the mainstream media have been more focused on Trump's latest faux pas than what Kamala Harris might be saying. And even when the democratic candidate does make headlines it has tended to be more on her reaction over Trump latest comments rather than her policies.

Fraught campaign

The Democratic Party has made several mistakes in this campaign. The first major mistake was not to put forward a serious contender in place of the incumbent Joe Biden. It was clear, even months prior to the campaign beginning, that he was not in a fit mental state. THen came the disastrous presidential debate in June 2024 [BBC / YouTube]. Even after the car crash of a presidential debate with Donald Trump it was weeks before he eventually stood down and handed the baton to Kamala Harris.

The debate on the 27th June triggered many democrats to suggest he might step back while media pundits poured over the growing evidence that Biden was clearly unfit for the job. By July 19, 2024, more than 30 senior Democrats had called for him to withdraw. Finally on July 21, 2024, Biden withdrew his candidacy via a signed letter posted on his personal Twitter account, writing that this was "in the best interest of my party and the country" While Kamala Harris 2024 launched her presidential campaign on the same day she only became official Democratic presidential nominee on August 5, 2024, nearly forty days after that disastrous debate.

Harris was clearly a better candidate than Biden. However there were far better potential candidates within the party than Harris, who had especially been sidelined during her time as VP. But time was pressing and there was no debate concerning the picking of a different candidate. After all, Biden's ill-conceived candidacy had already wasted weeks of campaign time and Harris now had only 90 days to convince the American public that she was the best choice.

There then followed further delays before Harris picked her running mate Tim Walz who had little if any charisma and was likened by some to being like a middle school governor, indeed he was a former school teacher [BBC]. His prowess at public speaking was also less than inspiring and he also failed to impress during a Vice Presidential debate with Trump's chosen running mate J.D.Vance.

It wasn't helpful either when it was revealed that he wasn't in Hong Kong at the time of the Tiananmen Square massacre as he had previously claimed. When challenged on this Walz rambled on about something else entirely before being challenged once again. "I misspoke," Walz finally conceded [BBC]. 

A divided America

There are a number of key issues that affect many Americans. One specific issue is that of jobs, tax and the economy. Another is that of gun ownership. And there is also the issue surrounding women's rights and abortion.

Both candidates have spelled out their stance concerning all these issues. Both maintain that their plans for the economy will serve America the best while criticising their opponent for their plans. However even economists are divided as to who would be the best candidate concerning such issues.

Trump has said he is the best choice for the average American. "Together, we will deliver low taxes, low regulations, low energy costs, low interest rates and low inflation so that everyone can afford groceries, a car and a home".

He has also promised tariffs of up to 20% on goods imported into the US, and 60% on all goods from China. His rationale is that by making imported goods more expensive, US companies will be encouraged to make more goods domestically, so American workers will benefit in terms of millions more well-paid manufacturing jobs at home [BBC].  However, some economists fear a trade war could ensue which could trigger a global financial crisis.

Many Americans believe that grocery chains and food companies are ripping them off. Food prices are up by about 25% compared to before the pandemic, and some polls suggest American consumers' view of the grocery industry has sunk to a two-decade low.

Harris has promised to address this, saying "As president, I will take on the high costs that matter most to most Americans, like the cost of food".

Polls appear to indicate that Trump is trusted more on his economic plan according to polling released recently, as the American economy sits at a potential inflection point heading into the election [FT].

However when it comes to women's rights and abortion Harris wins over Trump.

One reflection of this is the lean of male voters towards Trump whilst women are leaning towards Harris.

Gun control is one of the most polarising issues in American politics, and whilst it hasn't been a key issue discussed during the debates and discussions leading up to the election it has concerned people on both sides of the political spectrum.

Harris says she favours the Second Amendment and said in the September 10th debate with Trump that she owns a gun. However this has not allayed fears that the Democrats will restrict gun owners rights. Indeed Harris has said she would "ban assault weapons and high-capacity magazines, require universal background checks, and support red flag laws that keep guns out of the hands of dangerous people." On the face of it these seem sensible measures given the number of mass shootings in the US. But the right to bear arms runs deep in America, even the likes of automatic assault weapons.

Despite having two failed assassination attempts on his own life, Trump has stated that "no one will lay a finger on your firearms" if he wins the election [CBS]. 

Personality cult

While Harris's policies are, on balance, focused and level headed, many Americans are drawn more towards personality. While the political pundits fact check and dismiss much of what Trump says at his rallies, it means little to his supporters.

"I don't think he really means that," one Trump supporter says, referring to the former president's comments concerning dogs and cats, "He says things for effect."

Trump is a showman more than a politician. His speeches often last for hours and despite being 78 he shows stamina, even if much of what he says is untrue or has only a slim basis in fact.

For many that attend his rallies he has irresistible comedic value that finds the audience compelled to watch and listen for hours [FT].

Warnings and criticism

There are many former members of Trump's administration that have come out and criticised the former president. With just days to go before America goes to the polls John Kelly, the Trump White House's longest-serving chief of staff, said that he believed that Donald Trump met the definition of a fascist and that he was an existential threat to democracy [CNN]. In the days that followed more former aides broke cover to back up Kelly's comments [Guardian].

But it all seems too little too late. Why did these individuals not come forward sooner? Coming out this late in the campaign is unlikely to shift the balance and tip the scales in favour of Harris.

Trump has mused in recent speeches and interviews about turning the US military on political rivals he has referred to as the "enemy within", comments that Harris has pointed to as evidence that the former president is "unhinged" and poses a danger to democratic values [CNN]. 

Kelly might have acted late in coming out as did H.R.McMaster, who spent 13 months as National Security Advisor in the Trump White House, with his recent book At War with Ourselves, but they aren't the first to bring attention to Trump's being unfit to hold office.

John Bolton, a former US National Security Adviser, was one of the first to express his misgivings about the former president in his book The Room Where It Happened published in June 2020. The book was a scathing and revelatory attack on Trump.

Bolton sys Trump had "no grand strategy" and displayed "a random walk" with "a total focus on re-election" [USA Today - YouTube]. 

Some four years on, Bolton's opinion has barely shifted. "Trump is unfit to be president," Bolton wrote in the new foreword to "The Room Where it Happened," his account of the 17 months he spent as Trump's national security adviser. "If his first four years were bad, a second four will be worse."

However, despite many Republicans jumping ship and endorsing Harris and criticism growing from former members of the Trump White House, the polls show an almost level pegging between the two candidates.

Polls

It has often been said there are lies, damn lies and then there are statistics. And polls too, could be taken with a large pinch of salt. With a week to go before the 2024 election national polls appeared to show Harris and Trump at 47% each [CNN].

However, for whatever reason, Republicans often under poll, as was explained by James Carville, who rose to prominence for helping Bill Clinton to the White House in 1992. Speaking on Bill Maher's Real Time in late August, Carville said, "I tell Democrats, some caution here. First of all, most quants [quantitative analysts] say we have to win by three in the popular vote."

"So when you see a poll that says we are two up, well actually you are one down if the poll is correct."

"Trump traditionally, when he is on a ballot, chronically under polls. They came back late in Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania in 2020 and it showed Biden winning these states by seven or eight points."

Polls are no exact science and while Harris has certainly done better than Biden in polls, it's not a slam dunk.

Moreover, it is not the popular vote that paves the way to the White House, but the winning of so-called 'swing states'.

Skewed electoral system

America's electoral system is hinged upon candidates securing what are called electoral colleges. Each of the 50 US states is assigned a number of college votes which translate to representatives. Some states have many college votes such as California with some 54 while others have just a handful. The number of college votes is related to the population and can thus change over time. This means that the swing-states, that can affect the outcome of the election, can change from one election to another [Vox - YouTube].

Trump did not win the popular vote in 2016, but nonetheless took the presidency due to taking more Electoral College votes.The current state of play appears to indicate Trump only needing to secure Pennsylvania, North Carolina and Georgia in order to secure the presidency.

The strongly leaning states currently show Harris with 226 electoral college votes against Trump's 219, with the milestone being 270. But there are 7 states where polls don't show a clear winner; Nevada, Arizona, Wisconsin, Michigan, Pensylvannia, North Carolina and Georgia.

The likely key states in this race are the aforementioned Pennsylvania, North Carolina and Georgia. Trump won North Carolina in 2016 and while polls show a shift towards the Democrats, it may not be enough to tip the scales [BBC].

Another key state is that of Georgia where latest polls also seem to indicate that Trump has a slight lead over Harris [Newsweek].

Given the polls are correct, Trump would thus only need to secure Pennsylvania. However polls here show a divide of less than 1%, with latest polling showing Trump just 0.3% ahead of his rival.

However if the likes of Carville are correct, Trump may have a win here too. If Trump takes these three along with what are seen as Republican leaning states, Harris has little chance even if she takes the rest of the battleground states as well as traditional Democratic states [CNN].  

Possible outcomes

Few are willing to predict the outcome of this election, despite all indications showing a Trump win.

But what will the return of a Trump presidency mean? Some have opined that given Trump's right-wing leanings and praise of Hitler, that a 'Third Reich or sorts could emerge. Of course others have dismissed this as hyperbole.

However, Donald Trump has talked about using the military and the National Guard to control chaos on election day approaching on the 5th November. Asked if he was worried about violence by immigrants, he answered: "I think the bigger problem is the enemy within," continuing to say that "radical left-lunatics" could pose a potential problem on Election Day. "It should be very easily handled by, if necessary, by National Guard or if really necessary by the military." In some appearances, the former President has named Representative Adam Schiff and former Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi as "enemies within."

But would Trump really round up his enemies in something reminiscent of the 'Night of the Long Knives', a purge that took place in Nazi Germany from 30 June to 2 July 1934. Some certainly fear he might.

However, former White House national security adviser John Bolton has suggested that while a second Trump administration poses "dangers" for the country, former President Trump is "not capable" of being a fascist.

"I think his behaviour alone is troubling enough," he told CNN host Kaitlan Collins. "To be a fascist, you have to have a philosophy. Trump's not capable of that."

It might be true to say that Trump is not the brightest spanner in the toolkit, but that doesn't make him any less dangerous.

Trump deploys language to confuse, destroy, and obliterate any sense of meaning or common understanding. Indeed he has often failed to follow through on declared objectives. Barely any of the wall between Mexico and America got built, and Mexico has yet to receive the bill!

Fears of Civil War

Whilst the face of America will undoubtedly change when Trump wins, there could be a worse outcome if he fails to secure a second term.

One worse case scenario could be a call to arms by militias across America if they feel the election has been 'stolen' from them. Such a scenario could quickly spiral out of control and descend into civil war.

Is this fanciful? Well, some have already called for an insurrection should Trump lose. In June Ohio state Sen. George Lang said that civil war would be necessary if former President Donald Trump does not win the 2024 presidential election.

If Trump loses the election, former Trump-administration official Peter Navarro has declared that "the country will disintegrate."

But it's not just Trump supporters that are raising concerns. One in four Americans fear a civil war could break out following the presidential election, a new poll has found. A YouGov poll of 1,266 registered voters has found that 84% of citizens believe America is more divided today than ten years ago. And 12% of respondents claimed to know someone who "might take up arms" if they believed Donald Trump is "cheated" of an election victory. Five percent said they knew someone who would do the same for Kamala Harris [Daily Mail]. 

Such prospects will make January 6th look like a Sunday school picnic. 

The Daily Show's Jon Stewart described the closing days of the election campaign as a "What the f***" moment in American history. "Did we all just die during COVID and is this some surreal purgatory?" Stewart ponders following Trump's latest publicity stunt of cooking fries at a branch of McDonald's. "Or maybe it's a dream!" [The Daily Show]. Sadly not. This will be America's nightmare from which the rest of the world will catch more than just a cold.

tvnewswatch, London, UK

The Internet is becoming a tide of digital detritus

With the world apparently going crazy and with an axis of evil growing around the so-called BRICs, increasing tensions in the Middle East, no sign of peace in the ongoing war in Ukraine and a likely Trump presidency in less than two weeks, it is hard to find any sanity.

Online social media only seems to add fuel to the fire. Twitter, especially since Elon Musk's takeover, has become a turgid mess of conspiracy theories and the far-right battling with those that once inhabited this space. While Trump's so-called Truth Social has gained ground and risen in value, Twitter has lost nearly 80% of its value since Musk bought it. Threads, Facebook/Meta's answer to microblogging, has gained some traction but still remains a less dominant platform than Twitter. And of course there's Telegram, an encrypted service which facilitates users being able to post content that would be censored on any of the aforementioned sites. And then there's the slightly calmer world of Bluesky, set up by Jack Dorsey after selling his social network to Musk.

There are many who understandably want to jump ship from Twitter, especially given what Musk has turned it into. Users are continually plagued by Bots and spam. Reporting such accounts rarely results in those accounts being banned. And simply 'blocking' those same accounts won't actually block them in the same way, in as much as the blocked accounts will still be able to view your posts.

But jumping ship has many pitfalls. The main one is that many of the accounts and people one might follow may not be on Bluesky. And persuading those individuals to board another boat may not be easy. How many people do you know who still use a Hotmail or Outlook account despite the many advantages of having a GMail/Google account?

Musk's change to the way users are 'blocked' on Twitter/X resulted in a surge of people 'migrating' to Bluesky. The exodus of users fleeing to Bluesky was reportedly in excess of half a million users joining the service in a day.

It's not the exodus that has occurred. Many Twitter/X users also began setting up Mastodon accounts some months ago as it was speculated Musk's social media platform might collapse in on itself. So far that has yet to happen. And many of those Mastodon accounts have largely become dormant and inactive.

The biggest problem for many of those shifting to another platform is maintaining a presence on two or more platforms. Establishing a new presence on Bluesky is all well and fine but continuing to maintain a presence on Twitter/X now demands one to post everything to two accounts.

Why bother, one might ask oneself. Well, the issue is one of interaction with a base that one has established on Twitter/X. Simply throwing the baby out with the bathwater and only posting to Bluesky essentially cuts off communication with hundreds or even thousands of 'followers', many of whom are unlikely to move to Bluesky unless Twitter/X completely collapses.

This is an existential dilemma for many microblogging users. Even the Twitter co-founder Jack Dorsey has left the board of Bluesky, the decentralised social network he helped start, and encouraged users to remain on his first site, now owned by Elon Musk and renamed X. In fact Dosey even deleted his Bluesky account entirely in September 2024, some four years after he founded the platform.

While maintaining a minimal presence on Twitter/X Dorsey has focused more on his new venture Nostr.

For old school social media users, Bluesky users will find it less based around algorithms. They may also find themselves less bombarded with bots, spam and ads, though this too could change.

The future however may well result in many old school users abandoning all these platforms altogether. It has very much become a minefield. Trying to navigate past the dross of 'suggested posts', ads and spam has become tiresome. Scrolling has become a time wasting exercise with little or nothing to show for it.

The same is becoming true of YouTube with having to negotiate past endless ads which adblockers are in a constant cat and mouse game to circumvent.

While the advent of the Internet was exciting, it has become more and more a frustration over the years as one tries to avoid pop-ups, ads and unwanted content.

While I am certainly not a Luddite when it comes to technology, the changing face of the online world is more a hindrance  than a help at times.

Google's retirement of platforms or attempting to force people onto paid subscription services has not helped. Google Music was great, but the free version of YouTube Music falls flat in comparison. The subscription free version of YouTube similarly is almost not worth the effort.

MySpace and Friends Reunited have been consigned to history while Facebook is also becoming less relevant as people want instant gratification with the likes of Tik Tok, SnapChat et al.

In this swirl of digital detritus, there is a growing number of people who, quite understandably, are beginning to abandon the online world and reaching for real books or playing CDs and DVDs.

While there are few that would wish a return to the early days of the Internet when we only had AltaVista and AskJeeves, the current state of the online world has become a digital tide of effluent. But sadly it's unlikely to get any better.

Oh well, where's that book I was reading?

tvnewswatch, London, UK

Labour still in denial over Brexit disaster

It's been a full two years since Liz Truss took the reins from Boris Johnson and helped wreck the UK economy in just a few weeks as PM. Trussonomics, with promises to cut tax, had dealt a hammer blow to the Tory party's long-held reputation for fiscal responsibility.

Liz Truss and Kwasi Kwarteng launched their ill-fated "mini" Budget and their optimistically labelled "Growth Plan" it set out the largest set of tax cuts since 1972, and carried an estimated cost of £60bn. The plans came with little indication of how the government would fund the policies, and without official costing from the fiscal watchdog, the Office for Budget Responsibility.

Already jittery markets were not reassured by Truss or her chancellor, and in the days that followed, UK assets sold off, and gilt yields spiked as prices fell. The yield on 10-year gilts soared by 120 basis points in the space of just a few days, and the UK pound fell to its lowest ever level against the dollar, hitting $1.04 on 26th September 2022. The drop in gilt prices reverberated through financial markets, and pension funds engaging in liability-driven investment faced a crisis when they were forced to sell assets to meet margin calls. The Bank of England stepped in, in the interests of financial stability, and purchased long-dated gilts to prevent a 'doom-loop' setting in. Planned quantitative tightening was temporarily suspended.

Perhaps most remarkably of all, this all happened within the space of just 45 days.

Truss left office in disgrace, but remains unrepentant. Meanwhile Rishi Sunak, a former chancellor himself, took up the reins as PM with a promise of "'integrity, professionalism and accountability at every level".

However in the nearly two years that followed he was unable to turn the boat around, managing only to turn it slightly away from Britain's ongoing economic downslide.

Britain's dire economic position is multifold. As Sunak continually pointed out throughout his disastrous election campaign, the COVID pandemic and the war in Ukraine and the resulting energy price surges had significantly affected Britain's economic position.

Inflation had risen dramatically at the point the pandemic hit and did eventually make a turn in late 2022 as Sunak took power. What Sunak also failed to overlook is that just as COVID hit, so did Britain officially leave the EU.

With it came extra costs, in terms of paperwork and customs declarations, and a gradual decline of much needed workers in a number of sectors.

Truss had come to power with a pledge to Save Brexit while Sunak, along with a number of others in his cabinet, maintained that Labour would reverse Brexit.

Some eight years after the EU referendum and four years since actually leaving the block, the reality of Brexit is becoming clearer.

While Trussonomics, COVID and the war in Ukraine have had an effect on Britain's economy, Brexit has arguably had a far more significant and long lasting impact.

The Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) estimates that Brexit will cost the UK 4% of its GDP annually over the long term. This is equivalent to a cost of £32 billion per year to the UK taxpayer.

However Bloomberg found that Brexit is costing the UK economy £100 billion a year. 

There are few metrics that point to any Brexit benefits. Johnson's Minister for Brexit Opportunities was often ridiculed and lasted only a few months without any luck in finding anything significant [Wikipedia / BBC].  

Yet finding disadvantages and costs since Brexit is not so difficult. Lorry queues at Dover, Britain's biggest export hub, are a daily occurrence. The situation worsens during peak holiday times as travellers join queues often in excess of two hours. Much is primarily due to Brexit since as a third country Britain now has to submit to passport checks and stamps.

With de facto visas and biometric checks required in the coming months such scenes are likely to get worse over time.

The new Labour government have said they will spend £10.5 million to help ports prepare for the European Union's post-Brexit security checks for UK nationals entering the bloc and reduce the risk of queuing and disruption. But it may prove to be a small sticking plaster on what is a gaping wound.

This is an example of Labour's apparent inability to see the enormity of the problem. Fearful of scaring the Brexiteers away, Labour rubber stamped its manifesto with the bold statement that Labour would not rejoin the EU, the customs union or single market.

Yet it is precisely these factors that are impeding Britain's economic growth. Of course the rest of the world might offer some market opportunities, but even where Britain has managed to make deals beyond Europe, they are miniscule compared to the, now diminished, markets on Britain's doorstep.

Labour has talked of needing to repair a black hole in Britain's spending, and that overspending by the previous Tory administration has required them to make savings.

Yet savings announced so far amount to taking money from those who might least be able to afford it, that being pensioners, with Labour announcing that they will stop winter fuel payments to those not claiming pension credit or who are deemed to have significant assets.

The policy is expected to reduce the number of pensioners who receive the winter fuel payment from 11.4 million to 1.5 million, saving the Treasury £1.4bn this financial year [BBC]. 

That, according to Bloomberg's figures above, is 1.4% of what Brexit is costing the economy.

But there is of course no shift to rejoin. Only an attempt to 'move closer' to Europe as Keir Starmer met with his German counterpart Olaf Scholz in what was described as a "wider reset" with Europe [BBC]. 

Brexiteers and the right-wing press were overly excited claiming Starmer was about to undo or reverse Brexit. If only.

There might have been some remainers and rejoiners hopeful it was a change in position or that it might be a turning point in the road.

However, for anyone understanding the nature of the EU, Germany - nor any member country - can make a unilateral deal without it being signed off by the bloc as a whole.

Indeed in terms of clarification Starmer said that while he wants a reset in relations between the UK and EU, it "would not mean reversing Brexit or re-entering the single market or Customs Union".

Despite an element of positive thinking, Starmer was later criticised after rejecting a youth mobility scheme [Guardian].

Before the week was done and just days before MPs head back to parliament, Starmer spoke to reporters in the rose garden in Downing Street.

In his address he spoke of a "painful" Autumn budget and that "things will get worse before they get better" [BBC]. 

While this might have been welcome honesty, such a statement will do nothing for the economy. It might only precipitate further problems as consumers tighten their belts and stop spending, businesses put plans on hold and foreign investment errs on the side of caution.

So far there have been few signs of any direct reaction to Starmer's statement [BBC].

Liz Truss's mini-budget was delivered on 23rd September 2022 and within days caused turmoil. Rachel Reeves is not expected to deliver her budget until 30th October, the day before Halloween. There is already talk of increased fuel duty. And following leaks that Labour might declare war on smokers with an outdoor smoking ban, tax rises on tobacco might also feature [Sky News].

It remains to be seen what the fallout of Labour's fiscal policy is. But just short of 100 days in office they have made few friends, and quite a few enemies.

tvnewswatch, London, UK