Impeachment: The Democrats Lost the Argument a Long Time Ago.

I rarely comment on US politics, as I don't have the in-depth knowledge or contacts over the pond that allow me too much insight.

But the current impeachment inquiry looks like a busted flush. It looked doomed to fail before Congress decided to embark on the hearsay-laden witchhunt.

Had they quietly ditched the "Russiagate" thing back in 2017 and regrouped to then a couple of years later bring up Ukraine and start impeachment, then they may have had a chance to sway the people. Had they had real, tangible proof.

But three years the Russian thing went on for. Three years and millions of dollars spent, for what? A couple of minor scalps and nothing of substance.

So "Russiagate" fails, and unable to pull Trump down with the economy (up) or jobs (also up) or security (no illegal wars), within months the Ukraine thing emerges. The Democrats hoping above hope that the people would think that "Actually, maybe the Democrats were right, they just got the country wrong". I'm not sure what warped mentality stands in for sense in the Democrat party, but this ain't it.

The people of the US seem to be able to see a party sliding down a cliff clutching at tufts of grass as they slide ever closer to the edge and the inevitable fall.

In the UK, we've have the same with remainers. Unable to comprehend that the people would want something so antithetical to their beliefs, remain MPs and millionaires have attempted to thwart Brexit. Luckily we had an election that knocked the final nail in the coffin. As a people we declared our will and politically punished those that actively worked against us.

In the US, the Democrats are hoping that throwing muddy sod after muddy sod would cling to Trump. But the people are set in their thinking. They like Trump, they can feel the benefits of a better economy, the working class are benefiting from an increased job market. And the people like the fact Trump is attempting to deal with the Chinese issue.

Hopefully 2020 will allow the US people to do as we did in December last year and finally nail the lid of the dissenter's coffin closed. Finally, maybe, the US can move forward.

All I can see until then is the political stagnation and pain that the UK had to endure in the Autumn. We cleaned house. I hope that in November the US can too.

As an addendum, if the Democrats had any sense (which it appears they don't) they would make Tulsi Gabbard their Presidential candidate. She's been clever enough to rise above the cesspit of the "get Trump" mob in the Democrat party and strong enough not get dragged into the mire. She essentially abstained on the impeachment vote and she's strong on defence for defence's sake, not the politicking grandstanding faux defence of the Clintons. Gabbard has shown true leadership when the rest of the Democrat party race to the bottom, with the vote-winning formula of denigrating the President, denigrating the people and denigrating the USA

More Jobs, But Are They Worth It?

I went up to Bicester yesterday to help my son move from hid flat. It's been a good few years since I went up there and had the time to look around.

The town was targeted as a new "Garden City" where the majority of new Homes on the Oxford-Cambridge belt will be built.

Bicester has gone through substantial changes in the 10 years since I left and none more so than the last five years. From a huge new housing estate, to massive retail parks springing up. The extension of Bicester Village, the posh retail park has effectively reached it's limit and now there is a further retail park being built across the road.

What struck me is all of this expansion in jobs is in retail. I've blogged in the past how retail jobs aren't sustainable. The problem is with retail jobs that people work in retail, get paid, then spend their money in retail. It's just a circular path for the money with big corporations syphoning off their profit and paying very little tax. The money ends up offshore, so we're bleeding money away.

The only way of propping this model up is by increasing the money supply. Pumping fake money into the economy so that we can buy more stuff.  It's not a sustainable model. The country cannot keep inflating the economy forever. In the end it all collapses. As it has several times in the past.

The country has to move away from the unsustainable retail model and start to move towards a more sustainable economy, where the majority of money is not inflated, but instead earned.

We have to start making money, real money by making a profit - as a country. We have to start making things within our borders to sell outside the UK.

Subsidising Wages: Continuing Labour Party Plan to Sunsidise Big Corporations.

It's been reported that Labour Leadership hopeful Jess Phillips' latest plan in her bid to win is to promote free childcare for all.

Honourable as that is, you have to ask a few questions. The first is why do we need it and the second is who is going to pay for it?

The first reason is the fall in effective wages over the past 40 years or so. It seems that hand-in-glove with feminism, wages have depressed. Women have fought for the right to have equal rights to jobs and pay, but with that influx of labour into the market, wages have depressed. After all, the more people you have able to do a particular job, the less you can pay for it. It's supply and demand.

After all, you don't think big corporations would pay previous wage levels if they could start to reduce wages and see where people stop applying. Nope, a larger workforce means more people able to do the work and lower wages as a result.

Such has been the depression in wages that it's pretty rare one person in a couple can earn enough to run a family and for the other person to stay at home and do all the childcare stuff. I've been a house husband in the past, so I make no remarks on which member of the family works and which does the childcare.

So, wages become depressed so both parents have to work. The Blair government then introduced tax credits for families because wages had become so depressed families with both parents working couldn't raise a family.

Let's be clear about this: tax credits is taking money from people without children and giving it to people with families, to bolster wages supressed by big corporations. In effect subsidising the big corporation's wage bills at the taxpayer's expense.

So, we start importing even more workers from Europe and wages became even more depressed. Guess what? Now Labour are talking about providing free childcare. I assume funded by the taxpayer again. So people without kids have to subsidise those with kids so they can go out and earn wages depressed by big business that have also to be subsidised by the tax payer.

Where does it stop? We're already paying for people not to work (benefits), we're paying to top up the wages of people with families (tax credits) and now Jess Phillips wants us to pay for childcare too?

Why can't we flip the coin and start to put in place a regime where big corporations have to pay decent wages? Why can't we stop importing cheap labour? Why can't we start moving tax credits over to corporation tax funding, instead of from general (i.e. mainly income tax) funding?
Why can't we aim instead to limit the supply of labour and thereby increase wages?

I assume the answer would be the big corporations would go elsewhere. Well, let them. But each big corporation that leaves would find themselves the subject of big tariffs if they tried to import goods instead. And the government would let them know this before they left.

Instead of Labour rushing to the bottom, how's about trying to improve the quality of labour and the level of wages in this country.

With Jess Phillips' childcare policy aiding big corporations, you could almost call her policy Thatcherite....