davidsberry

This blogger subscribes to a number of sources regarded as reliable with the intention of presenting information and opinions here based on factual evidence. Occasionally, those sources present what Americans might call a “humdinger” of a scoop that demands wider distribution. One such is today’s blog from Heather Cox Richardson, containing the following verbatim quote.

Heather Cox Richardson, Aug 23

Today’s big news is an eye-popping $1.6 billion donation to a right-wing nonprofit organized in May 2020. This is the largest known single donation made to a political influence organization.

The money came from Barre Seid, a 90-year-old electronics company executive, and the new organization, Marble Freedom Trust, is controlled by Leonard A. Leo, the co-chair of the Federalist Society, who has been behind the right-wing takeover of the Supreme Court. Leo has also been prominent in challenges to abortion rights, voting rights, climate change action, and so on. He announced in early 2020 that he was stepping back from the Federalist Society to remake politics at every level, but information about the massive grant and the new organization was broken today by Kenneth P. Vogel and Shane Goldmacher of the New York Times.

Marble is organized as a nonprofit, so when Seid gave it 100% of the stock in Tripp Lite, a privately held company that makes surge protectors and other electronic equipment, it could sell the stock without paying taxes. The arrangement also likely enabled Seid to avoid paying as much as $400 million in capital gains taxes on the stock. Law professor Ray Madoff of Boston College Law School, who specializes in philanthropic policy, told the New York Times: “These actions by the super wealthy are actually costing the American taxpayers to support the political spending of the wealthiest Americans.”

This massive donation is an example of so-called “dark money”: funds donated for political advocacy to nonprofits that do not have to disclose their donors. In the 2010 Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (FEC) decision, the Supreme Court said that limiting the ability of corporations and other entities to advertise their political preferences violates their First Amendment right to free speech. This was a new interpretation: until the 1970s, the Supreme Court did not agree that companies had free speech protections.

Now, nonprofit organizations can receive unlimited donations from people, corporations, or other entities for political speech. They cannot collaborate directly with candidates or campaigns, but they can promote a candidate’s policies and attack opponents, all without identifying their donors.

“I’ve never seen a group of this magnitude before,” Robert Maguire of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) told Casey Tolan, Curt Devine, and Drew Griffin of CNN. “This is the kind of money that can help these political operatives and their allies start to move the needle on issues like reshaping the federal judiciary, making it more difficult to vote, a state-by-state campaign to remake election laws and lay the groundwork for undermining future elections.” Our campaign finance system, he said, gives “wealthy donors, whether they be corporations or individuals, access and influence over the system far greater than any regular American can ever imagine.”

Heather Cox Richardson, Aug 23

#1036—519 words

“Your automobile can be any color you want, as long s it’s black.”

—Henry Ford, launching his Model T

The candidates for the vacant post of PM made the obligatory brief stop in the colonies when they attended hustings in Scotland and Northern Ireland on August 16^th and 17^th respectively. Given that there are barely 600 members (0.37% of their UK total) and no elected representatives in Northern Ireland, the latter looks like a fool’s errand or gesture politics. Or both. That the “unionist” part of the “Conservative and Unionist” parts refers to Ireland, and not Scotland, is all the more bizarre. It was demonstrably unsuccessful, as the Republic flew the coop exactly a century ago and shows zero inclination to return to the fold. As for the fragment that remains:

“Tories are becoming the England Nationalist Party…Choosing between Rishi and Liz is Hobson’s Choice”

—Conservative and Unionist party members in NI

The hustings held in Perth were less pointless, as there are 11,000 members (6.8% of the UK total) in Scotland. Tories provide the Opposition in the Scottish Parliament and still send six of Scotland’s 59 MP’s to Westminster—the same number as a century ago.

While they may clash on details of Tory policy, they are pretty much united when it comes to dealing with Scotland. Neither Sunak nor Truss has waivered on what is now a firmly entrenched Tory position—it is not the time for a new independence referendum. Truss has modified her earlier undiplomatic statement that she would “ignore Nicola Sturgeon”, so that both now want to deal firmly with her government to benefit the union as a whole. As for real issues affecting mainly Scotland, little was said beyond the ritual dirge condemning the SNP-led Scottish Government that has been the Scottish Tories leitmotif since Douglas Ross became leader.

“What people in Scotland want is… to see their governments, Scottish and UK governments working together”

—Rishi Sunak

It is a nice sentiment, but we reckon Scottish people probably know more about what people in Scotland want than Sunak. This disconnect is highlighted by his comment during the hustings that the idea of another referendum was “barmy” hardly acknowledges that this is a policy of the majority of the Scottish Parliament with a better democratic mandate than his own party at Westminster.

Sunak used his past to pitch himself to unsure Tories. He bragged about his various achievements in government, such as the furlough scheme and support for business during Covid. The sense was of someone losing the room during a job interview. But With Truss still soaring ahead in the polls, he came across slightly desperate.

“We’ve had several decades of low growth across the United Kingdom.”

—Liz Truss

We have indeed. But who has been steering the ship for the last 12 years? Why, her Tories, with her an MP for the entire time and am influential government minister for half of it

“I was worried about disruption, disruption didn’t take place.”

—Liz Truss

Talking about why she didn’t initially back Brexit, Truss said she was worried that it might end up disruptive but has been reassured by its implementation. To that we can only wonder what version of the UK she has been living in, because it certainly hasn’t been the same one as we have.

Truss came across tired and complacent, as if bored of the sound of her own voice. In contrast to Sunak, her pitch was geared to the future—promising Scotland free ports and smoother whisky export opportunities.

“Tory front-runner Liz Truss playing the populist card getting into the gutter in Perth in front of the party faithful. Says she will legislate to allow the Rwanda one-way deportation scheme to be expanded to other countries. Nasty, toxic Toryism trafficking in vulnerable people.”

—Gerry Hassan

Neither contestant had more than warm words to address today’s burning issue: the cost of living crisis. Nor did they explain how their various promises were to be funded under the burden of over £2 trillion on debt, nor explanation/remedy why the UK was being hit harder by inflation and probable recession than any other G7 country.

Polling shows that Truss is out in front with Conservative voters in Scotland, in line with the UK as a whole. More interestingly, it also shows around one quarter of voters will be more likely to back independence, regardless of who wins the race to replace Boris.

In truth, it will make little difference to Scotland who becomes PM because the arrogant attitude towards Scotland’s differing opinions will continue. The truly frightening thought is that it may be worse than these three years under Brexit Boris, whose boisterous antics at least had some entertainment value.

#1034—758 words

Liz Truss appealing to darkest Tunbridge Wells by suggesting any government she led would ignore Nicola Sturgeon is political folly for any unionist.  Over a year ago in May 2021, this site featured a blog entitled “Sturgeons Stavka”, in which the talents of her new 10-member Cabinet was discussed. The conclusion was this would be a government with ideas to leave both Tory and Labour opponents floundering

We were wrong; the noise you hear is the munching of a big slice of humble pie.

Ms Sturgeon has lost the plot—not that she does not remain the best politician operating in Scotland. Back in May 2021, she was riding high, having given a master class in leading a nation through the Covid crisis and delivering on major projects like the Queensferry Crossing or EGIP electrification.

Since then, ossification has set in. Declaring an independence referendum to be held on October 19^th has been the only news. The silence from her Cabinet has been deafening. What’s going on? Surely electoral success, her steady hand on the tiller against a backdrop of ineffectual opposition from Ross or Sarwar and bonkers Boris self-immolating in No 10 should mean things only getting better.

As regular readers will know, this site takes a pro-independence stance in matters political. That said, it also attempts to be a critical friend to that cause, pointing out overlooked ideas and promoting debate. But, with the last year of Sturgeon’s Stavka looking like a damp squib the referendum’s jaikit is on a shoogly nail.

The problem appears to be Ms Sturgeon herself. Whereas Alec Salmond’s robust ego handled opposing views from senior colleagues aas debate, and not a threat, Ms Sturgeon is behaving as if a palace coup were in train. Our FM does not like criticism and the Cabinet seems to have been muzzled and become a rubber stamp. Even Cabinet Secretaries now avoid challenging her, or showing much public presence.

As examples, in the previous Cabinet, Kevin Stewart and Joe Fitzpatrick had already into a passive “don’t-make-waves” roles. Their more experienced replacements have been equally silent. Shona Robison’s massive portfolio covers Social Justice and Housing (each needing undivided attention), as well as Local Government, currently in revolt because of ham-fisted control and budgeting. Angela Constance has the Drug Policy brief, but after a year in post, deaths remain four times that of other UK nationss.

Margaret Thatcher reportedly said she only needed two or three good men to help run the show. Nicola prefers women but doesn’t make use of either. Keith Brown was once willing to challenge, but was moved and has been singularly low-profile in the Justice brief—far more so than Kenny MacAskill, whose headlines over integration of Police Scotland, and culling of District Courts made him famous.

The urbane Angus Robertson took over the Constitution brief from the equally urbane Mike Russell, but is seldom in media as Mike was. Shirley-Anne Somerville took over the can of worms that is Education from John Swinney (as loyal a lieutenant as anyone could want), but her more abrasive style sits badly with unions and parents and is seldom seen defending PISA scores. Health combined with Social Care is a promising idea, but so far, little more than papering over the gulf between with Joint Boards has happened. Granted, creating a National Care Service in current times would tax Nye Bevan. Unfortunately, the affable, inexperienced Humza Yousef is no Nye Bevan.

Assigning Cabinet roles to the young and thrusting is no bad thing. But when ambition is cautious, Ms Sturgeon can dominate the Government more than is good for democracy. Her Cabinet lacks balance,d opinions, especially as it placess too little emphasis on the economy and its growth. Combining economy and finance under Kate Forbes is a very British construct. For all the talk of being European, the SNP remains a classic British party in many respects.  Even before independence, public finance depends on the strength of the Scottish economy, which receives scant attention.  The tax powers the SNP clamored for come with responsibility and unpopularity attached. But Ms Sturgeon’s avoids those to focus is to give voters what they want. The means to pay for it gets short shrift. Her manifesto is commitments simply don’t add up. 

While the voters still think the SNP is competent, much evidence is mounting that Sturgeon’s Government is far from that.  Danger flags include PISA scores, incomplete ferries, resentful councils (even SNP ones), drug death statistics and stalled poll levels supporting independence. She remains lucky, in that her opponents have been so weak and very lucky that Westminster Tories are such clots when dealing with what they treat as the Provinces.

But all that cuts little ice with Scottish business, nor the absence of any big ideas to sway Scotland’s ambitious middle class who see no economic benefit because the case has yet to be made. The claptrap coming out of Holyrood about “cleaner, greener, fairer, more prosperous society” needs real policy flesh to be put on such spindly bones.

#1032—848 words