The China Spy Case
What a fine mess the China spy case, or lack of case is proving to be. It has everything, including total public apathy. After all, in the wake of the ID cards controversy and of course, the pandemic, what exactly is the difference between China and the UK anyway? They have the Chinese Communist Party, and since the fall of Margaret Thatcher in 1990, we have the Uniparty.
They have according to Wikipedia, a “democratic dictatorship”, and we have, er, something much better and much more free. Here our mandarins (yes, Chinese concept) have permanent political power, and there the CCP have a monopoly on political power. But here it is more complex, as there is no official membership process for the permanent Liberal Metropolitan Elite. It is simply something you are automatically a member of once you join the judiciary, senior public office, or of course, become famous in showbusiness, when you are classed as a “luvvy.”
But getting back to the spy case, and we have had rather strange twists and turns. The real sizzle is apparently that the Crown Prosecution Service, a totally independent organisation (like the Bank of England) that does not make things up as it goes along, but strictly follows legal practice, has complained that the government has not actually labelled China as a security threat.
This is perhaps a little like not warning people not to jump in front of a train (something that really should be done at stations), not to drink 20 pints in a session, or go on holiday in the Donbas. The implication is that it is so obvious, like may contain nuts on a packet of KP, that it goes without saying. However, it could be that the CPS is correct, because the government does not regard China as a security threat. The first is that our friends in China could just walk in and take us over in 10 minutes. The second is that they could just buy us for pocket change. The third is that our democratic dictatorship is almost certainly a role model for what they are doing. Indeed, we could use their help sorting out the welfare state, the red tape and our creaking infrastructure.
However, the real reason that the government has not outed the Chinese as a security threat is beyond we are desperate for their business. We do not care if they are a tyranny, or even a security threat, or even that a couple of people allegedly passed on intelligence to the Chinese. One can be quite sure that whatever was passed on was already known by Beijing, with the other problem being that if the case came to trial there would have to be all the covering up of what was passed on or not.
It would appear that the CPS have done the government a favour with their Sir Humphrey Appleby type technicality as far as their being no trial. You do not have to be a law lord to know that China being a national security threat or not has nothing to do with the merits or otherwise of secrets being sold.
But anyway, Yvette Cooper says that China is not a threat, so spying for it is cannot be a crime. However, the FBI states:” The counterintelligence and economic espionage efforts emanating from the government of China and the Chinese Communist Party are a grave threat to the economic well-being and democratic values of the United States.” It may very well be that Ms Cooper knows more than the FBI, or that China is a threat to the US, but not the UK. The latest as reported by The Sunday Times is that “America says intelligence sharing could be damaged by Britain’s failure to prosecute alleged Chinese collaborators.”
Rachel Reeves: “Protecting” Non-Working Families
After well over a year of Labour government most of us now know the double speak or as it is fast becoming, newspeak. The best of the bunch as far as the budget is concerned next month is and remains “working people”. This has become a double – double speak in the sense that it used to be working class people, but we cannot say class as it would be a denigration.
But the second part of the deception is even worse. The Telegraph and others are preparing us for Black Hole Budget II, by quoting the Chancellor’s comment from last year, that those who are better off will contribute more. There are a couple of problems with this. The better off are all gone, are going, or when there is a tax rise are not selling / playing ball. The second point, arguably more important than the Laffer Curve, which Reeves still has not been told about or wants to know, is the working part of the working people.
The statistic doing the rounds this week is that over £10bn a year is going to non-working foreign nationals. It would appear that Universal Credit is indeed for everyone, everyone in the world. These beneficiaries may or may not be those of a “working” background or a “working” future, but at some point such spending will have to stop, even if this would only happen with a change of government. We understand Labour wants to create and pay for a land of Labour voters, but this gerrymandering is excessive even by its standards.
