These are seriously destabilizing times. Brexit alone is bad enough. But now we have civil war in the Labour Party -- a reprise of Cavaliers v. Round Heads. Meanwhile, the Tories are undergoing their own civil war, with blonde headed cavalier BoJo being promoted as leader against opposition from Anyone But Boris. That anyone may prove to be the Home Secretary, sponsor of the Snoopers' Charter and removal from the European Court of Human Rights.
Meanwhile, I'm trying for to understand what 'democracy' means in the context of UK politics. Example: around 250K grass roots Labour members helped get Corbyn elected as party leader, while around 9 million people voted the now former members of the Labour shadow cabinet to parliament. Both claim democratic legitimacy. For the time being, the party which should be HM loyal Opposition appears to have abdicated its role in favor of domestic civil war.
And now we have the slaughter at Istanbul airport. Turkey has been much bad mouthed recently in the referendum campaign, and its president isn't exactly a leader who commends himself to democrats, but no country should suffer the outrages that have been committed last night, presumably in the name of a movement that has no time for democracy and employs destabilization as a means of achieving its own benighted aims.
Wednesday 29 June 2016
Sunday 26 June 2016
UP THE CREEK
Have been watching the BBC news. As predicted, Game of Thrones is in full swing, the news being dominated first by the Labour version, then, more briefly, by the Tory one.
What is almost beyond belief is that the Labour shadow cabinet, instead of unitedly and repeatedly emphasizing the unsuitability of the favored Tory candidate, BoJo, as PM, they are telling everybody about the unsuitability of their own leader to lead their party! This, remember, is the Opposition.
Finally, what some commentators are pointing out,but which many people seem to have overlooked, is that it is the government which is responsible for activating Clause 50 and the 'divorce' proceedings, and not leading members of the Leave campaign. So far the government has remained silent. Quite possibly, the government, which promoted remain, have few plans on hand on how to deal with Brexit. It's abundantly clear that the Brexit brigade have no plans. So, the country really does appear to be drifting up shit creek without a paddle!
What is almost beyond belief is that the Labour shadow cabinet, instead of unitedly and repeatedly emphasizing the unsuitability of the favored Tory candidate, BoJo, as PM, they are telling everybody about the unsuitability of their own leader to lead their party! This, remember, is the Opposition.
Finally, what some commentators are pointing out,but which many people seem to have overlooked, is that it is the government which is responsible for activating Clause 50 and the 'divorce' proceedings, and not leading members of the Leave campaign. So far the government has remained silent. Quite possibly, the government, which promoted remain, have few plans on hand on how to deal with Brexit. It's abundantly clear that the Brexit brigade have no plans. So, the country really does appear to be drifting up shit creek without a paddle!
Saturday 25 June 2016
Post Referendum Reflections
Reflections on the Referendum
Nothing has revealed the need for political reform more starkly than the outcome of this referendum, whose conduct by the 'winner' was based on an age old strategy perfected 80 years ago by Joseph Goebbels:
1) Have a simple, focused goal, e.g. Leaving the EU
2) Identify a grievance -- or preferably several.
3) Create a narrative in which 1) is presented as the means of fixing 2) despite lack of causality between them
4) Ensure that the media promulgate the narrative. Truthfulness is optional. Populist and nativist appeals are crucial.
5) Front the campaign with a 'personality' from the elite, masquerading as guardian of the interests of ordinary man, helping to feed the media with a constant stream of sound bites which play to populist and nativist prejudices and grievances
6) Repeat a few simple mantras at every opportunity together with statements of plausible deniability for extreme statements and acts of supporters
7) Prepare a range of convincing excuses for the inevitable chaos to follow a win and lack of competence to carry out withdrawal and realignment negotiations. (Just heard one from Daniel Hannan to the effect that "people aren't children and will understand that changes will take time". Another one: "we didn't promise that we would stop immigration". Yea, right.)
There is a disconcerting similarity between the strategy above and that employed by many mischievous and malign regimes, from Nazi Germany to North Korea to the Trump presidential campaign. Meanwhile, the millions of voters who were duped will soon start to experience buyers' remorse -- too late.
Now there are two parallel Game of Thrones going on in the Conservative and Labour parties over their leaderships (both parties being well beyond their sell-by dates as revealed by the divisions and alignments in the referendum campaign). These games will provide the media with much copy to divert attention from the problems that withdrawal from the EU is already showing up. The less than helpful attitude of soon to be erstwhile EU partner nations in managing the withdrawal will be depicted as perfidious Europe attacking brave go-it-alone Blighty -- further 'evidence' to justify withdrawal from the EU.
Btw, do you remember that with the collapse of the Soviet Union, the end to the Cold War, and the Peace Dividend that this entailed, we were invited to rejoice in the end of history and entry to a sunny upland of continuing peace and prosperity? So last century....
Nothing has revealed the need for political reform more starkly than the outcome of this referendum, whose conduct by the 'winner' was based on an age old strategy perfected 80 years ago by Joseph Goebbels:
1) Have a simple, focused goal, e.g. Leaving the EU
2) Identify a grievance -- or preferably several.
3) Create a narrative in which 1) is presented as the means of fixing 2) despite lack of causality between them
4) Ensure that the media promulgate the narrative. Truthfulness is optional. Populist and nativist appeals are crucial.
5) Front the campaign with a 'personality' from the elite, masquerading as guardian of the interests of ordinary man, helping to feed the media with a constant stream of sound bites which play to populist and nativist prejudices and grievances
6) Repeat a few simple mantras at every opportunity together with statements of plausible deniability for extreme statements and acts of supporters
7) Prepare a range of convincing excuses for the inevitable chaos to follow a win and lack of competence to carry out withdrawal and realignment negotiations. (Just heard one from Daniel Hannan to the effect that "people aren't children and will understand that changes will take time". Another one: "we didn't promise that we would stop immigration". Yea, right.)
There is a disconcerting similarity between the strategy above and that employed by many mischievous and malign regimes, from Nazi Germany to North Korea to the Trump presidential campaign. Meanwhile, the millions of voters who were duped will soon start to experience buyers' remorse -- too late.
Now there are two parallel Game of Thrones going on in the Conservative and Labour parties over their leaderships (both parties being well beyond their sell-by dates as revealed by the divisions and alignments in the referendum campaign). These games will provide the media with much copy to divert attention from the problems that withdrawal from the EU is already showing up. The less than helpful attitude of soon to be erstwhile EU partner nations in managing the withdrawal will be depicted as perfidious Europe attacking brave go-it-alone Blighty -- further 'evidence' to justify withdrawal from the EU.
Btw, do you remember that with the collapse of the Soviet Union, the end to the Cold War, and the Peace Dividend that this entailed, we were invited to rejoice in the end of history and entry to a sunny upland of continuing peace and prosperity? So last century....
EU Referendum: Why I voted to remain
Trying to make sense of the referendum
Note: I wrote this a couple of days before the referendum
Sovereignty: in all important respects (e.g. War) the UK is a sovereign state. The status of EU legislation has been established by Parliament, and cd be changed. The majority of UK law is not simply a direct translation of EU legislation, and much of it appears to be concerned with regulations.
Red tape: the EU itself is concerned with reducing the amount of centrally created legislation and regulation, and moves are in hand (which will be greatly supported by the UK) to both reduce the amount of such legislation and to give more autonomy to national parliaments.
Democratic deficit: the EU law making process is not as undemocratic as alleged (key decisions and legislation are passed by the Council of Ministers and by the Parliament), but it could be more so.
EU Federation: the UK is already absolved from becoming involved, and there is some drawing back from this among EU members. Even if a confederation of Eurozone members takes place, the U.K. Is outside the Eurozone and will not be involved
EU Immobility: the difficulty of fixing such matters as the monthly removal to Strasbourg, though widely regarded as wasteful and inefficient, cannot easily be changed except by agreement of all member nations, a change to the treaty, and national referenda. Unless such impediments in governance can be changed, other reforms will likewise be stymied. This is a real cause of concern if much needed reforms to the EU are to be successful, but in itself is not a reason for withdrawal.
Trade treaties: these are less concerned with tariffs than with regulations and the EU provides the Holy Grail as far as these are concerned. Establishing trade treaties post Brexit wd involve both the EU and those countries with which the UK wished to trade. These negotiations wd likely be tortuous. Also it is doubtful that the UK has the expertise to conduct such negotiations. Furthermore, it is unlikely that any countries will enter into a treaty until the UK's post Brexit trade relations with the EU are clarified -- and this could take years. So, there is likely to be a trade treaty limbo which could be damaging to the UK economy. In any case, the U.K. will be negotiating from a position of weakness, and China and India, for instance, are unlikely to be offering advantageous conditions to the UK.
Economy: everyone seems to agree that there will be a post Brexit dip. Retrieving the income foregone will involve stimulating extra growth from a position of weakness. Furthermore, short term effects can have long term consequences, all of which are difficult to predict, adding to medium to long term uncertainty.
Meanwhile, the presence and position of international companies in the UK post Brexit are also uncertain, since their presence is largely determined by entry to the large European market. (80% of UK car production is exported). Further complicating the situation are the supply chains which involve EU sources of components for UK made products. In addition, the status of the U.K. as a financial services centre will almost certainly be affected, particularly as Paris and Frankfurt are keen to benefit.
Immigration: this issue has been thoroughly contaminated by the Referendum. Successive governments have failed to address it effectively. Furthermore, domestic policies have exacerbated the situation, e.g. Inadequate ESL support, withdrawal of funds to local governments in areas receiving large numbers of immigrants, framing immigration and immigrants as a problem. Future governments must do better.
It is clear that controlling immigration post Brexit will not be easy, and it is likely to be even more difficult given what wd probably be a porous border between Ireland and the U.K. Instead of receiving legal immigrants, the U.K. would be likely to suffer from increasing numbers of illegals who wouldn't be tax payers.
Employment: Successive governments have failed to predict manpower requirements, and provide effective education and training (e.g. Decent apprenticeships) to fill jobs, many of which are filled by immigrants.
The U.K.is lightly regulated as far as employment is concerned, and this appears to leave gaps for exploitation, such as the recruitment within the EU of workers to be employed at below the UK living wage. This is a domestic issue which requires a domestic solution.
Identity politics: this has been exploited by UKIP in particular, and, like immigration, has not really been adequately addressed. There is an irony in this in that both the French and Spanish are taking measures against the contamination of their languages by English, and there are EU requirements regarding TV and films regarding 'European' content and origin. Unfortunately, in the UK identity politics seem to be aligned to a peak Blighty view of British culture and way of life, which is inimical to an internationalist orientation.
Domestic politics post Brexit: the austerity agenda will be given a boost (as already indicated by Osborne's emergency budget) and the review of UK laws, even though carried out by the civil service, will basically be the responsibility of the government. If this government is more right wing than centrist, the opportunity will doubtless be taken to strip out as much EU inspired legislation concerning environment, employment, human rights. In any case, this process will be greatly complicated by the integration of EU and UK law, and UK case law derived from this.
Further starving public services of funds in the name of austerity will doubtless hasten privatisation in the name of efficiency and cost saving.
Though only mentioned in passing by most commentators, the effects on Brexit on the Northern Ireland peace process could be damaging. As to Scotland....
International status of UK: it is difficult to avoid the conclusion that it will be diminished rather than enhanced by withdrawal from the EU. Peak Blighty has no resonance with the world outside the UK except as content of TV drama.
Overall, I see no significant benefits in withdrawal from the EU, and many problems. I am minded to vote REMAIN.
Note: I wrote this a couple of days before the referendum
Sovereignty: in all important respects (e.g. War) the UK is a sovereign state. The status of EU legislation has been established by Parliament, and cd be changed. The majority of UK law is not simply a direct translation of EU legislation, and much of it appears to be concerned with regulations.
Red tape: the EU itself is concerned with reducing the amount of centrally created legislation and regulation, and moves are in hand (which will be greatly supported by the UK) to both reduce the amount of such legislation and to give more autonomy to national parliaments.
Democratic deficit: the EU law making process is not as undemocratic as alleged (key decisions and legislation are passed by the Council of Ministers and by the Parliament), but it could be more so.
EU Federation: the UK is already absolved from becoming involved, and there is some drawing back from this among EU members. Even if a confederation of Eurozone members takes place, the U.K. Is outside the Eurozone and will not be involved
EU Immobility: the difficulty of fixing such matters as the monthly removal to Strasbourg, though widely regarded as wasteful and inefficient, cannot easily be changed except by agreement of all member nations, a change to the treaty, and national referenda. Unless such impediments in governance can be changed, other reforms will likewise be stymied. This is a real cause of concern if much needed reforms to the EU are to be successful, but in itself is not a reason for withdrawal.
Trade treaties: these are less concerned with tariffs than with regulations and the EU provides the Holy Grail as far as these are concerned. Establishing trade treaties post Brexit wd involve both the EU and those countries with which the UK wished to trade. These negotiations wd likely be tortuous. Also it is doubtful that the UK has the expertise to conduct such negotiations. Furthermore, it is unlikely that any countries will enter into a treaty until the UK's post Brexit trade relations with the EU are clarified -- and this could take years. So, there is likely to be a trade treaty limbo which could be damaging to the UK economy. In any case, the U.K. will be negotiating from a position of weakness, and China and India, for instance, are unlikely to be offering advantageous conditions to the UK.
Economy: everyone seems to agree that there will be a post Brexit dip. Retrieving the income foregone will involve stimulating extra growth from a position of weakness. Furthermore, short term effects can have long term consequences, all of which are difficult to predict, adding to medium to long term uncertainty.
Meanwhile, the presence and position of international companies in the UK post Brexit are also uncertain, since their presence is largely determined by entry to the large European market. (80% of UK car production is exported). Further complicating the situation are the supply chains which involve EU sources of components for UK made products. In addition, the status of the U.K. as a financial services centre will almost certainly be affected, particularly as Paris and Frankfurt are keen to benefit.
Immigration: this issue has been thoroughly contaminated by the Referendum. Successive governments have failed to address it effectively. Furthermore, domestic policies have exacerbated the situation, e.g. Inadequate ESL support, withdrawal of funds to local governments in areas receiving large numbers of immigrants, framing immigration and immigrants as a problem. Future governments must do better.
It is clear that controlling immigration post Brexit will not be easy, and it is likely to be even more difficult given what wd probably be a porous border between Ireland and the U.K. Instead of receiving legal immigrants, the U.K. would be likely to suffer from increasing numbers of illegals who wouldn't be tax payers.
Employment: Successive governments have failed to predict manpower requirements, and provide effective education and training (e.g. Decent apprenticeships) to fill jobs, many of which are filled by immigrants.
The U.K.is lightly regulated as far as employment is concerned, and this appears to leave gaps for exploitation, such as the recruitment within the EU of workers to be employed at below the UK living wage. This is a domestic issue which requires a domestic solution.
Identity politics: this has been exploited by UKIP in particular, and, like immigration, has not really been adequately addressed. There is an irony in this in that both the French and Spanish are taking measures against the contamination of their languages by English, and there are EU requirements regarding TV and films regarding 'European' content and origin. Unfortunately, in the UK identity politics seem to be aligned to a peak Blighty view of British culture and way of life, which is inimical to an internationalist orientation.
Domestic politics post Brexit: the austerity agenda will be given a boost (as already indicated by Osborne's emergency budget) and the review of UK laws, even though carried out by the civil service, will basically be the responsibility of the government. If this government is more right wing than centrist, the opportunity will doubtless be taken to strip out as much EU inspired legislation concerning environment, employment, human rights. In any case, this process will be greatly complicated by the integration of EU and UK law, and UK case law derived from this.
Further starving public services of funds in the name of austerity will doubtless hasten privatisation in the name of efficiency and cost saving.
Though only mentioned in passing by most commentators, the effects on Brexit on the Northern Ireland peace process could be damaging. As to Scotland....
International status of UK: it is difficult to avoid the conclusion that it will be diminished rather than enhanced by withdrawal from the EU. Peak Blighty has no resonance with the world outside the UK except as content of TV drama.
Overall, I see no significant benefits in withdrawal from the EU, and many problems. I am minded to vote REMAIN.
Sunday 10 January 2016
Cleaning for the Queen
Evidently, the government has declared 2016 the year in which we must 'Clean for the Queen'. Raising the fine for littering to £150 is also proposed. Great. Why HMQ should be invoked is beyond me (she's 90 this year, so that seems to be the reason/excuse). Citizens of the U.K aren't alone in having a casual attitude to littering, and nor is HM Govt alone in trying to impose punishments for doing so. The problem, it seems to me, is that of attitudes. Public space, which includes the countryside and roadside verges, appears to be seen as being a free for all space for which no one is responsible. From this attitude may follow the notion that the individual has a right to litter. It is clear from the verges around Henley that this right is well exercised.
The author, David Sedaris, took to heart cleaning the verges around his neighbourhood, and his rural rambles are or were an exercise in self motivated litter picking. This is admirably public spirited, and for him may even have been cathartic. Doing a similar exercise around Henley has come to mind -- and, indeed, time time to time there are well publicised (at least in the Henley Standard) individual and group litter picking activities. Maybe the loyal citizens of Henley and the Chilterns will take the Clean for the Queen campaign to heart, but all such noble motives will be subverted so long as using public space as an extended public litter bin is viewed as acceptable.
The author, David Sedaris, took to heart cleaning the verges around his neighbourhood, and his rural rambles are or were an exercise in self motivated litter picking. This is admirably public spirited, and for him may even have been cathartic. Doing a similar exercise around Henley has come to mind -- and, indeed, time time to time there are well publicised (at least in the Henley Standard) individual and group litter picking activities. Maybe the loyal citizens of Henley and the Chilterns will take the Clean for the Queen campaign to heart, but all such noble motives will be subverted so long as using public space as an extended public litter bin is viewed as acceptable.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)