Uncategorized

The Brexit Election: The conundrum facing the Labour Party

Posted by

0

It doesn’t take a Rabbi criticising Jeremy Corbyn or John Major endorsing expelled former Tories to see that Britain is bitterly divided. On one side, you have groups which want to push Brexit through at all costs, whereas on the other, you have those who want the UK to remain in the EU. The remain vote appears to be more split than the leave Vote, and may usher in unexpected results on December 12th Election. There is talk of tactical voting, and a Hung parliament, and while the UK’s Labour Party is making the usual noises, some think the party is not as prepared as its leaders believe.

You have to feel sorry for Jeremy Corbyn. Truly, you have to feel for the guy. He has done just about everything to try and hold things together. But it doesn’t look like it’s been enough. In these strange times, while Labour’s proposals may be appealing to converts, the party is greatly misunderstood by the undecided, and has neither the numbers nor the centrist appeal to win convincingly. This combined with other factors is a major problem every supporter should be concerned about.

If we are to be completely honest, the general idea of an economy which works for everyone is desirable. Labour is right in that a fairer economy should be a necessary foundation of every modern society. But it has to be one with both an enabling environment for entrepreneurship, and also safety nets for the poor and vulnerable – many of whom are not the architects of their misfortune. This is important when unrestrained Capitalism has been criticised for being responsible of creating huge levels of inequalities across the world, and for contributing to climate change. But striking the right balance between creating a fair enabling environment for entrepreneurs, and funding social services for the poor & vulnerable is easier said than done, as an IFS report has recently pointed out.

And you don’t have to like Corbyn to agree that change is needed. Even if you do not share in my suspicion that a ‘new Labour’ type David Miliband-like figure would have been given less heartache by the mainstream media, you’ll agree that aside from the incessant personal attacks left, right and centre that the Labour leader has endured, for as much as … breathing, Britain needs to make some major changes?

So, when faced with a mountain of unfair and negative reporting, an honest, un-hyped and self-critical reflection is kind of necessary.  We are after all only 4 days away from an election.

Thus, my latest analogy of Labour’s ambivalence over Brexit is as edgy as it is simplistic. It won’t win any awards. And even if you think it’s a bit kak, it’s nevertheless just an example. Minimally, it’s what happens when you find yourself leading a ‘broad church’. What others on continental Europe or the US call a ‘big tent’.

Imagine you are a proud father of two sons. After spending time out in the world, their experiences have led one to be Christian, a belief his mother encouraged, whereas your other son is an Islam convert, now betrothed to a beautiful Muslim girl, his childhood sweetheart. At a family gathering with much fan-fare, food and strong drink a heated exchange erupts between your sons. One of them says to you “Paps, which one of our two religions do you think is closest to the truth? And which one of our gods do you think is the real God? The other one thunders: Is Allah more convincing than Yahweh?

You do not want to spoil a family gathering with raised voices. There are kids about, neighbours, maybe even a friend or two. In truth, you are not a religious buff and have a policy of steering clear of any religious or political debates. When the boys were young, you raised them to be open-minded, to judge matters on the facts, to call out bigotry and to treat everyone fairly.

So what do you say?

By now, you can see why this approach can land me in difficulty, especially when my inquisitor happens to be better informed on Allah or Yahweh than I will ever be.

Sometimes there is no right or wrong answer. As a society, we like to put everything in tidy little labelled boxes in our attempts to try to explain physical or non-physical phenomena. We love everything to be linear, quantifiable and discernible.  We like educated guesses devoid of nuance – meticulously synthesised through our elaborate scientific analyses with deliberate fuss.  We’re always keen to label all sorts of touchy feely things ‘the truth’ or ‘the right thing’, as if they were definitive answers to mathematical equations.

Yet sometimes the honest answer is ‘we don’t know’. Or, ‘we can’t possibly know yet’.

Whoever wins the general election, BoJo or Jezza, hung parliament or not, second referendum or not, Brexit or revocation of Article 50, in the end there will be many unhappy people for whom the outcome did not find favour. Probably millions of them. These are your parents, your siblings, your partners, your neighbours, your children’s teachers, the staff at your local GP – even your friends!

That’s a lot of disappointed folks!

On one level the soap opera that’s taken place in the House of Commons the last few months is a reflection of these varied and divergent standpoints. Nothing any government does, no legislation, will put the genie back into the bottle.

Oh Great Britain, if only there were a balm to heal thy wound; if only there were a myrrh to soothe thy fever.

You might say it is the nature of democracy in that some people will lose. True, but with a divisive issue such as Brexit lots of people are going to end up very sore. And the associated shrapnel may be rather unpleasant. It’s a sad state of affairs coming from the so-called ‘mother of parliaments. I mean, that’s not the way the ne ultra plus of democracy should transact? Or is it?

The election on the 12th December won’t fix the divisions. Not for a long time. In fact Labour could come out worse partly because of the divided opposition in parliament. Even now, the Conservatives have made the election a People vs Parliament affair, to win over the full gamete of leave voters. And now that the Brexit party is not contesting in Tory seats (a position some claim hints of a secret deal), Johnson’s chances may just have been immeasurably improved. The Liberal Democrats could steal a chunk of Labour’s remain voters, and centre leaning remain Conservatives. That too will affect the number of seats Labour wins. The SNP could also hold onto the majority of their seats in Scotland, depriving Labour of a majority. More practically, a winter election may affect Labour more than the Conservatives.

I know some Labour Party members do not want to hear this, but the numbers Dominic Cummings is crunching, no doubt with the help of pollsters (who are place the Tories ahead of Labour), could deliver a shock surprise and land Boris Johnson the majority he craves; far removed from the Hung Parliament many are predicting.

So how does Labour begin to counter that? How do you gel together quarrelsome members that occupy divergent camps into one electable block? Isn’t that what a conscientious leader should attempt to do?

Well, firstly, Labour should stop trying to portray anyone as some modern day superhero. Jeremy Corbyn is not Superman. No political leader is Superman. And when knocking on the doors, members should point out that everything Labour has been criticised for in recent months, could have occurred under a different leader, in a different party, and they would have faced the same difficulties Corbyn has faced.

Further, let’s take our above analogy for a comparison. If you chose to speak from your heart as you have every right to do, what does that say of you as a father? Shouldn’t you be the uniting figure within your family, irrespective of what you actually think?

But even if you choose to be neutral, you still risk discord. Accused by even left-leaning publications of ‘dither’ and ‘indecision’? And so, what do you do, if whatever position you take, you will still face criticism?

Labour members should also come clean about the effects of Brexit. Maybe leaving the EU will be as good as remaining? Maybe both the Brexiteers and the Remainers are right; that when push comes to shove it doesn’t matter if we’re in or out. A strong economy like Britain will still prosper in the long run. We may never know. But a democratic referendum decision stands unfulfilled. And since there is a cost, and price to pay, a compromise that tries to unite Leavers and Remainers is the best bet.

In any case, you can’t be both in the EU and out of it at the same time? The EU Treaty wouldn’t allow you to do that. What would be the purpose of the EU as a trading bloc if such a bizarre arrangement were possible?

Even leaving behind parts of your country in the EU won’t work, as we’ve seen with the backstop. Boris Johnson’s claim to have resolved this problem with his present deal (which essentially erects a regulatory border down the Irish Sea) only kicks the can down the road to the trade negotiations, which could still result in a No Deal.

Maybe the Labour party could have given more to the greater business community? Maybe John McDonnell, in addition to his Nationalisation policies could have listened more to what businesses actually need and offered a more attractive deal to them? It isn’t inconceivable that such an action could have brought a chunk of centrists to Labour’s support base? And made the party look more pro-business than it is currently perceived.

To muddy the waters a little bit more, here’s another totally unhelpful Brexit analogy – which I suspect will elate those calling for a Peoples’ Vote:

Imagine a family where the parents ask the kids what family pet they should get. Instead of asking if they would like a dog, cat, guinea pig, rabbit, etc.; they say to them: Would you like us to buy you a “mammal” or a “fish” as a pet?

What’s a mammal? What kind of mammal? What type of fish?

All this has led Corbyn to an imperfect but neutral position that attempts to break the impasse with a sort of precarious compromise. A position that says ~ let’s renegotiate a Brexit deal (which would be detailed than a mere in / out referendum) then put it out to the people for a confirmatory vote within 6 months. That might significantly narrow down the options of mammals or fishes the kids can select from. But is it enough to win the election?

Democracy? What Democracy?

Posted by

0

news The next few months or years in Britain will be quite interesting.

As in miserabe, painful and divisive kind of interesting. As deep cuts sweep in and austerity bites harder for the average subject, as workers rights are further reduced, we have green energy being put under further threat; there will be an attempt to bulldoze boundary reforms through the commons (which will reduce the number of seats from 650 to 600); a new Snooper’s charter (which will make Britain into a microcosm of George Orwell’s 1984) is being drafted, and an EU referendum stands looming ahead in 2017. All amidst the Scottish question (which threatens to rip the country into two) now that Scotland is clearly SNP. Frankly those who say democracy is alive and well in Britain need their heads carefully examined.

While across the pond in America, a US Appeals Court recently ruled that the mass collection of data by the NSA was illegal (a decision that was validated by a vote in Congress), in the UK, the government thinks the police must be given new sweeping powers??? Apparently just obeying the law is not enough. It seems the Thought Police are about to come out of their preparatory hiding bane, into the open nodes of the computer networks of Britain.

How this is not a war on Civil Liberties and Freedom of Speech is beyond my comprehension.

Lets be honest, you expect that kind of heavy-handed dictatorship from Putin’s Russia, from China’s suited communists, or from the rotund psycho that is currently ruling North Korea. You don’t expect it from someone who claims to genuinely value living in a free country.

But don’t for a moment think the war over personal freedoms is lost. Infact it’s just beginning because to all sensible and clued up folk who can see who the real losers and the real winners are, this hegemony will not be accepted without a fight. People can see what is happening in their neighbourhoods, and they know what the new laws mean. You don’t have to be a genius to know that if these children of Thatcher were in opposition, and another government attempted even half of the current proposed policies, they would be clapping loudly in agreement, knowing that their mission is served. Because such cruel policies benefit them. It benefits the sources of their power and wealth, their wealthy chums, and perpetuates their unequal, repressive class-based agenda. An agenda whose losers are the poor and vulnerable. Robbing innocent people of all dignity, and the little freedoms which remain.

And in the long run, this chicanery can’t possibly be sustainable. Even with a biased and hostile media as is currently the case in Britain, there are too many battles for their onslaught to be completely successful.

But more importantly the human spirit won’t allow them to win. The human spirit may be long-suffering, and capable to withstand long periods of hardship, abuse and neglect, but you can only mess around with it for so long. Within the next 2 – 4 years, a line will be crossed.

The battle over membership of the EU cannot be won for the same reasons Germany cannot ignore Podemo , Syriza and other growing leftist movements across Europe for too long, without harming its interests. In Britain alone we have a growing discontentment among young people with the political classes, and if anything, the May 2015 election validated their fears: That the system is broken and doesn’t work for them. Instead it only works for a tiny minority. At  some point, something will have to give. Either you live in a divided Europe in which resentment and strife will bring about the prospect of war. A Europe rife with strikes, the threat of terrorism and violence. Or you share prosperity…and balance up inequality.

There’s no middle ground.

Maybe some sensible Tories will take a long look at the situation, and the proposed legislation, and vote with their hearts in the House of Commons. That’s not a remote prospect, seeing the Conservative majority is quite slim. But if for whatever reason that doesn’t happen, then pray that God will help you. Because it’s going to get bumpy.

Bigotry, Ignorance & Disinformation

Posted by

0

fantasy You know when you meet someone who tells you something that is not true, or when you read a view that is historically untrue, but of which a horde of people somehow seems to subscribe to?

I don’t get it. Each time such a thing happens I wonder: all these people, how come they haven’t questioned or commented about a blatantly untrue statement? All these people, how come none of them has pointed out the error? Surely, there must be someone better informed in this crowd who has noticed? Is it possible that all these people do not know the truth? That they do not care? Could it be that they know what’s going on, but they don’t care because they have an agenda? An agenda that depends on the continuation of  the lie?

Whichever way, a few days ago, I read such a viewpoint, and accompanying it were many people who seemed either too lost in their own myopic views to the point they tolerated the fallacious viewpoint, or for whatever reason, they didn’t attempt to question the writer of the viewpoint (who in my view is either ignorant, a liar or both). This ignorant person said that Caucasians arrived in Southern Africa at about the same time that Negroids did, so they were equally an indigenous people of Southern Africa as any Negroid??

I’ve never heard so much bullshit in my entire life. It speaks of bigotry, ignorance and disinformation in the same sentence. I mean, you don’t need to be an expert to know the elementary points of human origins on certain continents. Go to your library and read any book on the matter, and it will tell you even before you finish it.

This guy was either stoned out of his arse, or drunker than a skunk.

And of course you can guess what type of person he was.

Now I’m not an expert in anthropology, and I don’t like that N — term (which anthropologists are entirely comfortable with). Only because of the associated term that is derived from it, and which is derogatory, but ladies and Gentlemen, when we go out into the blogosphere, or cyberspace as it were, let’s be honest with ourselves, please.

It’s a virtue.

Failing that, lets at least not try to mislead when we have nothing better to say. If you can’t do those two things, I don’t expect you to have an ounce of sympathy for those who poverty and history has robbed of peace, equality, resources and prosperity. In fact if you can’t do those two tiny things, you are a part of the problem.

Minimally, shut the hell up.

Hugs ladies & gentlemen, hugs.

Why is there more outrage against Clarkson’s suspension by the BBC than against human suffering right here in Britain?

Posted by

0

When the suspension of an outspoken Television presenter and celebrity causes more outrage than human suffering, know that something is very wrong. Like really wrong.

The Media madness in support of Jeremy Clarkson doesn’t always happen. When was the last time you heard of 700,000 people signing a petition on anything of real importance? Within 24 -36 hours?

Already Change.org have reported that this petition is the fastest growing in their entire history, and while writing this article, between page reloads today, I’ve seen a ~59,000 leap in the number of signatures.

It’s practically unheard of.  And if we are to be honest, Clarkson has shown the misplaced priorities of the 21st Century. That an issue of a suspended violent, racist, cheating and generally unpleasant character, is taken a lot more seriously than real issues affecting humanity. Issues such as Wars, Poverty, and in the UK disability housing, violence against women and dare I say asylum seekers.

Take this petition on Sum Of Us for example, which claims that the UK government has awarded an NHS contract to a private firm linked to scandal hit MP Malcolm Rifkind. But that the winning bid will actually cost the NHS more than a bid from local NHS services! Seven million bloody pounds cheaper! (different sources: The Mirror & Buzzfeed) Why is it that for a petition that has been around for at least 14 days, only 69,787 people have signed it? Does it mean that the issue of the NHS being practically auctioned-off is of less importance? Or is it because the mainstream media doesn’t like to talk about such things? And in this context, is Clarkson’s reinstatement a greater priority than wastefulness within the NHS?

I’ll tell you what’s happening.

Last week, a report was published by a little known group of cross-party MPs and Peers outlining the ways in which foreign Nationals are treated by the Home Office and its contractors (companies like Serco) in detention centres. It coincided with Channel 4’s revealing expose, about the shocking attitudes of some of the guards at Yarl’s Wood immigration detention centre.

Predictably, the story received very little news coverage in the media, and appeared to have been shunned. This indifference is by now well-rehearsed. And it doesn’t matter that foreign nationals were mistreated so appallingly. The summary reaction from the media is that it’s not news, it’s not important, who cares, f*** off!

Guido Fawkes, the popular right-wing blog which in some respects is the home of political scandal , and whose author has fronted the Clarkson campaign (complete with around 10 posts on his blog about Jeremy Clarkson) didn’t even mention Channel 4’s expose, let alone the detention centre report.

What such reactions say is that it is okay to be horrible, racist, violent, an insensitive schemer, to cheat on partners. If you are skilled or have a reputation – on which millions of pounds hang, you can still receive plenty of support, and get to keep your job, your plush lifestyle the whole lot – so long as you are on the right side of the political spectrum. Imagine what young people in their teens will make of it if Clarkson returned with all his whiskers intact?

Don’t get me wrong. I watch Top gear, every season of it. I enjoy the banter on the show, and like the trio of them. I think you’d enjoy a night out with them in a social gathering.  Over the years, I’ve read the magazine a couple of times and while I’m not what you would describe as a hardcore fan, I’m nevertheless a fan. Like many Top Gear fans, I’ve overlooked many of Clarkson’s silly and distasteful utterances over the years, and yes he is very funny in an ape kind of way.

I believe everyone deserves a second chance.

But Jeremy Clarkson has used up all his spare cat-lives. He’s had his second, third, fourth chances… and now he’s just having his cake and eating it because he knows he can almost always get away with it.

The Change.org petition is no more than a right-wing protest at the unlikely admonishment of their overgrown middle-aged poster child. The kind of people who would find these scantily clad Nazi Dancers funny; who attend parties hosted by rich tax-dodging non-domiciled status types  concerned only about profit; people who sympathise with Farage and his racist cohorts; the kind who are accustomed to blaming Polish, Romanians, Bulgarians migrants, and ethnic minorities for every f**king problem the UK faces. It’s becoming more fashionable to be that bigoted, sexist, racist person.

What’s sad is that there are some naive people who have joined this chorus. These pawns do not know of the underground agenda at play and have not connected the dots around the narrative that the media coverage is being provided by a powerful right-wing lobby with the result that the issue is gaining unprecedented news coverage, leading to thousands of signatures. They’ve simply been blinded by their love of the fantastic show, and have jumped onto the bandwagon, proclaiming their support for Clarkson, as if he were some kind of saint. St Jeremy Clarkson of Chipping Norton. Sweet.

But what really happened?

I think someone at the BBC was trying to cover it up, obviously because of the large sums of money at stake. We wouldn’t have known had the victim,Oisin Tymon, remained silent. I suspect that it was only after Oisin threatened legal action (perhaps after a deal to keep it under the lid failed) if something wasn’t done about the ‘fracas’ by the BBC that it became apparent that it couldn’t be contained within the news corporation. That’s when the suspension came, and now we have a runaway petition.

What does one make of #Paedogate?

Posted by

0

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/03/06/britain-s-horrific-vip-pedophile-cover-up.html

Life is costly. Food, housing, transportation, relationships, children, everything has a price tag. Well, almost everything.

Even knowing is costly. When you read any article or publication, there’s a mental process going on in your head which determines how you come away from the material you consume. You can choose to engage or ignore that process which causes you to decide what position to take regarding the matter. Its entirely up to you, I think.

But its going on in the background.

You can come away thinking: Oh well, just another story. Or you could think Really, did that really happen?

And at the extreme end of this continuum, Shit !.

What gets me mildly worked out is when my mind refuses to believe what I’ve just read. When it says BS, I’m not 5 years old. I can’t believe such nonsense.

Preconceptions exists in all our minds. And most people, whether they admit it or not, have or have had at some point Unconscious bias towards one thing or another dancing freely in their minds. It takes a bit of work to be objective, unassuming, impartial.

I like to believe certain things I read. But like most people I’ve got preconceptions against other things.

One example here is GMO foods. You can hogtie me and shove nasty things into any of my orifices, the chances are I won’t change my mind about it. That’s how strong the prejudice is. But it’s an informed prejudice that considers the science.

Another is religion. Due to a complicated set of circumstances and experiences, I’ve made up my mind about the issue.

So, while I have shifted my position on various things, there are some no go zones.

But when it comes to those things where your brain says no, while at the same time trying to find a way to  know what really went on. To internalise whether there was a cover-up, or not.  Did the authorities know about so and so and their actions, or didn’t they know. If they knew why didn’t they do something about it. What if some of those who could have acted to stop the abuse and prosecute the paedos genuinely thought it was speculation that had no merit?. What if they were just being British? A sordid and blighted mixture of apathy, detachment and the quintessentially British stiff upper lip. That the complaints were largely slanderous, from people who wanted to taint the public figures concerned. People from the ‘lower classes’. Scumtrash.

Not this time  around.

The authorities knew everything, and they were either determined to put a firm lid on it, or simply didn’t care about the victims.