The Guardian, in what is admittedly a slow week for newspapers, has had to publicise and support Jeremy Corbyn! He gave them an exclusive interview. What a scoop! It got a front-page splash as if it were world news. Why? Because a small section of the interview contained a criticism of May over so far denying Parliament much more of a role in Brexit, summarised in a medium-to-poor soundbite about Henry VIII, AND offered the Remainers hope again.
Parliament may well have voted to trigger the Leave process, but Jeremy thinks that they will still get to vote on the final plan in 2019:
“It [a final Brexit deal] would have to come to parliament. She cannot
hide behind Henry VIII and the divine rights of the power of kings on
this one,” he said.
Thursday 29 December 2016
Wednesday 21 December 2016
A last resort?
A great deal of heat went out of the various Remain campaigns after the House of Commons voted to trigger Article 50 to leave on 7 Dec..The Government called the bluff of the rebels and got a large majority for their composite motion (461-- 89):
The vote came following a motion from the Labour party, which stated that it is “parliament’s responsibility to properly scrutinise the Government while respecting the decision of the British people to leave the European Union,” adding that there “should be no disclosure of material that could be reasonably judged to damage the UK in any negotiations to depart from the European Union after Article 50 has been triggered.”
And this was supplemented by a Government amendment:
parliament “recognises that this House should respect the wishes of the United Kingdom as expressed in the referendum on 23 June; and further calls on the Government to invoke Article 50 by 31 March 2017.”
There was some media quibbling about whether this meant the Government would or should publish a full plan and expose it to Commons scrutiny and vote. Overall, the effect was that the Remainers lost heart and could find barely a Remainer MP to interview. The motion also sidelined the ongoing Supreme Court hearing, which some of the media had hoped would force the Government to seek a Commons vote before triggering Article 50: naturally, MPs would see the light and vote to reject, they hoped.
So what remains for Remainer organs like the Guardian?
Two items today might indicate the direction of commentary on the long dying of the light:
First,in a flight to the familiar ground of the personal, a story about the social divisions brought about by Brexit told sad stories of family arguments that are still not fully resolved. Overwhelmingly, the accounts were provided by Remainers, and overwhelmingly the stories told of the stubborn, patronising, selfish racist views of the Brexit-supporting families. No need to 'balance' or moderate or even question vox pop pieces.
Then a bit of cultural sneering from Rafael Behr. Predicting fruther attacks form Brexiteers next year, Behr announces the need for a Great Struggle over the emotional dimensions of nationalism. He explains that, basically, Brexiteers have the wrong sorts of (vulgar) emotions:
He goes on to explain that he is fully patriotic in this nicer sense:
And ends with:
The vote came following a motion from the Labour party, which stated that it is “parliament’s responsibility to properly scrutinise the Government while respecting the decision of the British people to leave the European Union,” adding that there “should be no disclosure of material that could be reasonably judged to damage the UK in any negotiations to depart from the European Union after Article 50 has been triggered.”
And this was supplemented by a Government amendment:
parliament “recognises that this House should respect the wishes of the United Kingdom as expressed in the referendum on 23 June; and further calls on the Government to invoke Article 50 by 31 March 2017.”
There was some media quibbling about whether this meant the Government would or should publish a full plan and expose it to Commons scrutiny and vote. Overall, the effect was that the Remainers lost heart and could find barely a Remainer MP to interview. The motion also sidelined the ongoing Supreme Court hearing, which some of the media had hoped would force the Government to seek a Commons vote before triggering Article 50: naturally, MPs would see the light and vote to reject, they hoped.
So what remains for Remainer organs like the Guardian?
Two items today might indicate the direction of commentary on the long dying of the light:
First,in a flight to the familiar ground of the personal, a story about the social divisions brought about by Brexit told sad stories of family arguments that are still not fully resolved. Overwhelmingly, the accounts were provided by Remainers, and overwhelmingly the stories told of the stubborn, patronising, selfish racist views of the Brexit-supporting families. No need to 'balance' or moderate or even question vox pop pieces.
Then a bit of cultural sneering from Rafael Behr. Predicting fruther attacks form Brexiteers next year, Behr announces the need for a Great Struggle over the emotional dimensions of nationalism. He explains that, basically, Brexiteers have the wrong sorts of (vulgar) emotions:
Nationalists do not have a monopoly on patriotism, but they always claim one. The distinction is important. Patriotism is an emotional attachment to one’s country, expressed as pride in belonging to a discrete cultural community.It can be justified or irrational; gentle or aggressive; nuanced or crude; passionate or fond.
He goes on to explain that he is fully patriotic in this nicer sense:
The strongest surge of patriotic feeling I had in 2016 was in response to the death of Victoria Wood. Her ear for the inflections of the language, exploring contours of class and regional identity, and her gift for communicating that insight with self-deprecating humour were quintessentially British. She made me feel lucky to be British, so I could be in on the joke.
And ends with:
Brexit is as dull and soulless as the EU institutions it opposes. As a referendum campaign it struck a chord. As a process it is without music or poetry or any of the cultural depth on which nation-building depends. As a vehicle for the assertion of British exceptionalism it is exceptionally joyless: the creation of uncreative politicians who have nothing special to offer but belief in their own specialness. The more their mediocrity is exposed, the harder they will try to bolster their cause with appeals to patriotic duty.....But there is also a patriotism of nonconformity that cannot be bullied into allegiance. It is not the flag-waving, oath-swearing kind of patriotism, but it is no less indigenous to these islands. Its anthems might not be rousing, but they are more fun. How do we assert this gentler version of British greatness?
Tuesday 13 December 2016
Guardian writer gets it right!
A good article in the Graun today by A Chakraborty that nearly got it right! He has been developing more and more marxist angles in his reporting (so has G Monbiot, who occasionally even talks about class divisions). Big moves for liberals!
Anyway, Chakkers says that behind all the hoo-hah and agonising, the British Government has been quietly advancing the agendas of international capitalism as if nothing has happened, so the whole schtick about Brexit neaning 'independence' is crap. Couldn't agree more. The point has always been to advance one small step at a time towards resistance, and for me, leaving the EU ws the first one -- but only the first one. We all have to watch out for attempts to push agendas in the name of the unrest caused by Brexit
The article says the Brexiteers will be very disappointed when they find they have not leapt into autonomy straight away but still remain in thrall to banks and globalised capital. Indeed they might, although I doubt if many were total utopian idiots. My hope is that further clarity will be sought -- the EU can no longer be blamed so who or what is reponsible?
Meanwhile, Paul Mason (same issue) attempts to discuss the latest example of Remainer Revenge Fantasy --automation will replace jobs. This has been floated for the last 45 years at least, to my knowledge, but it has resurfaced lately and linked to Brexit. Newsnight's creepy political correspondent was suppressing a sly smile when telling us last night that machinery will have to be developed to replace the cheap EU labour that does things like harvest fruit and veg. No Brit workers will benefit then! No doubt he is hoping mechanization will punish labour in general - and it will all be the fault of those wretched Brexiteers.
Mason flirts with an alternative scenario that mechanization will be good if it ends low-paid work. That reminds me of Ranciere on the enthusiasm of the French workers in the 1840s (and some members of the original Brit CP, to the annoyance of Marx'n'Engels) that mechanization will end unskilled dangerous and underpaid work and free up resources to pursue more liberating kinds.
The subtext, still undeveloped, is the crisis that excessive mechanization would bring if it led to even wider levels of poverty.
Still an awful long way to go for me and I have lilttle hope really -- but on the right lines.
Anyway, Chakkers says that behind all the hoo-hah and agonising, the British Government has been quietly advancing the agendas of international capitalism as if nothing has happened, so the whole schtick about Brexit neaning 'independence' is crap. Couldn't agree more. The point has always been to advance one small step at a time towards resistance, and for me, leaving the EU ws the first one -- but only the first one. We all have to watch out for attempts to push agendas in the name of the unrest caused by Brexit
The article says the Brexiteers will be very disappointed when they find they have not leapt into autonomy straight away but still remain in thrall to banks and globalised capital. Indeed they might, although I doubt if many were total utopian idiots. My hope is that further clarity will be sought -- the EU can no longer be blamed so who or what is reponsible?
Meanwhile, Paul Mason (same issue) attempts to discuss the latest example of Remainer Revenge Fantasy --automation will replace jobs. This has been floated for the last 45 years at least, to my knowledge, but it has resurfaced lately and linked to Brexit. Newsnight's creepy political correspondent was suppressing a sly smile when telling us last night that machinery will have to be developed to replace the cheap EU labour that does things like harvest fruit and veg. No Brit workers will benefit then! No doubt he is hoping mechanization will punish labour in general - and it will all be the fault of those wretched Brexiteers.
Mason flirts with an alternative scenario that mechanization will be good if it ends low-paid work. That reminds me of Ranciere on the enthusiasm of the French workers in the 1840s (and some members of the original Brit CP, to the annoyance of Marx'n'Engels) that mechanization will end unskilled dangerous and underpaid work and free up resources to pursue more liberating kinds.
The subtext, still undeveloped, is the crisis that excessive mechanization would bring if it led to even wider levels of poverty.
Still an awful long way to go for me and I have lilttle hope really -- but on the right lines.
Sunday 4 December 2016
4% of what?
Very good satirical interview of the victor of the Richmond byelection here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rn3vuKEgTbs
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rn3vuKEgTbs
Friday 2 December 2016
Back to nagging then...
Lovely piece in the Guardian today by a still-frustrated Remainer, Martin Kettle (Associate News Editor). The Remainers' hopes are heightened by the promised intervention of none other than Mr Tony (War Criminal) Blair, and by the renewed interest in legal delays and the inevitable economic forecasts of gloom. The Richmond by-election cheered them up no end too -- a Remainer LibDem beat a Brexit Independent (former Tory Zac Goldsmith, standing as an anti-Heathrow expansion Independent)
Kettle leaves no stone unturned in his desire to blame Brexit for stuff, including the increased numbers of people from the EU coming to Britain. Good job he explained that because otherwise the news of record immigration might just prompt a demand for swifter action on Brexit.
His main point come at the end though:
So much for news values. At least he warned us what he was going to do -- no need to read him at all now then.
Kettle leaves no stone unturned in his desire to blame Brexit for stuff, including the increased numbers of people from the EU coming to Britain. Good job he explained that because otherwise the news of record immigration might just prompt a demand for swifter action on Brexit.
His main point come at the end though:
The third point is to remember Cato. Chip away, every day. Every time something new and troubling happens, make it clear that things would be different if Brexit were stopped. This week’s immigration figures showed a pre-referendum surge. Without Brexit this wouldn’t have happened. Hate crimes have proliferated. Brexit shares the blame for that. When inflation rises and growth slows next year, make sure Brexit’s role is spelled out. If ministers abandon the single market in favour of migration curbs, make Brexit’s responsibility clear. Unless anti-Brexit campaigners have established in the public mind that there is a clear and viable no-Brexit alternative, they won’t be in a position to make the most of their opportunities.
The fourth point is the other side of the same coin. The leave campaign lied through its teeth about the benefits of Brexit. It said there would be £350m extra every week for the NHS. Last week the chancellor said precisely nothing about any extra NHS spending in the next four years. And look what is actually happening to the NHS. The leave campaign landed the May government with a huge promise that it cannot deliver. The opposition parties need to link the two at every opportunity.
So much for news values. At least he warned us what he was going to do -- no need to read him at all now then.
Thursday 24 November 2016
Guilt by association?
There was some effort made at the time of the killing of an MP -- Jo Cox-- to link the crime to the Brexit vote and it has been renewed today in the Guardian (one of several pieces in fact), following the conviction and sentencing of the murderer
The argument has a classic form. The judicial facts about the case, such as they are, and the sentence are reported in some detail, and the Brexit angle is inserted into the main narrative as if it is also authoritative.
The person who killed Cox (Mair) had a long history of interest in violence and in right-wing politics extending over some years. He was a 'slow-burn' terrorist.
Yet the Guardian wants to add that :
There is no actual evidence reported during the court proceedings to support the 'Brexit germination' line as far as I know, although it is perfectly possible of course. The defendant said nothing about his motives -- indeed, he said nothing at all. The line was widely asserted at the time, in several variants -- even if Brexit was not an actual cause of the murder, the nasty 'atmosphere' created by the referendum itself was responsible
The whole area of Yorkshire where the murder took place was known as a location for right-wing activism, apparently:
So far nice and 'balanced' . The Guardina also reports
Turning to the Brexit germination 4line, though, The Guardian puts more sentences side-by side to suggest a connection:
OK -- it is all plausible enough, but it is just asserted that Brexit and racism went together, as usual. The Guardian couldn't just report the murder, nasty and unsettling as it was, without trying to hook it up to their post-Brexit line, whether it actually fitted or not. The article makes no attempt to assess 'objectively' the importance of the Brexit germination factor, and offers no counters, unlike the discussion of all the other factors. Cox has to be not only a victim, as if that is not bad enough, but a martyr.
The argument has a classic form. The judicial facts about the case, such as they are, and the sentence are reported in some detail, and the Brexit angle is inserted into the main narrative as if it is also authoritative.
The person who killed Cox (Mair) had a long history of interest in violence and in right-wing politics extending over some years. He was a 'slow-burn' terrorist.
Yet the Guardian wants to add that :
[Although] The seeds of the hatred that drove him to murder his MP, Jo Cox, appear to have been sown years earlier, when he began to acquire the means to kill. They germinated during the febrile countdown to the EU referendum.
.... Just hours before the murder, Ukip unveiled its infamous “breaking point” anti-immigration poster
There is no actual evidence reported during the court proceedings to support the 'Brexit germination' line as far as I know, although it is perfectly possible of course. The defendant said nothing about his motives -- indeed, he said nothing at all. The line was widely asserted at the time, in several variants -- even if Brexit was not an actual cause of the murder, the nasty 'atmosphere' created by the referendum itself was responsible
The whole area of Yorkshire where the murder took place was known as a location for right-wing activism, apparently:
police discovered 54 homemade bombs and a dozen firearms at a house in Batley. The occupant, Terence Gavan, a BNP member, was jailed for 11 years after admitting a series of offences under the Terrorism Act 2000. The court heard that Gavan showed “strong hostility” towards immigrants.but then
It appears that Mair, however, had little to do with such groups, perhaps because he was so reclusive. He preferred his relationships with the far right to be long-distance affairs.
So far nice and 'balanced' . The Guardina also reports
Mair himself claimed to be in need of treatment for mental health problems
Turning to the Brexit germination 4line, though, The Guardian puts more sentences side-by side to suggest a connection:
It appears that Mair also woke up one day and decided he was going to do it.
Cox was a vocal supporter of the remain campaign. Her constituency is a place where anti-European feelings run high, and each day during the referendum campaign, Mair was surrounded by red and orange Vote Leave notices. St George’s cross flags fluttered from windows. His “death to traitors” outburst during his first court appearance shows he regarded Cox as one of “the collaborators”, the white people who had betrayed their race.
...
He did [the murder] according to the eyewitness, while saying: “Britain first, keep Britain independent, Britain will always come first.”
Finally, he yelled: “This is for Britain.”
OK -- it is all plausible enough, but it is just asserted that Brexit and racism went together, as usual. The Guardian couldn't just report the murder, nasty and unsettling as it was, without trying to hook it up to their post-Brexit line, whether it actually fitted or not. The article makes no attempt to assess 'objectively' the importance of the Brexit germination factor, and offers no counters, unlike the discussion of all the other factors. Cox has to be not only a victim, as if that is not bad enough, but a martyr.
Monday 14 November 2016
Bias and ideology at the BBC
The BBC is in some trouble for interviewing Marine Le Pen, leader of the National Front in France. People (!) have complained that she should not be offered a platform. An article today in the Graun says the BBC has always favoured right-wing pro-business spokespersons, ever since its own problems with Mrs Thatcher and its own corporatization.
In particular Mills argues that:
How is this reconcilable with my own views that the BBC displayed a relentless socially liberal stance in favour of Remain?
Could be I'm wrong. Could be that even a preponderance of Conservative and UKIP people did not dent the liberal ideology. Were the Conservatives pro-Brexit or pro-Remain as well as 'right wing'? What if the BBC made Brexiteers look foolish or misguided or just marginal? Earlier work by Glasgow University famously showed there were lots of ways to devalue a spokesperson even while allocating a 'balanced' amount of time -- and this blog offers some examples: interviewers interrupt, bully amateurs, cut people off, demand answers to silly questions, get angry and so on.
Meanwhile, Guardina letter-writers and their cultural politics continue to amuse. My favourite is not on the website yet but it says:
In particular Mills argues that:
Research by Cardiff University found that the two sides of the official [Referendum] campaign were evenly represented in TV news... But overall the voices of the right dominated, with the Conservatives and Ukip making up almost 80% of political sources. Loughborough University’s research produced similar findings, while the Cardiff researchers found that statistical claims made by campaigners were challenged in fewer than one in five cases.
How is this reconcilable with my own views that the BBC displayed a relentless socially liberal stance in favour of Remain?
Could be I'm wrong. Could be that even a preponderance of Conservative and UKIP people did not dent the liberal ideology. Were the Conservatives pro-Brexit or pro-Remain as well as 'right wing'? What if the BBC made Brexiteers look foolish or misguided or just marginal? Earlier work by Glasgow University famously showed there were lots of ways to devalue a spokesperson even while allocating a 'balanced' amount of time -- and this blog offers some examples: interviewers interrupt, bully amateurs, cut people off, demand answers to silly questions, get angry and so on.
Meanwhile, Guardina letter-writers and their cultural politics continue to amuse. My favourite is not on the website yet but it says:
...we should seek inspiration from the recent past. The "You say you want a revolution?" exhibition at the V&A museum charts the exhilarating optimism of the late 1960s, when people tried to create a better world through music, fashion and positive social change. We must work to restore that spirit of hope.
Wednesday 9 November 2016
The Trumpets Shall Sound...
So Trump wins, and my only pleasure is in further confusion among metropolitan luvvies on the British media who had assured themselves, and tried to assure us, that Clinton would do it. Jon Snow on C4 News is normally excellent, thoughtful and courageous, but I have now seen him blow it badly on two occasions -- when asking in an exasperated tone how anyone could possibly support Trump who was so obviously unpleasant and rude to women and a thoroughly wrong sort of chap -- and over Brexit when he got very angry with a black female Brexiteer.
I expect Evan Daivs on Newsnight,and the entrire staff of the Guardian will be in shock today too. That's twice they have done their level best to campaign against a political development, even risking their own claims to 'objectivity', and failed to realise that the more they push, the more resistance they generate. No doubt the BBC will try to regain its impartiality as it has done with Brexit (not quite), but they must be wetting themselves about the chance of further exits from the EU -- Frexit, Itexit, maybe even Grexit again.
The Guardian webpage has it all.Just read the bylines -- misogyny, fear, liberals must only blame themselves etc. Only Larry Elliott sees it as a backlash against globalisation, and sees some relief in the ending of Obama's awful trade deals like TTIP. Expect added bereavement -- denial (already happened on Morning TV where the presenters argued Trump didn't really mean it and was only acting tough for the campaign), followed by anger etc.
Elliott is right to say this is a backlash. Habermas predicted as much at the start of the neo-lliberal turn, but warned against right-wing hijack of the blue-collar backlash. That is still the danger. There is also the possibility that Trump will confine himself to a few symbolic acts of nastiness, probably against Mexico, while capitalism will sail on as ever into a new much more discreet globalised future.
Another bit of cheer. The Guardian, which God preserve, has an item about how Brexit has led to higher divorce rates. The article admits about 2/3 of the way through, that other factors might be involved too. Luckily, counsellors will offer help to everyone and offer couples places in 'divorce hotels' says a 'family mediator'.
I expect Evan Daivs on Newsnight,and the entrire staff of the Guardian will be in shock today too. That's twice they have done their level best to campaign against a political development, even risking their own claims to 'objectivity', and failed to realise that the more they push, the more resistance they generate. No doubt the BBC will try to regain its impartiality as it has done with Brexit (not quite), but they must be wetting themselves about the chance of further exits from the EU -- Frexit, Itexit, maybe even Grexit again.
The Guardian webpage has it all.Just read the bylines -- misogyny, fear, liberals must only blame themselves etc. Only Larry Elliott sees it as a backlash against globalisation, and sees some relief in the ending of Obama's awful trade deals like TTIP. Expect added bereavement -- denial (already happened on Morning TV where the presenters argued Trump didn't really mean it and was only acting tough for the campaign), followed by anger etc.
Elliott is right to say this is a backlash. Habermas predicted as much at the start of the neo-lliberal turn, but warned against right-wing hijack of the blue-collar backlash. That is still the danger. There is also the possibility that Trump will confine himself to a few symbolic acts of nastiness, probably against Mexico, while capitalism will sail on as ever into a new much more discreet globalised future.
Another bit of cheer. The Guardian, which God preserve, has an item about how Brexit has led to higher divorce rates. The article admits about 2/3 of the way through, that other factors might be involved too. Luckily, counsellors will offer help to everyone and offer couples places in 'divorce hotels' says a 'family mediator'.
Sunday 6 November 2016
Scandalum magnatum
A few days ago, the High Court decided that the UK Government was not entitled to trigger Article 50 without Parliamentary discussion -- or at least that was how it has been interpreted. As we have no written constittuion, the courts have some leeway to decide on these matters
Predictably, the Daily Mail led with a large headline portraying the judges as 'Enemies of the People' and used their biographies to add shaming details of their elite backgrounds and, in one case, being a gay ex-Olympic fencer. Equally predictably, luvvies responded with a lot of windy stuff about the independence of the judiciary and the sovereignty of Parliament: both sides accused the other of being hypocritical about sovereignty.Oddly enough, it was the Mail's political correpondent who raised the possibility that judges might well have Establishment political values -- and he was shouted down by the presenter of Newsnight and the opposing speaker, a Labour MP who believes the judiciary are independent! Both seemed shocked that anyone could not see that. Strangely, lots of people remained unconvinced.
Both sides clearly lack any notion of ideology as usual, that would permit BOTH an 'independent' opinion (ie one held without being told to do so by politicians) and a 'biased' one (where something just appears obviously and unconsciously 'right').
Of course,there is a strong suspicion that the victory in the High Court (still subject to appeal in the Supreme Court) was really about a strategy to delay Article 50, in the hope that people will change their mind OR in order to bombard the Government with all sorts of amendments and compromises to achieve the so-called 'soft Brexit' option. Conspiracy seems in the air.
As a result, a secondary worry has emerged for luvvies, based on the treasonous tendencies of the lower orders to question even judges' decisions -- is Britain so divided that it will get really nasty as what we might call a 'legitimation crisis' deepens. This clearly worries the Observer, who has also joined in the chorus saying that the Government must strongly condemn critcisms of the judiciary (a routine statement was not enough) and reassert its constitutional role.
Predictably, the Daily Mail led with a large headline portraying the judges as 'Enemies of the People' and used their biographies to add shaming details of their elite backgrounds and, in one case, being a gay ex-Olympic fencer. Equally predictably, luvvies responded with a lot of windy stuff about the independence of the judiciary and the sovereignty of Parliament: both sides accused the other of being hypocritical about sovereignty.Oddly enough, it was the Mail's political correpondent who raised the possibility that judges might well have Establishment political values -- and he was shouted down by the presenter of Newsnight and the opposing speaker, a Labour MP who believes the judiciary are independent! Both seemed shocked that anyone could not see that. Strangely, lots of people remained unconvinced.
Both sides clearly lack any notion of ideology as usual, that would permit BOTH an 'independent' opinion (ie one held without being told to do so by politicians) and a 'biased' one (where something just appears obviously and unconsciously 'right').
Of course,there is a strong suspicion that the victory in the High Court (still subject to appeal in the Supreme Court) was really about a strategy to delay Article 50, in the hope that people will change their mind OR in order to bombard the Government with all sorts of amendments and compromises to achieve the so-called 'soft Brexit' option. Conspiracy seems in the air.
As a result, a secondary worry has emerged for luvvies, based on the treasonous tendencies of the lower orders to question even judges' decisions -- is Britain so divided that it will get really nasty as what we might call a 'legitimation crisis' deepens. This clearly worries the Observer, who has also joined in the chorus saying that the Government must strongly condemn critcisms of the judiciary (a routine statement was not enough) and reassert its constitutional role.
Friday 28 October 2016
Flexible sovereignty
The latest in a series of arguments about Parliamentary sovereignty today in the Guarndia by Nicky Morgan ( unmourned Sec of State for Ed under Cameron who wanted to force all secondary schools to move to academy status).
No-one really knows what Parliamentary sovereignty in the UK means because we have no written constitution, but it is widely regarded as a Good Thing. Brexiteers wanted it because it would mean we were no longer subject to EU law (one reason I voted for Breexit). Now Remainers want it because it would enable a Parliamentary vote on triggering Article 50, which they hope would check the Government's intention to simply go ahead using its executive power. Morgan is one of several who were not impressed by the Brexit demand for Parlimanentary sovereignty as opposed to the EU, but now wants it to oppose the Government. And vice versa for the Brexiters, it should be said.
Scots Nats also play it both ways. They insist that their Referendum results justify staying in the EU, so 'the people of Scotland' are sovereign. But they want Parliamentary votes in the UK as a whole so the UK people as a whole are not sovereign.
The whole issue could be discussed much more effectively via some well-known bits of political theory --but we don't do theory in the UK (well, we did, via people like JS Mill, but we don't now).
Meanwhile, the Great White Hope of the Graun is trotted out once again --the Liberals will save us argues John Harris. The Lib Dems did quite well in the bye-election in Whitney caused by Cameron's resignation. A poll suggests that any party arguing for stopping Brexit would gain a good proportion of votes, more than Labour. So -- the Lib Dems could sweep into power as the party that opposes Brexit, a second referendum would be announced, luvvies would win, peace and cheap strawberries would ensue for ever.
Meanwhile again, the Graun reports that grouse moors receive substanbtial subsidies from the EU's Common Agricultural Policy. Luvvies must be upset because they hate the upper classes as much as the working classes. What could be worse, Nissan has decided to stay in the UK and even invest more in their Sunderland plant, despite saying they would think of leaving if there was Brexit. Pundits were very shocked by Sunderland voting for Leave -- poor L Kuenssberg's face!
And the economy has grown by 0.5% in the last quarter. Luvvies have to report these news items -- even Newsnight -- but they immediately look for foul play somewhere, some promised subsidy for Nissan for example,some denial that there is real growth.
Even if there were a subsidy, this shows that the UK Government can plan its own industrial strategy (new buzzword for Tories), of course. What did the luvvies think? -- that Government would or could not intervene to remedy any post-EU problems, but would spend its time wishing none of it had happened?
Why, we could even renationalise the railways (popular with the public) or establish a State investment bank (both formerly dismissed as utopian -- because the EU would prevent them!)
No-one really knows what Parliamentary sovereignty in the UK means because we have no written constitution, but it is widely regarded as a Good Thing. Brexiteers wanted it because it would mean we were no longer subject to EU law (one reason I voted for Breexit). Now Remainers want it because it would enable a Parliamentary vote on triggering Article 50, which they hope would check the Government's intention to simply go ahead using its executive power. Morgan is one of several who were not impressed by the Brexit demand for Parlimanentary sovereignty as opposed to the EU, but now wants it to oppose the Government. And vice versa for the Brexiters, it should be said.
Scots Nats also play it both ways. They insist that their Referendum results justify staying in the EU, so 'the people of Scotland' are sovereign. But they want Parliamentary votes in the UK as a whole so the UK people as a whole are not sovereign.
The whole issue could be discussed much more effectively via some well-known bits of political theory --but we don't do theory in the UK (well, we did, via people like JS Mill, but we don't now).
Meanwhile, the Great White Hope of the Graun is trotted out once again --the Liberals will save us argues John Harris. The Lib Dems did quite well in the bye-election in Whitney caused by Cameron's resignation. A poll suggests that any party arguing for stopping Brexit would gain a good proportion of votes, more than Labour. So -- the Lib Dems could sweep into power as the party that opposes Brexit, a second referendum would be announced, luvvies would win, peace and cheap strawberries would ensue for ever.
Meanwhile again, the Graun reports that grouse moors receive substanbtial subsidies from the EU's Common Agricultural Policy. Luvvies must be upset because they hate the upper classes as much as the working classes. What could be worse, Nissan has decided to stay in the UK and even invest more in their Sunderland plant, despite saying they would think of leaving if there was Brexit. Pundits were very shocked by Sunderland voting for Leave -- poor L Kuenssberg's face!
And the economy has grown by 0.5% in the last quarter. Luvvies have to report these news items -- even Newsnight -- but they immediately look for foul play somewhere, some promised subsidy for Nissan for example,some denial that there is real growth.
Even if there were a subsidy, this shows that the UK Government can plan its own industrial strategy (new buzzword for Tories), of course. What did the luvvies think? -- that Government would or could not intervene to remedy any post-EU problems, but would spend its time wishing none of it had happened?
Why, we could even renationalise the railways (popular with the public) or establish a State investment bank (both formerly dismissed as utopian -- because the EU would prevent them!)
Tuesday 25 October 2016
No parrots were involved in Brexit
A Monty Python sketch introduced the idea of TV news for animals [as a parody of regional news provision] and offered a series of normal news stories which tagged on mentions of animals -- 'no badgers were involved today in a motorway pile-up on the M4' etc
There is a growing tendency in Graun and Observerwet to cram in a mention of Brexit to a list of factors explaining some problem. Brexit is usually added right at the end, and sometimes in the headline as well.
There is a good one in a sports article in the Guardian where English fans were being urged to adopt the practices of European ones to increase the atmosphere in the ground (a big worry for the English game which is pricing people out.) Apparently, lovable German 'ultras' are inspired by left-wing ideals of community, but :
Another classic example in today's Guardian from the beloved P Toynbee. Here is the headline:
So far it seems like a perfect Tory Government storm, but wait ...shortfalls in trained nurses are being met by recruiting overseas.Polly doesn't comment on the ethics here but moves straight to the point she has been worried about for 4 months -- Brexit. Some of these nurses might think about going back to their countries of origin. Some from EU countries presumably -- Polly doesn't say -- or maybe all migrant nurses will feel unwelcome?
Evidence? Well
There is a growing tendency in Graun and Observerwet to cram in a mention of Brexit to a list of factors explaining some problem. Brexit is usually added right at the end, and sometimes in the headline as well.
There is a good one in a sports article in the Guardian where English fans were being urged to adopt the practices of European ones to increase the atmosphere in the ground (a big worry for the English game which is pricing people out.) Apparently, lovable German 'ultras' are inspired by left-wing ideals of community, but :
even as Britain stands on the verge of shrinking itself culturally as it prepares to pull the shutters down on Europe, young people here could never be as politically motivated as mid-90s post-reunification Germans, so any catalyst must come from somewhere else.
Another classic example in today's Guardian from the beloved P Toynbee. Here is the headline:
Our nurses are being cast into a perfect Brexit storm
The story is about the awful conditions endured by nurses in the NHS -- frozen wages, increased workload, substantial cuts to general and specialist training, the abolition of bursaries for student nurses, occasional scandals about standards of care, indifference from the Government.
So far it seems like a perfect Tory Government storm, but wait ...shortfalls in trained nurses are being met by recruiting overseas.Polly doesn't comment on the ethics here but moves straight to the point she has been worried about for 4 months -- Brexit. Some of these nurses might think about going back to their countries of origin. Some from EU countries presumably -- Polly doesn't say -- or maybe all migrant nurses will feel unwelcome?
Evidence? Well
Mark Power, [Radclliffe Hospital's] director of human resources, has written a detailed report warning his board that the present 10% vacancy rate in the Thames Valley area may worsen following the Brexit vote. In 2015 his hospital brought in 448 EU nurses who are now “concerned and uncertain” about their future...
The John Radcliffe’s chief nurse, Prof Catherine Stoddart, fears many [UK students] will be discouraged [by the cut in training and bursaries]...Ask her about her EU nurses and the way she brims with extravagant praise betrays her anxiety following the referendum: “They make a huge contribution with very strong skills that lift the standard of our own. Our best nurses have worked all over the world.” They’re worried, she says. “Since the vote, we have organised special lunches for them to reassure them and say how much we want them to stay. [No pay rise then?] There’s a risk they will go home in the present climate. Our patients worry too, asking them: ‘Where are you from and are you going home?’”Hardly convincing. I can see why managers would want to recruit cheap but skilled labour, but let's revert to the ethics: (1) should we expect overseas recruits to work in our NHS despite the poor conditions and crap pay already mentioned as a disincentive for UK ones? (2) is it right to import nurses from other countries that have trained them and have an equal if not greater need for them? (3) who should we blame first for the 'perfect storm' -- Tory Government or Brexit voters?
Saturday 8 October 2016
Luvvie algorithms
There was a flash crash of sterling a few days ago with the pound suddenly plummeting to a new low against the dollar (as bad as in 1985 --what happened then?). Remainers are panicking, of course. They have now chosen the exchange rate as the key indicator of impending doom, rather than the Stock Market FTSE index (which is buoyant) or the elusive 'Confidence Index' (disappeared altogether from the public view). In the Freedland piece below, the high stock exchange is simply an effect of us still being in the EU: however, strangely, the falling exchange rate is equally a sign of panic about us not being in the EU in the future.
Among those wetting themselves is the Guardian's Jonathan Freedland, who
is talking not just of 'hard Brexit' but 'extreme Brexit'. He argues that the fall in the pound occurs every time politicians talk of a hard Brexit, or rather that 'Brexit really will happen'. He says the Government should have been opting for loopholes in agreements on free movement of labour not people, and a general deal to stay in the free trade area, as with Norway (who pay for the privilege and accept 'free' movement of labour). We should have been welcoming (skilled) overseas labour not threatening to replace them with Brits (so far only medics). If we play tough, he warns, 'basic food imports won’t be allowed in either.' (this could mean, for Guardinists, cheap fresh strawberries all year round, as we saw).
Freedland argues that no-one actually voted for this disaster (he knows how 17 million people voted, of course). Someone must speak up for sanity and the thwarted 48% Remain voters. The Tories all seem to have been converted to Brexit, so that leaves only Labour (and media luvvies no doubt).
The BBC is also worried, as we saw, about the tough talking from Government. A number of spokespersons have tried in vain to explain that you need to talk tough entering a negotiation -- Brits as well as the EU. The failure to realise this is another hallmark of luvviedom -- no-one has to talk tough where they live, and they are used to just getting their own way.
However, the flashcrash might have different origins according to another piece. This says the whole crash might have been a mistake in data entry (a 'fat finger') or the result of an over-tuned algorithm designed to sell sterling if a negative headline appears in any financial press. This really appeals as an example of the utter lunacy of modern capitalism: someone (probably quite a junior person, perhaps even a non-native English speaker, in a kind of Empire's revenge) decides to provide a programmer with a number of definitions of 'negative words'; someone else writes a headline (in the Financial Times, it was rumoured) to summarise a speech, in French, using negative words in English (perhaps to attract readers rather than to summarise the story). The two meet. A sterling crash ensues. Other algorithms then cut in to buy sterling at the new low price and sterling regains its value within 20 seconds -- but not to the same extent. People in the market interrpet this as a weakness in sterling! Some metropolitan journalist then writes a panicky story triggered by the episode!
Among those wetting themselves is the Guardian's Jonathan Freedland, who
is talking not just of 'hard Brexit' but 'extreme Brexit'. He argues that the fall in the pound occurs every time politicians talk of a hard Brexit, or rather that 'Brexit really will happen'. He says the Government should have been opting for loopholes in agreements on free movement of labour not people, and a general deal to stay in the free trade area, as with Norway (who pay for the privilege and accept 'free' movement of labour). We should have been welcoming (skilled) overseas labour not threatening to replace them with Brits (so far only medics). If we play tough, he warns, 'basic food imports won’t be allowed in either.' (this could mean, for Guardinists, cheap fresh strawberries all year round, as we saw).
Freedland argues that no-one actually voted for this disaster (he knows how 17 million people voted, of course). Someone must speak up for sanity and the thwarted 48% Remain voters. The Tories all seem to have been converted to Brexit, so that leaves only Labour (and media luvvies no doubt).
The BBC is also worried, as we saw, about the tough talking from Government. A number of spokespersons have tried in vain to explain that you need to talk tough entering a negotiation -- Brits as well as the EU. The failure to realise this is another hallmark of luvviedom -- no-one has to talk tough where they live, and they are used to just getting their own way.
However, the flashcrash might have different origins according to another piece. This says the whole crash might have been a mistake in data entry (a 'fat finger') or the result of an over-tuned algorithm designed to sell sterling if a negative headline appears in any financial press. This really appeals as an example of the utter lunacy of modern capitalism: someone (probably quite a junior person, perhaps even a non-native English speaker, in a kind of Empire's revenge) decides to provide a programmer with a number of definitions of 'negative words'; someone else writes a headline (in the Financial Times, it was rumoured) to summarise a speech, in French, using negative words in English (perhaps to attract readers rather than to summarise the story). The two meet. A sterling crash ensues. Other algorithms then cut in to buy sterling at the new low price and sterling regains its value within 20 seconds -- but not to the same extent. People in the market interrpet this as a weakness in sterling! Some metropolitan journalist then writes a panicky story triggered by the episode!
Wednesday 5 October 2016
Populist ventriloquism
According to Larry Eliot, a confessed Brexiteer, mind, the IMF has now decided that there will be no UK crash after Brexit. Instead, moderate economic growth this year will be followed by small growth next. Eliot's point is not to jeer at them changing their mind but to say that this shows the range of accuracy of economic forecasting.But then he asks a more interesting question -- why did not the IMF reveal this range of possibilities in the run-up to Brexit? Was it deliberate conspiracy to keep the facts from the public, Larry? Or was it that ideological commitment was such that more positive possibilities literally did not spring to mind?
Meanwhile, Evan Davis on Newsnight is still prone to outbursts of rage (second stage of bereavement?) when discussing Brexit with Tory politicians at their Conference. Two nights ago he badgered a Treasury minister in typical fashion: Treasury forecasts still saw an overall loss of 4% in economic growth after Brexit. The Chancellor had not denied the forecast and indeed had used figures from the same report in his speech on another matter. So, for Davis, this meant the Chancellor was supporting the view that Brexit would mean a loss, proving him, and all his luvvie mates right all along.
The minister's response was pretty obvious -- the UK was still negotiating over the details and so there was no point in commenting on forecasts. No great intellectual sparkle there but no suprises either. Politicians have always refused to comment on hypothetical questions but they don't use that phrase any more because no-one seems to understand it, including the BBC. Davis persisted and explained his question again. And again. Same answer each time. Tantrums from Davis. Finally the minister said there was no point continuing the discussion anyway -- the UK had voted Brexit and that was that, implying that even if there are to be economic losses it is too late to do anything about it. Not for Davis though --on and on he went until told, presumably by the voice in his ear, to give up.
The same broadcast featured a comedy turn in the formof some young knob called Alistair(?) Goodall. Armed with a fake dictionary of EU terms he wandered around asking delegates if they knew the difference between a single market and a customs union. Understandably he was avoided by most delegates who did not want to indulge such an obvious arsehole --but Davis liked it.
Last night, same deal. Davis this time was asking about -- the difference between a customs union and a single market, knowing few people knew or cared to get involved in bureaucratic legalese. Davis had obviously mugged it up and was hoping to catch someone out. Same response from a different minister. Same tantrums. Same comedy turn from Goodall, this time with props like a set of bioculars, this time looking for Cameron supporters. Hilarious. Took up about 5 minutes of airtime.
Another interview by Davis, this time of the new Prime Minister. He had a trick question prepared again -- would she now rule out giving honours to party donors. It was a nice precise issue to test her ethics. She sidetepped, understandably refusing to answer whether she had now stopped beating her husband. He persisted. He assured her that lots of people watching would be asking the same question. I think he really believes that.
Meanwhile, Evan Davis on Newsnight is still prone to outbursts of rage (second stage of bereavement?) when discussing Brexit with Tory politicians at their Conference. Two nights ago he badgered a Treasury minister in typical fashion: Treasury forecasts still saw an overall loss of 4% in economic growth after Brexit. The Chancellor had not denied the forecast and indeed had used figures from the same report in his speech on another matter. So, for Davis, this meant the Chancellor was supporting the view that Brexit would mean a loss, proving him, and all his luvvie mates right all along.
The minister's response was pretty obvious -- the UK was still negotiating over the details and so there was no point in commenting on forecasts. No great intellectual sparkle there but no suprises either. Politicians have always refused to comment on hypothetical questions but they don't use that phrase any more because no-one seems to understand it, including the BBC. Davis persisted and explained his question again. And again. Same answer each time. Tantrums from Davis. Finally the minister said there was no point continuing the discussion anyway -- the UK had voted Brexit and that was that, implying that even if there are to be economic losses it is too late to do anything about it. Not for Davis though --on and on he went until told, presumably by the voice in his ear, to give up.
The same broadcast featured a comedy turn in the formof some young knob called Alistair(?) Goodall. Armed with a fake dictionary of EU terms he wandered around asking delegates if they knew the difference between a single market and a customs union. Understandably he was avoided by most delegates who did not want to indulge such an obvious arsehole --but Davis liked it.
Last night, same deal. Davis this time was asking about -- the difference between a customs union and a single market, knowing few people knew or cared to get involved in bureaucratic legalese. Davis had obviously mugged it up and was hoping to catch someone out. Same response from a different minister. Same tantrums. Same comedy turn from Goodall, this time with props like a set of bioculars, this time looking for Cameron supporters. Hilarious. Took up about 5 minutes of airtime.
Another interview by Davis, this time of the new Prime Minister. He had a trick question prepared again -- would she now rule out giving honours to party donors. It was a nice precise issue to test her ethics. She sidetepped, understandably refusing to answer whether she had now stopped beating her husband. He persisted. He assured her that lots of people watching would be asking the same question. I think he really believes that.
Sunday 2 October 2016
Minorities for Government veto!
W Keagan's piece in the Observer today seems to offer an ingenious connection between Labour Party leadership elections and his favourite rant -- Brexit.
The stuff on Labour is strangely supportive, saying that Labour economic policy (to borrow money for investment) is on the whole quite a normal way to redress the aftermath of the Great Crash, and is supported by a lot of orthodox economists. Then he sees a way forward. Labour can still be criticised for not opposing the Government sufficiently rigorously especially (wait for it) their decision to implement Brexit.
What's his beef this time? It wasn't a proper majority that voted Brexit. It was only 37% of those actually eligible to vote. And he is prepared to 'bet that a fair proportion of the 37% did not appreciate the implications of what they were doing', this means 'Our sovereign parliament must veto this absurd and self-destructive policy'.
This is special pleading of course. If we take those voting for something as a percentage of those eligible to vote, very few simple majorities survive. 'Scotland' did not vote to Remain, for example, if we include those eligible to vote as the total electorate (I reckon the Leavers and the non-voters together outweighed the Remainers --just) .
What about our sovereign Parliament? In the 2015 General Election, only 37% voted of those eligible. The Tory Government attracted only 25% of all potential voters, and, obviously, a smaller percentage of the total of those eligible to vote voted for Labour (30%). I wonder if Keegan would want to bet that a fair proportion of those percentages DID appreciate the implications of what they were doing.
The stuff on Labour is strangely supportive, saying that Labour economic policy (to borrow money for investment) is on the whole quite a normal way to redress the aftermath of the Great Crash, and is supported by a lot of orthodox economists. Then he sees a way forward. Labour can still be criticised for not opposing the Government sufficiently rigorously especially (wait for it) their decision to implement Brexit.
What's his beef this time? It wasn't a proper majority that voted Brexit. It was only 37% of those actually eligible to vote. And he is prepared to 'bet that a fair proportion of the 37% did not appreciate the implications of what they were doing', this means 'Our sovereign parliament must veto this absurd and self-destructive policy'.
This is special pleading of course. If we take those voting for something as a percentage of those eligible to vote, very few simple majorities survive. 'Scotland' did not vote to Remain, for example, if we include those eligible to vote as the total electorate (I reckon the Leavers and the non-voters together outweighed the Remainers --just) .
What about our sovereign Parliament? In the 2015 General Election, only 37% voted of those eligible. The Tory Government attracted only 25% of all potential voters, and, obviously, a smaller percentage of the total of those eligible to vote voted for Labour (30%). I wonder if Keegan would want to bet that a fair proportion of those percentages DID appreciate the implications of what they were doing.
Sunday 25 September 2016
BBC balance
James Harding (Director [sic] of news) defends the BBC coverage of the referendum in the Observer today in an article revealingly subtitled '...don't blame us for Brexit'.That indicates the intended audience pretty clearly.
The general public liked the BBC coverage, Harding claims but notes some complaints from Brexiteers -- rather mild complaints it appears:
So no Brexiteers complained during the coverage? I know I did. Or some did but they are not to be mentioned? Harding says the BBC will report the debates in future with impartiality:
This is the attempt to pose as impartial after the event, as in Newsnight's coverage noted earlier. As for the recent past:
The bulk of the piece then focuses on Remainers's complaints. Here it is the issue of 'false balance' that is addressed -- the way opinions are given air time if they are false or wacky (as in climate denial -- an episode from which the Beeb learned about false balance says Harding). Harding is able to cite 5 examples of aggressive 'forensic' interviewing of Brexiteers in defence. One includes
There are no examples of forensic interviewing of Remainers. The BBC was not open to those who may challenge the particular consensus that Ahmed announced. But then Harding only said it 'should' be open, not that it was.
The piece ends with the usual stuff that the BBC is not saying it is perfect and it will try harder in future. Having chucked its hat in the ring,no doubt speaking 'for the nation', and got egg on its face (mixing metpahors), it now wishes to pose as detached expert again.
There is no need to seek explicit approval, of course, if you share the same ideology.
The general public liked the BBC coverage, Harding claims but notes some complaints from Brexiteers -- rather mild complaints it appears:
On the one hand, some Leavers have said the BBC reported impartially and accurately through the course of the campaign, but, since the vote of 23 June, we have returned to what they say are our true EU-luvvie colours and our reporting of the prospects for Brexit Britain has been gloomy or hysterical.
So no Brexiteers complained during the coverage? I know I did. Or some did but they are not to be mentioned? Harding says the BBC will report the debates in future with impartiality:
In the months ahead, our job is to understand what Brexit actually means – without relish or alarm.
This is the attempt to pose as impartial after the event, as in Newsnight's coverage noted earlier. As for the recent past:
...inasmuch as the EU referendum was about the economy, it was about forecasts more than facts. It was not a contest of hard truths but an argument over whose predictions of the future you preferred. The BBC was abundantly clear that the overwhelming weight of expert economic opinion advised people to vote Remain. But the BBC, at all times, should be open to those who may challenge a consensus – not all such opinions stand the test of time. (And, for the avoidance of doubt, that does not mean any crank heretic can come along and think they can take a pop at a point of historical, scientific or social fact.)...
No one who watched the BBC during the campaign could have been left in any doubt that President Obama, the governor of the Bank of England, the IMF, OECD, IFS, CBI, prime minister, chancellor and, yes, both David Beckham and Jeremy Clarkson believed Britain should remain in the EU.
The bulk of the piece then focuses on Remainers's complaints. Here it is the issue of 'false balance' that is addressed -- the way opinions are given air time if they are false or wacky (as in climate denial -- an episode from which the Beeb learned about false balance says Harding). Harding is able to cite 5 examples of aggressive 'forensic' interviewing of Brexiteers in defence. One includes
Kamal Ahmed on the 6pm and 10pm bulletins saying: “The economic consensus is on one side of this debate.” I could go on and on.
There are no examples of forensic interviewing of Remainers. The BBC was not open to those who may challenge the particular consensus that Ahmed announced. But then Harding only said it 'should' be open, not that it was.
The piece ends with the usual stuff that the BBC is not saying it is perfect and it will try harder in future. Having chucked its hat in the ring,no doubt speaking 'for the nation', and got egg on its face (mixing metpahors), it now wishes to pose as detached expert again.
to report, to host the argument and to interrogate the participants. We aim to inform our audiences, not seek the approval of politicians or pundits.
There is no need to seek explicit approval, of course, if you share the same ideology.
Thursday 22 September 2016
Remainers go for objectivity
Both the BBC (Newsnight) and el Gruadiano covered the latest news on the economic front showing that there has been no disaster so far. Even the OECD says so. How to cover our remainer backs?
Let's get objective. Evan Davies, none other, began his Newsnight coverage by saying both sides had been guilty of exaggeration (none more than him, but that was in the past and he hopes we have fogotten). He interrogated some experts (two remainers to one leaver), and asked a leaver to restore his confidence. This was after the leaver had said that the devaluation of the pound by about 10% was not particularly disastrous and was a response to longer term problems anyway.
The other remainer was able to suggest that relative economic stability would still be dangerous if it encouraged the British Government to get stroppy with the EU and demand a hard Brexit. Presumably, this would be worse that economic instability which would have us whimpering for a good deal and the EU getting stroppy?
Finally Evan was able to divert the issue from his own earlier hysteria by saying that we still have not left the EU so the long term is still in doubt, and secondly, that economic predictions were notoriously unreliable. His remainer ally said that was because governments, and/or the Bank of England had taken action to forestall any immediate crisis -- fancy that!
They did manage to agree that lingering uncertainty was the harmful residue of Brexit. We can't have buccaneering, risk taking entrepreneurs put off by uncertainty can we? Nor did recession and the Great Crash provide any harmful uncertainity, it seems. Why, if it were not for Brexit, all would be set for an entirely smooth transition to broad sunlit uplands with affluence for all.
None of these reservations had been aired by the BBC before, of course. We were assured doom was imminent and that all reputable economists had said so.Nor can the relative failure of these gloomy forecasts (so far) be explained by anything other than unfortunate imprecisions in the very science of Economics.
No one said ideology, even the BBC's version of it -- bias. The English ruling class when confronted with failure has always opted for incompetence rather than blundering ideology.
Let's get objective. Evan Davies, none other, began his Newsnight coverage by saying both sides had been guilty of exaggeration (none more than him, but that was in the past and he hopes we have fogotten). He interrogated some experts (two remainers to one leaver), and asked a leaver to restore his confidence. This was after the leaver had said that the devaluation of the pound by about 10% was not particularly disastrous and was a response to longer term problems anyway.
The other remainer was able to suggest that relative economic stability would still be dangerous if it encouraged the British Government to get stroppy with the EU and demand a hard Brexit. Presumably, this would be worse that economic instability which would have us whimpering for a good deal and the EU getting stroppy?
Finally Evan was able to divert the issue from his own earlier hysteria by saying that we still have not left the EU so the long term is still in doubt, and secondly, that economic predictions were notoriously unreliable. His remainer ally said that was because governments, and/or the Bank of England had taken action to forestall any immediate crisis -- fancy that!
They did manage to agree that lingering uncertainty was the harmful residue of Brexit. We can't have buccaneering, risk taking entrepreneurs put off by uncertainty can we? Nor did recession and the Great Crash provide any harmful uncertainity, it seems. Why, if it were not for Brexit, all would be set for an entirely smooth transition to broad sunlit uplands with affluence for all.
None of these reservations had been aired by the BBC before, of course. We were assured doom was imminent and that all reputable economists had said so.Nor can the relative failure of these gloomy forecasts (so far) be explained by anything other than unfortunate imprecisions in the very science of Economics.
No one said ideology, even the BBC's version of it -- bias. The English ruling class when confronted with failure has always opted for incompetence rather than blundering ideology.
Tuesday 6 September 2016
Not so much in denial as in Fairyland
A truly splendid piece in the Grunaid today by one Hugo Dixon ,already a lobbyist for Remain, on why Britain might be able to stay in the EU after all. Apart from the usual bleats about how we woz all lied to, he offers several possibilities:
(1) Lots of Leave voters will change thir mind now that May has ruled out a points system for immigration
(2) More people will be attracted by Gordon Brown's view [such a popular figure!] that we could lead Europe into making fundamental reforms that would address economic slowdown and reveal that it was the UK Government that produced all the problems [including Brown's?]. Dixon's new campaign group will offer hope that the whole system can be reformed -- not just Europe but the world!
(3) Those in charge of negotiating Brexit will make a total hash of it and May will disown the whole thing
(4) Labour will elect a pro-EU leader OR will split and the righteous will join with pro-EU Tories in a new pro-EU party to demand a new referendum
(5) The legal challenge to the referendum will succeed
(6) The EU will reform its own policy of free movement of labour, especially after the unpopularity of the immigration policy [for people outside the EU, of course -- Dixon hopes the two cases will be confused by populist politicians]
(7) Changing public opinion --see (1) -- will force May into a U-turn
All these are admitted to be slender possibilities with only a 25% chance of succeeding:
This is actually one of those symbolic political gestures so Dixon can claim some moral high ground, like voting to oppose evil.Why did the Graun print this stuff? The first few comments are largely hostile, I am glad to say, despite a few agreements.
(1) Lots of Leave voters will change thir mind now that May has ruled out a points system for immigration
(2) More people will be attracted by Gordon Brown's view [such a popular figure!] that we could lead Europe into making fundamental reforms that would address economic slowdown and reveal that it was the UK Government that produced all the problems [including Brown's?]. Dixon's new campaign group will offer hope that the whole system can be reformed -- not just Europe but the world!
(3) Those in charge of negotiating Brexit will make a total hash of it and May will disown the whole thing
(4) Labour will elect a pro-EU leader OR will split and the righteous will join with pro-EU Tories in a new pro-EU party to demand a new referendum
(5) The legal challenge to the referendum will succeed
(6) The EU will reform its own policy of free movement of labour, especially after the unpopularity of the immigration policy [for people outside the EU, of course -- Dixon hopes the two cases will be confused by populist politicians]
(7) Changing public opinion --see (1) -- will force May into a U-turn
All these are admitted to be slender possibilities with only a 25% chance of succeeding:
But no Brexit is a good Brexit except, just maybe, the pure fantasy one promised by the leave camp [hilarious pot calling kettle black] . Some things are worth fighting for even when the odds are long. This is one of them.
This is actually one of those symbolic political gestures so Dixon can claim some moral high ground, like voting to oppose evil.Why did the Graun print this stuff? The first few comments are largely hostile, I am glad to say, despite a few agreements.
Monday 5 September 2016
Postures and pledges
It seems the Japanese Government has issued a memo warning that they will pull out of the UK if certain basic requirements are not met on comptability with EU regulations. This was dressed up in the usual shock horror style in the article in he paper version,but is more moderate on the website --saying that Nissan is unlikely to disinvest (apparently because it is 43% owned by Renault and VW -- who knew?).
Obama has also said that the UK will have to wait for a trade deal with the US because TTIP with the EU will take precedence. If Brexit means we will not be in TTIP than that alone will be worth it. I think the US will also have to wait a long time before the EU countries accept it too
Meanwhile the other story is that May has not yet committed to a points system for immigration nor to spending the £350/100m on the NHS. At least the lower (net) figure is given now as an estimate by Leave, but these are still 'promises', 'pledges' and of course 'lies' , and Brexiteers were naive to believe them.
But could believers not work out that for them to be implemented, the Leave Party would have to gain power first, somehow? Was there going to be a new General Election? Would Leave dominate the Tory Party and all the Remainers resign their seats? The only people who thought that would happen were those in Project Fear who asked us would we want to be ruled by Johnson and Farage (the latter somehow without even being an MP)?
The issues are at least a bit clearer. If there is still excessive exploitation of short term immigrant workers, and a failing NHS, the UK Government is clearly to blame and will not be able to hide behind 'Europe'.
Obama has also said that the UK will have to wait for a trade deal with the US because TTIP with the EU will take precedence. If Brexit means we will not be in TTIP than that alone will be worth it. I think the US will also have to wait a long time before the EU countries accept it too
Meanwhile the other story is that May has not yet committed to a points system for immigration nor to spending the £350/100m on the NHS. At least the lower (net) figure is given now as an estimate by Leave, but these are still 'promises', 'pledges' and of course 'lies' , and Brexiteers were naive to believe them.
But could believers not work out that for them to be implemented, the Leave Party would have to gain power first, somehow? Was there going to be a new General Election? Would Leave dominate the Tory Party and all the Remainers resign their seats? The only people who thought that would happen were those in Project Fear who asked us would we want to be ruled by Johnson and Farage (the latter somehow without even being an MP)?
The issues are at least a bit clearer. If there is still excessive exploitation of short term immigrant workers, and a failing NHS, the UK Government is clearly to blame and will not be able to hide behind 'Europe'.
Sunday 4 September 2016
BBC balance and banality
Some Remainers are still cross, some even in denial. Keegan in the Guardian is still in denial, still insisting the referendum was only 'advisory', that accepting the result would be 'craven' and a disregard of the sovereignty of Parliament (surely the oddest argument of all from an EU admirer). He feels bad personally as people he meets on holiday in Europe laugh at him --maybe he needs to meet more people because even the BBC now manages to meet a few Brexit supporters. He is predicting long-term crisis despite the recent optimism about the UK economy
Catherine Bennett in the Observer is still hurt too. She still thinks it was all based on the £350 m per week 'lie' and Gove's appalling rejection of expert economic advice -- even from Nobel laureates she points out.
This time she crystallises another theme that has been bubbling under -- the BBC's responsibility for not exposing these lies. 'Balance' is not enough, she says, if a lie is allowed to balance a truth. One example is when creationism is given equal time with evolutionary theory.
There are obvious problems here:(1) Bennett sees the case for Brexit as a lie, deserving no exposure or ruthless critique --but not the case for Remain. Luvvies will determine what is a lie? (2) Balance,what balance? Brexiteers were routinely slagged off and yelled at on the BBC, especially if they were not professional politicians (3) Experts to be allowed full rein,especially if they have prestigious prizes?
Nevertheless,there is a grain of sense in what Bennett says.The BBC has played its part in dumbing down debates and patronising the audience, 'enabling an often asinine level of argument', as she puts it. The experts that appear tend to be asked to speak in soundbites, to adopt different positions so as to have a lively debate,and to turn into arm-waving enthusiasts. Some people are introduced as experts even though their credentials are dubious -- Bennett mentions Steve Hilton who suddenly appeared as a Brexiteer.
Interviewers are allowed to be populists, to take sides and to demand simplification. If they are specialists in anything these days, they are not expected to reveal this. They often ask experts to comment on things outside their expertise too --notoriously what other people might be thinking. They freely summarize and simplify for us thickos.
As a result we get 'balance' between two artificially contrasted sides, not allowed to explain anything without rapid interruption,expected to 'communicate' in the apprpriate BBC manner,and likely to have their 'debate' preceeded and followed by some trivial item about a new rap star, a chatty interview with a novelist or a review of an exhibition available only to Londoners
Catherine Bennett in the Observer is still hurt too. She still thinks it was all based on the £350 m per week 'lie' and Gove's appalling rejection of expert economic advice -- even from Nobel laureates she points out.
This time she crystallises another theme that has been bubbling under -- the BBC's responsibility for not exposing these lies. 'Balance' is not enough, she says, if a lie is allowed to balance a truth. One example is when creationism is given equal time with evolutionary theory.
There are obvious problems here:(1) Bennett sees the case for Brexit as a lie, deserving no exposure or ruthless critique --but not the case for Remain. Luvvies will determine what is a lie? (2) Balance,what balance? Brexiteers were routinely slagged off and yelled at on the BBC, especially if they were not professional politicians (3) Experts to be allowed full rein,especially if they have prestigious prizes?
Nevertheless,there is a grain of sense in what Bennett says.The BBC has played its part in dumbing down debates and patronising the audience, 'enabling an often asinine level of argument', as she puts it. The experts that appear tend to be asked to speak in soundbites, to adopt different positions so as to have a lively debate,and to turn into arm-waving enthusiasts. Some people are introduced as experts even though their credentials are dubious -- Bennett mentions Steve Hilton who suddenly appeared as a Brexiteer.
Interviewers are allowed to be populists, to take sides and to demand simplification. If they are specialists in anything these days, they are not expected to reveal this. They often ask experts to comment on things outside their expertise too --notoriously what other people might be thinking. They freely summarize and simplify for us thickos.
As a result we get 'balance' between two artificially contrasted sides, not allowed to explain anything without rapid interruption,expected to 'communicate' in the apprpriate BBC manner,and likely to have their 'debate' preceeded and followed by some trivial item about a new rap star, a chatty interview with a novelist or a review of an exhibition available only to Londoners
Thursday 25 August 2016
The Maildian
I know it is the silly season but this takes the proverbial.
The Graun led today (yes, led) on a big story about how the NHS will collapse if the EU employees go home. This is the prediction of a thinktank the IPPR,describing itself as 'progressive'.There is no actual evidence that anyone wants to go home and join a supposed brain drain from the UK post-Brexit (some data comes out today,but el Gruniado can't wait and it might not support them),but there are fears. Quite the most amazing sentence says that:
Deportation! Queues of medics and nurses carrying only one suitcase waiting in transit camps! It is only 'unlikely' say the IPPR, and people are still anxious. I wonder why. Classic Daily Mail stuff, but from 'progressives'
Meanwhile, they could apply for British citizenship, I suppose, but the IPPR thinks the fee of £1200 might be deterring people from doing so, so they advocate its abolition for the skilled, and a loan to pay it for the unskilled. Presumably everything else in the process, like the citizenship test, is OK.
Then, in the same story, a flip-flop, or, as the Guardian might call it 'balance'. I'm not really complaining -- at least it is not full on ReMail.
It turns out that:
It seems Metcalf blames local employers for not investing in training, for the most skilled jobs in Science or IT, meaning that they choose to rely on migrants , and that:
Marina is superb at pointing out substantial abuses of power by unelected mutlinational corporates like FIFA and the IOC, but sees only sweetness and light with EU multinational corporates
The Graun led today (yes, led) on a big story about how the NHS will collapse if the EU employees go home. This is the prediction of a thinktank the IPPR,describing itself as 'progressive'.There is no actual evidence that anyone wants to go home and join a supposed brain drain from the UK post-Brexit (some data comes out today,but el Gruniado can't wait and it might not support them),but there are fears. Quite the most amazing sentence says that:
While the IPPR says their deportation is ultimately unlikely, the lack of official reassurance is already having a chilling effect on those seeking jobs, housing, bank loans or making other long-term commitments.
Deportation! Queues of medics and nurses carrying only one suitcase waiting in transit camps! It is only 'unlikely' say the IPPR, and people are still anxious. I wonder why. Classic Daily Mail stuff, but from 'progressives'
Meanwhile, they could apply for British citizenship, I suppose, but the IPPR thinks the fee of £1200 might be deterring people from doing so, so they advocate its abolition for the skilled, and a loan to pay it for the unskilled. Presumably everything else in the process, like the citizenship test, is OK.
Then, in the same story, a flip-flop, or, as the Guardian might call it 'balance'. I'm not really complaining -- at least it is not full on ReMail.
It turns out that:
The government’s outgoing chief advisor on migration, Prof David Metcalf, also called for a much stronger enforcement of minimum labour standards in the UK to ensure the country’s flexible labour market prevents undercutting by foreign workers and boosts the welfare of British residents.
It seems Metcalf blames local employers for not investing in training, for the most skilled jobs in Science or IT, meaning that they choose to rely on migrants , and that:
...while low-skilled migration benefited labour-intensive British employers and most such migrants, they also exerted a downward pressure on the pay of low-skilled workers and – in the worst examples – serious exploitation of migrant, and possibly UK, labour... Incomplete supervision holds for the national minimum wage, labour gangs (particularly in horticulture) and employment agencies for migrants.Finally, Marina Hyde writes her usual (see this one for example) spiky column about the Olympics , especially about the solemn luvvie stuff about we must all 'learn' from it (that hard work pays off etc) --but then the scepticism vanishes when we turn to Brexit. She chides Leave.EU for trying to capitalise on sporting success (bit late -- all politicians have done that) to show how Britain is great and strong outside the EU etc,and suggests they have somehow deliberately left out black athletes in their videos.The old racist card again.
Marina is superb at pointing out substantial abuses of power by unelected mutlinational corporates like FIFA and the IOC, but sees only sweetness and light with EU multinational corporates
Sunday 21 August 2016
Out and proud!
Congratulations to the Guardian's Larry Elliott who came out as a Leaver. Couldn't have been easy at the Gudianer, and I'd keep an eye out for people pissing in his coffee if I were him (or 'he' as Guardina staff would insist, or probably 's/he' so as not to encourage cisgender identification).
The confession came after a piece discussing the evidence for and against the terrible economic catastrophe that was predicted after Brexit. Overall conclusion: small earthquake in largely unpopulated area, some trees damaged.
Then he finished with a succinct summary of his reasons for voting leave:
Elsewhere it was business as usual though This from William Keegan:
He means it is well-established in the media, after huge ideological effort, to convince themselves mostly, that Leave propaganda was just straightforward lying, while nothing but truth and sincerity came from the other side, as indeed it does from all other politicians except Boris Johnson. I assume the main lie was the old claim that £350m went to Brussels every week, but that was the gross figure (the net figure was more like £110 million, a trifle), and the public was too dim to note the difference between gross and net (even though, as Farage said, every PAYE taxpayer sees that every time they open their pay packets).The other lie is that that sum would be spent on the NHS, although the actual claim was that it could be spent on the NHS,which seems perfectly valid if wildly over-optimistic.
How Keegan knows about these selfish older people is not clear, or indeed about the resentful opponents of austerity or the remorseful buyers. Perhaps he just MUST believe in them because someone has to be blamed. After all, rejecting the advice of people like him is clearly irrational.
Finally, what did he mean about insanity sinec 1945? The first Labour Government? Or was that just to equate Brexit with the insanity of World War 2? Can a comparison with Nazism be far away?
The confession came after a piece discussing the evidence for and against the terrible economic catastrophe that was predicted after Brexit. Overall conclusion: small earthquake in largely unpopulated area, some trees damaged.
Then he finished with a succinct summary of his reasons for voting leave:
When I voted for Brexit on 23 June, I did so for three reasons: because the European Union is a failed project; because Europe is moving in an increasingly free-market direction; and because I wanted to shake up the status quo. It would take an extremely deep and prolonged recession to make me regret my choice. That prospect seems even more remote than it did eight weeks ago.
Elsewhere it was business as usual though This from William Keegan:
It has been well established that the leading Brexiters, especially Box-Office Boris, lied their way right through the campaign and thoroughly misled people, contributing to an outbreak of buyer’s remorse.
But it is also obvious that there are many older people who manifest not an iota of remorse about the chaos they have helped to create, not least for their grandchildren....
Popular anger at the accumulated economic and social damage from the financial crisis and the counterproductive austerity policy was among the factors behind the Brexit vote. The more one reflects on the referendum, the more obvious it becomes that this is one of the most insane episodes in British public life since 1945.
He means it is well-established in the media, after huge ideological effort, to convince themselves mostly, that Leave propaganda was just straightforward lying, while nothing but truth and sincerity came from the other side, as indeed it does from all other politicians except Boris Johnson. I assume the main lie was the old claim that £350m went to Brussels every week, but that was the gross figure (the net figure was more like £110 million, a trifle), and the public was too dim to note the difference between gross and net (even though, as Farage said, every PAYE taxpayer sees that every time they open their pay packets).The other lie is that that sum would be spent on the NHS, although the actual claim was that it could be spent on the NHS,which seems perfectly valid if wildly over-optimistic.
How Keegan knows about these selfish older people is not clear, or indeed about the resentful opponents of austerity or the remorseful buyers. Perhaps he just MUST believe in them because someone has to be blamed. After all, rejecting the advice of people like him is clearly irrational.
Finally, what did he mean about insanity sinec 1945? The first Labour Government? Or was that just to equate Brexit with the insanity of World War 2? Can a comparison with Nazism be far away?
Tuesday 16 August 2016
Guardian stats
The Grudian leads this morning on a report by the Resolution Foundation (an apparently independent thinktank, 'balanced' in terms of people recruited from different political parties). Shock ! Horror! Restricting immigrants WILL lead to a modest wage rise among poorly-paid 'natives' (RF category). No need to apologise for alleging this was a lie though, because all is not lost -- the overall effect of Brexit will be to depress wages as a whole leaving a net reduction overall. So the remainers are still right overall.
Not only that, but British businesses are likely to go out of business if they are no longer able to pay migrant workers less than natives -- some £2.67 per hour less. What a lovely way to put it. The gap shows that migrant workers are indeed being exploited, but that's good because otherwise firms using sweated labour would go out of business. Oh for the days of the closed shop that enforced union rates (younger readers should ask their parents).
The stats are a bit odd as well. The categories are very broad and one table divides into Accession EU wage levels, Original EU, Natives and Rest of the World. The table gives median figures,slightly better than means but still concealing wide variations They have been adjusted but I don't know how. Nevertheless, the same errors affect all the totals so we still might have a valid comparison. Hence: 'While the wages of British workers are not likely to rise much as a result of a fall in migration, the biggest winners are likely to be those migrants who are already in the UK, particularly people from the countries that joined the EU in 2004'. This assumes wage differentials will remain the same, of course, which ignores occupational differences as we saw -- what if most of those original migrants were located in highly-paid jobs anyway?
However, the data only compares natives to EU originals, and notes that the wages of the latter are above those of natives ( by £1.57 per hour on average) , so the RF is able to argue that EU originals ( ie migrants from the original EU countries already in the UK) will probably continue to enjoy an advantage compared with natives. Whether this is so if we compared people in each occupation, rather than whole populations, is less clear.
What is clear, even from this graph,is that wage levels in EU accession countries ( those hoping to join) are disastrously low, -£2,76 per hour. This is the sum that employers would have to make up if those countries were not permitted to send migrants to the UK --employers would be paying local rates to make that saving, the old softies. I am sure lots more employers wold want to employ such people on those terms.Minimum wage legislation only applies to resident natives, so this would be a great way to get round it.
So natives are not likely to benefit much from restricting immigration -- but they would be much worse off if it continued? The RF also note the effects of things like the financial crisis of 2008: 'However, the effect is small compared to broader economic forces such as the squeeze on pay caused by the financial crisis'. Capitalism depresses wages long term,one way or another,but it can only be of little comfort to someone on a low wage now to hear that things were worse in 2008 and might be again if there is another crisis. Unless the argument is that such crises are more likely out of the EU?
What of future decline? It is based on calculations of 'the economic fallout of the vote to leave the EU if forecasts are remotely right.' Whose forecasts? IS all this inevitable or did it assume old Osborne would still be in charge? The assumption is also made that wage levels are somehow 'natural' or determined only by the market, and even that British businesses would be unable to adjust to higher wages (the RF does consider,only to dismiss,possible changes like automation).
Not only that, but British businesses are likely to go out of business if they are no longer able to pay migrant workers less than natives -- some £2.67 per hour less. What a lovely way to put it. The gap shows that migrant workers are indeed being exploited, but that's good because otherwise firms using sweated labour would go out of business. Oh for the days of the closed shop that enforced union rates (younger readers should ask their parents).
The stats are a bit odd as well. The categories are very broad and one table divides into Accession EU wage levels, Original EU, Natives and Rest of the World. The table gives median figures,slightly better than means but still concealing wide variations They have been adjusted but I don't know how. Nevertheless, the same errors affect all the totals so we still might have a valid comparison. Hence: 'While the wages of British workers are not likely to rise much as a result of a fall in migration, the biggest winners are likely to be those migrants who are already in the UK, particularly people from the countries that joined the EU in 2004'. This assumes wage differentials will remain the same, of course, which ignores occupational differences as we saw -- what if most of those original migrants were located in highly-paid jobs anyway?
However, the data only compares natives to EU originals, and notes that the wages of the latter are above those of natives ( by £1.57 per hour on average) , so the RF is able to argue that EU originals ( ie migrants from the original EU countries already in the UK) will probably continue to enjoy an advantage compared with natives. Whether this is so if we compared people in each occupation, rather than whole populations, is less clear.
What is clear, even from this graph,is that wage levels in EU accession countries ( those hoping to join) are disastrously low, -£2,76 per hour. This is the sum that employers would have to make up if those countries were not permitted to send migrants to the UK --employers would be paying local rates to make that saving, the old softies. I am sure lots more employers wold want to employ such people on those terms.Minimum wage legislation only applies to resident natives, so this would be a great way to get round it.
So natives are not likely to benefit much from restricting immigration -- but they would be much worse off if it continued? The RF also note the effects of things like the financial crisis of 2008: 'However, the effect is small compared to broader economic forces such as the squeeze on pay caused by the financial crisis'. Capitalism depresses wages long term,one way or another,but it can only be of little comfort to someone on a low wage now to hear that things were worse in 2008 and might be again if there is another crisis. Unless the argument is that such crises are more likely out of the EU?
What of future decline? It is based on calculations of 'the economic fallout of the vote to leave the EU if forecasts are remotely right.' Whose forecasts? IS all this inevitable or did it assume old Osborne would still be in charge? The assumption is also made that wage levels are somehow 'natural' or determined only by the market, and even that British businesses would be unable to adjust to higher wages (the RF does consider,only to dismiss,possible changes like automation).
Saturday 13 August 2016
Guardian values
Great example of the values of Grudian writers today. Owen Gibson, none other than the Paper's Sports Editor, says we should support the return of Premier League football today and the Olympics. True 'There are plenty of unwanted side effects, from the historic lack of trickle-down investment in the rest of the football pyramid to the rampant ticket inflation that has threatened to price out whole sections of the match-going public' Marina Hyde in the same newspaper has chronicled the ludicorus levels of corruption and fat-cattery of FIFA and the IOC --eg here (although she is also a Remainer)
But 'The real dent caused by the [Brexit] result is to the Premier League’s image, to the brand it has built over more than two decades'
What could possibly do more damage than plutocracy and the rest? Brexit is a blow to 'internationalism' and that is just what we need these days after Brexit! Internationalism -- solidarity with soccer-playing millionaires from different countries and a corrupt management with recruits from different nations,united in a common interest to screw everyone else.
They all get on so well, see?
But 'The real dent caused by the [Brexit] result is to the Premier League’s image, to the brand it has built over more than two decades'
What could possibly do more damage than plutocracy and the rest? Brexit is a blow to 'internationalism' and that is just what we need these days after Brexit! Internationalism -- solidarity with soccer-playing millionaires from different countries and a corrupt management with recruits from different nations,united in a common interest to screw everyone else.
They all get on so well, see?
Monday 8 August 2016
Coupnssberg
I missed most of L Kuenssberg's doc on Brexit but I caught the end. Or maybe I imagined it?
Kuenssberg seemed to say that Brexit was the result of a 'coup'. I'm sure she used that word. It was organized by a small tightly knit group taking advantage of a weak Prime Minister and a disorganized Labour Party.
I must check again.Poor woman.
Update: I think the programme was repeated 22/23 Sept. Again, I only caught the last few minutes but it seemed identical to the first broadcast -- except that the voice-over was a male one this time. No Laura!
Kuenssberg seemed to say that Brexit was the result of a 'coup'. I'm sure she used that word. It was organized by a small tightly knit group taking advantage of a weak Prime Minister and a disorganized Labour Party.
I must check again.Poor woman.
Update: I think the programme was repeated 22/23 Sept. Again, I only caught the last few minutes but it seemed identical to the first broadcast -- except that the voice-over was a male one this time. No Laura!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)