Another nice mess they have gotten into turns on the great contest for the Labour leadership which has also been rattling along.The media, to a luvvie, have nothing but total contempt and loathing for J Corbyn and his 'socialist' policies (tackling 'inequality' ,opposing the renewal of Trident, and maybe renationalising the railways [impossible under EU rules of course]). However, to their shock and horror, these policies seem to be reasonably popular, and there has been vocal support for Corbyn,and even some for the Party in terms of local election results so far.
Corbyn used to oppose the EU but changed his mind and campaigned in favour of Remain, so they couldn't blame him directly for Brexit. But -- hang on -- did he campaign hard enough? He wasn't very visible on TV ( but that was because the whole debate was seen by the media as Tory Leave vs Tory Remain,probably to keep out UKIP as well as Labour). With a bit of imagination, Corbyn's relative obscurity and lack of success in persuading the proles to vote Remain was generalised. Corbyn lacked leadership qualities. Just on that point, the new Tory Prime Minister Theresa May also campaigned for Remain and was even less visible and successful -- no question of her leadership abilities though.
And so the whole Labour attempted coup unfolded, with Angela Eagle then Owen Smith all accusing Corbyn of lack of leadership.They were wise to insist they had no quarrel with the policies. The media swung behind them even to the extent of not sneering at the policies! Eagle showed her leadership qualities by withdrawing. Smith was unknown to most people and we could scarcely associate the champion of real socialism with the little nerdy Welsh opportunist who suddenly appeared on our screens.
Not only that, but hundreds of thousands of people joined or supported the Labour Party to take part in the forthcoming leadership election. The last mass intake had been Corbynite. What if the new lot were as well? The Party did its best to disqualify these newcomers by making them pay £25 for supporting, and setting a cut-off of last January for eligibility to vote, but it still looked really good for Corbyn.
There were threats of Labour splits or permanent isolation, of course, especially in the early days of the coup when it looked like Corbyn might be forced to resign after losing a massive vote of no confidence by his own MPs.
Then a straw to clutch.Some London Labourites had spoken to the BBC and said they would now be opposing Corbyn and knew lots of others who would. What had upset them? Brexit.There seemed to be a link between those constituency parties who supported Smith and a London location where most of the Remainers lived too. Blame Corbyn for Brexit it seemed, and vote Smith,who promised to lobby for another referendum. Leave any other considerations aside.
Early days for results of constituency votes but the BBC was delighted with its new correlations, dubious as they might be. Since many voters in the North had opted for Brexit AND voted for Corbyn (who campaigned for Remain, remember), there was only one possible outcome -- a split in the Labour Party again!
Saturday 30 July 2016
You are the weakest link (so far)
Among the tumultuous events taking place at the same time I am writing this stuff, and which I have entirely ignored, is the postponement of the decision to build a new nuclear power station at Hinckley Point in Somerset.
This project is inconceivably stupid, using a design that has never worked anywhere else yet, that depended on substantial funds from the French and the Chines ( both through state-subsidised enterprises) and would only provide 7% of the needs for power. In order to attract foreign investors on this scale (billions), the UK Government has had to guarantee a high price for future power from the beast ( 2--3 times the current price). There were also rumours that the Chinese had to be promised a chance to build another reactor for us using their technology and their personnel.
The whole scheme was conceived 8 years ago by one T Blair who, with his Chancellor G Brown was developing all sorts of schemes like this off the State budget.
Yesterday, having finally got agreement from the French to proceed, the UK Government said it wanted more time. The luvvies have had difficulty with this project all along. On the one hand, nuclear power is metaphysically unnatural and thus evil, but on the other what on earth would we do if 'the lights went out', which is how they think of a power shortage.
Specifically, should we regard the French and Chinese as (good) investors 'in this country' or as risky partners in something so sensitive?
And here is the link with Brexit. D Orr in the Graun (who is Will Self's missus I think) says the whole thing shows that the Brexit dream of open trading and investment in Britain is now shattered. So far that just looks like schadenfreude showing how silly we were to vote Leave. However, she adds that we shouldn't be upsetting the French any more after the Brexit vote has annoyed them so -- which looks like her saying we should build this monstrosity just to please the French and maintain European solidarity?
This project is inconceivably stupid, using a design that has never worked anywhere else yet, that depended on substantial funds from the French and the Chines ( both through state-subsidised enterprises) and would only provide 7% of the needs for power. In order to attract foreign investors on this scale (billions), the UK Government has had to guarantee a high price for future power from the beast ( 2--3 times the current price). There were also rumours that the Chinese had to be promised a chance to build another reactor for us using their technology and their personnel.
The whole scheme was conceived 8 years ago by one T Blair who, with his Chancellor G Brown was developing all sorts of schemes like this off the State budget.
Yesterday, having finally got agreement from the French to proceed, the UK Government said it wanted more time. The luvvies have had difficulty with this project all along. On the one hand, nuclear power is metaphysically unnatural and thus evil, but on the other what on earth would we do if 'the lights went out', which is how they think of a power shortage.
Specifically, should we regard the French and Chinese as (good) investors 'in this country' or as risky partners in something so sensitive?
And here is the link with Brexit. D Orr in the Graun (who is Will Self's missus I think) says the whole thing shows that the Brexit dream of open trading and investment in Britain is now shattered. So far that just looks like schadenfreude showing how silly we were to vote Leave. However, she adds that we shouldn't be upsetting the French any more after the Brexit vote has annoyed them so -- which looks like her saying we should build this monstrosity just to please the French and maintain European solidarity?
Wednesday 27 July 2016
Scratch a liberal...
Quite a long article in the Guardian today, in the review section, amidst all the usual lifestyle folderol and stories about celebs masqueranding as serious items about social media abuse. Written by one Stuart Jeffries it is about the age of uncertainty and the dilemmas faced by the middle classes (at last, say I) encountering job uncertainty and political upheavals like Trumpism and Brexit. The latter is still seen as an area of uncertainty since the UK Government might not implement it or call for a second referendum,as some economists and lawyers have been arguing.
It all rolls into one great neurosis, supplemented by some learned citations to Keats or sundry philosophers and lifestyle gurus.There is even a fashionable link to nuclear physics, but Heisenberg rather than Barad. One day,Jeffries might even encounter some of the debates about modernity in people like Beck. It seems the bourgeoisie will just have to live with uncertainty, as they realize adanced capitalism will sweep them away too -- except they don't go that far.
There are some heart warming stories about people who have left the metropolitan rat race to start successful yoghurt farms. The myth of primitive accumulation as an option still prevails. However, right in the middle of the piece is a classic snarl:
God forbid that anything should stand between Stuart and his cheap strawberries.We need 'hard-working' (exploited) east-Europeans because the natives are too feckless etc to do a backbreaking job for shit money, which is all they should expect. Of course, Stuart could always pick his own? Orgrow them?
I hope he never has cause to complain about the workmanship of his trainers made in the Phillipines by child labour.
It all rolls into one great neurosis, supplemented by some learned citations to Keats or sundry philosophers and lifestyle gurus.There is even a fashionable link to nuclear physics, but Heisenberg rather than Barad. One day,Jeffries might even encounter some of the debates about modernity in people like Beck. It seems the bourgeoisie will just have to live with uncertainty, as they realize adanced capitalism will sweep them away too -- except they don't go that far.
There are some heart warming stories about people who have left the metropolitan rat race to start successful yoghurt farms. The myth of primitive accumulation as an option still prevails. However, right in the middle of the piece is a classic snarl:
Even now I'm looking forward to a bowl of strawberries for tea [but] dismal reports reach me that soft-fruit prices are set to rocket as a result of Brexit, as all those hard-working east-European pickers may well be heading home.There's an even worse possibility-- post-Brexit strawberries will be unharvested because our mimsy natives are too hungover, self-entitled and busy screenwalking [?] to have what it takes to fill the necessary punnets.
God forbid that anything should stand between Stuart and his cheap strawberries.We need 'hard-working' (exploited) east-Europeans because the natives are too feckless etc to do a backbreaking job for shit money, which is all they should expect. Of course, Stuart could always pick his own? Orgrow them?
I hope he never has cause to complain about the workmanship of his trainers made in the Phillipines by child labour.
Monday 25 July 2016
The rich and powerful voted Brexit
This happened so quickly and casually on ITV news tonight that it might just be wishful thinking on my part. Sir Phillip Green was heavily criticised today for his (perfectly legal) fleecing of a famous old retail chain British Home Stores.He owned it,and decided to reward himself and his family by paying large dividends to himself and them. Then he sold if for £1 to an incompetent. All sorts of great and good accountants and financial bodies said the deal was OK. Then the business went bust.
As I recall, the newsreader introduced this item by saying something like:
Well, there might not seem to be much of a link, but in the desperate search for reasons for Brexit...this is how the rich and powerful vote for their own interests. Then into the report about Green.
As I recall, the newsreader introduced this item by saying something like:
Well, there might not seem to be much of a link, but in the desperate search for reasons for Brexit...this is how the rich and powerful vote for their own interests. Then into the report about Green.
Friday 22 July 2016
More shock and horror -- from the PMI
Just after the first item (the shootings in Munich) and before the report on Trump accepting the Republican nomination, ITV news announced that after the fall in the pound and the Stock Exchange, there was now more clear evidence to support the fears that Brexit would damage the UK economy. The Purchase Managers Index (no, me neither) had fallen below 50 for the first time since the financial crash!! The Index closely shadows GDP, apparently, so it is now possible to predict a fall in 0.4% of GDP. The Chancellor has said he would have to do something about it, said the report.
OK, after the shock, a couple of qualifications appeared.The Index was based on a survey of companies in the first week after Brexit, when things were pretty unstable. ITV News admitted this. Second, the Chancellor had actually said he would not do anything about it at the moment but would wait and see and issue any necessary fiscal tweaks in November during the Autumn Statement. ITV glossed this as the Chancellor saying he would act, and left out all the conditionals.
No doubt again the text was suitably 'balanced' or at least did not tell any actual porkies -- but the headlines screamed and the small print whispered.
OK, after the shock, a couple of qualifications appeared.The Index was based on a survey of companies in the first week after Brexit, when things were pretty unstable. ITV News admitted this. Second, the Chancellor had actually said he would not do anything about it at the moment but would wait and see and issue any necessary fiscal tweaks in November during the Autumn Statement. ITV glossed this as the Chancellor saying he would act, and left out all the conditionals.
No doubt again the text was suitably 'balanced' or at least did not tell any actual porkies -- but the headlines screamed and the small print whispered.
Thursday 21 July 2016
Just look at the pictures...
Top marks to C4 News tonight for their item on Donald Trump and Brexit. The item began with the presenter announcing there was a report (sounded authoritative) on links between Trump and Brexit. Then the reporter announced there were clear links between Brexit and the triumph of Trump at the Republican Convention, and, further, with the European far right parties.
The evidence for this was things like the visible presence of N Farage and a Dutch right-winger at the Republican Convention, asked about Trump, and some interviews with some European far-righters, some in America and some in Strasbourg asked about Brexit. After establishing the lunacy of one far-right MEP with questions like 'Did you once say Hitler was a world statesman?', the topic was whether they had been encouraged by Brexit. Some said they had been.
The only link between the two sections of the story was provided by the shots of the Dutch right-winger at the Convention
There were also two interviews that served as 'balance'. In one, Farage said he did not agree with Trump about things like hostility to Muslims.In another, a UKIP MEP was forcefully denying that the desire to leave Europe was confined to far right parties. That interview was rather oddly cut, with a scene in which the MEP was greeting the interviewer in a friendly way, then a scene where the MEP was rather pissed off and insisting the thesis advanced by the interviewer was false, and asking for a chance to get a word in edgewise.
These were at best correcting episodes to the main agenda, and at least Farage and the MEP were not depicted as swivel-eyed loonies, but the claims of the authority of the reporter's view in his opening statement was not seriously challenged or modified.
What we didn't see, of course, was: whether all Trump supporters are right-wing loonies and racists (it is just assumed on UK TV that they are, and usually cowboys, rednecks or banjo players as well); whether Brexiteers were all right wing loonies and racists; whether Trumpists, Brexiteers and Dutch separatists actually did share many views; whether there was any evidence at all for the sort of implicit theory about a right-wing backlash leading to some sort of conspiracy to initiate collective action that was being peddled.
The evidence for this was things like the visible presence of N Farage and a Dutch right-winger at the Republican Convention, asked about Trump, and some interviews with some European far-righters, some in America and some in Strasbourg asked about Brexit. After establishing the lunacy of one far-right MEP with questions like 'Did you once say Hitler was a world statesman?', the topic was whether they had been encouraged by Brexit. Some said they had been.
The only link between the two sections of the story was provided by the shots of the Dutch right-winger at the Convention
There were also two interviews that served as 'balance'. In one, Farage said he did not agree with Trump about things like hostility to Muslims.In another, a UKIP MEP was forcefully denying that the desire to leave Europe was confined to far right parties. That interview was rather oddly cut, with a scene in which the MEP was greeting the interviewer in a friendly way, then a scene where the MEP was rather pissed off and insisting the thesis advanced by the interviewer was false, and asking for a chance to get a word in edgewise.
These were at best correcting episodes to the main agenda, and at least Farage and the MEP were not depicted as swivel-eyed loonies, but the claims of the authority of the reporter's view in his opening statement was not seriously challenged or modified.
What we didn't see, of course, was: whether all Trump supporters are right-wing loonies and racists (it is just assumed on UK TV that they are, and usually cowboys, rednecks or banjo players as well); whether Brexiteers were all right wing loonies and racists; whether Trumpists, Brexiteers and Dutch separatists actually did share many views; whether there was any evidence at all for the sort of implicit theory about a right-wing backlash leading to some sort of conspiracy to initiate collective action that was being peddled.
Tuesday 19 July 2016
Snowflakes in July
Amazing material from Spiked! today:
http://www.spiked-online.com/newsite/article/the-trials-of-a-sixth-form-brexiteer/18568#.V45yEf4ZwUS.facebook
The emergence of Generation Snowflake, a cohort of fragile young people now arriving at university never having had anyone disagree with them, should not be a surprise. For we are growing up in schools where we are repeatedly told never to say anything that might be deemed offensive. Indeed, in the run-up to the EU referendum, my teachers’ intolerance towards ideas they deem offensive, or merely ‘unfashionable’, reached new heights.
When a friend and I outed ourselves as Leavers, the reaction among our peers and teachers was disgust, mixed with shock and horror, that a young person could possibly support Brexit. During the debates we had at school, it became clear that Remainers think that anyone who supports Brexit is a bigoted Little Englander. The contempt shown by my teachers for those who dared to have a different opinion to them was bad enough, but the real ugliness was only unleashed when their worst nightmare came true and Britain voted to leave the EU. There were tears, and there were recriminations.
As they had scarcely met anyone supporting Brexit, they could not understand how this had happened. Their only explanation was that the electorate was misguided, brainwashed, uneducated and motivated only by their hatred of immigrants. They were not at all embarrassed by their disdain for ordinary people. In fact, teachers and pupils openly said that democracy is a sham, that we need ‘experts’ to make the big decisions and that idiot Leavers should not have been able to vote in the first place. I’ve not been around long, but I have never seen anything like it. I knew this kind of loathing of the ‘masses’ existed, but in the past it had been disguised.
http://www.spiked-online.com/newsite/article/the-trials-of-a-sixth-form-brexiteer/18568#.V45yEf4ZwUS.facebook
The emergence of Generation Snowflake, a cohort of fragile young people now arriving at university never having had anyone disagree with them, should not be a surprise. For we are growing up in schools where we are repeatedly told never to say anything that might be deemed offensive. Indeed, in the run-up to the EU referendum, my teachers’ intolerance towards ideas they deem offensive, or merely ‘unfashionable’, reached new heights.
When a friend and I outed ourselves as Leavers, the reaction among our peers and teachers was disgust, mixed with shock and horror, that a young person could possibly support Brexit. During the debates we had at school, it became clear that Remainers think that anyone who supports Brexit is a bigoted Little Englander. The contempt shown by my teachers for those who dared to have a different opinion to them was bad enough, but the real ugliness was only unleashed when their worst nightmare came true and Britain voted to leave the EU. There were tears, and there were recriminations.
As they had scarcely met anyone supporting Brexit, they could not understand how this had happened. Their only explanation was that the electorate was misguided, brainwashed, uneducated and motivated only by their hatred of immigrants. They were not at all embarrassed by their disdain for ordinary people. In fact, teachers and pupils openly said that democracy is a sham, that we need ‘experts’ to make the big decisions and that idiot Leavers should not have been able to vote in the first place. I’ve not been around long, but I have never seen anything like it. I knew this kind of loathing of the ‘masses’ existed, but in the past it had been disguised.
Monday 18 July 2016
Guardina speak with forked tongue
Some semblance almost of near balance today in the Grauniad. It reports the legal challenges to Brexit under way, fairly modestly. One involves a challenge to any view that the dreaded Article 50, inaugurating the leave process can be decided upon without Parliamentary backing. Apparently the Government can invoke the royal prergoative to insist.What an interesting constitution we (do not) have!
Meanwhile, a barrister has issued an unsought judgment that the Leave campaign are guilty of lying. It is the familiar issue of the £350m sent to the EU every week. It is a rounded up figure,claims the lawyer, using the figure of £341m per week supplied from official sources. Moreover, the rebate is applied before any money is actually taken from the UK, leaving only (!) £117m per week to be actually 'sent to the EU'. I am not sure anyone's mind would have been changed by these corrections, of course - maybe £117m per week is chicken feed to barristers.
A strange addition to this view is that leaving the EU will cause massive disruption to the legal system: 'we need to be clear that a vote to leave is a vote for the needless destruction of our legal system. It is a vote for a process that would consume years of parliamentary time, divert precious public resources to battalions of lawyers, and jeopardise the effective governance of our country',says anopther barrister. This had already been discussed on Facebook in fact, with people pointing out that lots of places retained hybrid systems -- like the former colonies of the UK. It looks like an attempt to pre-legitimate the claims to public resources of the battalions of lawyers who must be rubbing their hands at the prospect.
I do worry that some of the good legislation might be lost -- the protections for the environment for example (and the propsed Tobin tax on bank transactions, which the UK Government was already trying to get exemption from). But the (pretty weak) argument remains -- we can in principle at least vote out UK governments who push through unpopular legislation
The third legal challenge is being mounted by a UK citizen resident in Italy who was denied a vote, like all the other ex-pats. I am not sure people permanently living abroad should have a say, and I can see Scots Nats being rather keen to keep the existing arrangements.
On the other hand and at last, Larry Elliott is arguing that Remain were the ones who misunderstood. The recovery from the Great Recession of 2008 did indeed leave large areas of the country unaffected,and there are other signs of increasing deprivation. Unlike most commentators, Elliot ses the decisionto leave as a rational one: 'They weighed up the pros and cons – as did US investment banks, the CBI and universities – but came up with a different answer.'. And Brexit has had some good effects -- Osborne is no longer Chancellor and with him has gone all talk of a punishment budget. Austerity is being rowed back, both in the UK and in Europe
Meanwhile, a barrister has issued an unsought judgment that the Leave campaign are guilty of lying. It is the familiar issue of the £350m sent to the EU every week. It is a rounded up figure,claims the lawyer, using the figure of £341m per week supplied from official sources. Moreover, the rebate is applied before any money is actually taken from the UK, leaving only (!) £117m per week to be actually 'sent to the EU'. I am not sure anyone's mind would have been changed by these corrections, of course - maybe £117m per week is chicken feed to barristers.
A strange addition to this view is that leaving the EU will cause massive disruption to the legal system: 'we need to be clear that a vote to leave is a vote for the needless destruction of our legal system. It is a vote for a process that would consume years of parliamentary time, divert precious public resources to battalions of lawyers, and jeopardise the effective governance of our country',says anopther barrister. This had already been discussed on Facebook in fact, with people pointing out that lots of places retained hybrid systems -- like the former colonies of the UK. It looks like an attempt to pre-legitimate the claims to public resources of the battalions of lawyers who must be rubbing their hands at the prospect.
I do worry that some of the good legislation might be lost -- the protections for the environment for example (and the propsed Tobin tax on bank transactions, which the UK Government was already trying to get exemption from). But the (pretty weak) argument remains -- we can in principle at least vote out UK governments who push through unpopular legislation
The third legal challenge is being mounted by a UK citizen resident in Italy who was denied a vote, like all the other ex-pats. I am not sure people permanently living abroad should have a say, and I can see Scots Nats being rather keen to keep the existing arrangements.
On the other hand and at last, Larry Elliott is arguing that Remain were the ones who misunderstood. The recovery from the Great Recession of 2008 did indeed leave large areas of the country unaffected,and there are other signs of increasing deprivation. Unlike most commentators, Elliot ses the decisionto leave as a rational one: 'They weighed up the pros and cons – as did US investment banks, the CBI and universities – but came up with a different answer.'. And Brexit has had some good effects -- Osborne is no longer Chancellor and with him has gone all talk of a punishment budget. Austerity is being rowed back, both in the UK and in Europe
Sunday 17 July 2016
Calm objective academic discussion
Two academics who voted Leave have written of the reactions in the Times Higher...
On June 27, Joanna Williams said
Comments included some beauties:
To be fair, some were supportive too...
Then the legendary controversialist Frank Furedi entered the fray on July 14:
The comments were much more balanced this time --signs of 'healing'?
.
On June 27, Joanna Williams said
Some appear to see my decision as a personal insult and an act of treachery..
the past few days have witnessed a great deal of prejudice against those who voted to leave. In the eyes of some, the masses are as ignorant as they are xenophobic. To others, “Leavers” deserve pity, they were lied to and don’t know what is in their own best interests...Far from revealing the moral superiority of scholars, the referendum exposes exactly how out of touch academia has become...Some within universities have expressed outrage at not having their supposedly more informed views treated with greater respect. There is overt contempt for those looked down upon as too ignorant to genuflect to experts.'
Comments included some beauties:
There's less of a distinction than you think between someone who is racist, and someone who will side with racists in an argument that gets hijacked by fascistic rhetoric.
This article is so poorly reasoned it is hard to believe it was written sincerely.
This is a very bad article by someone with little understanding of the topic. In the first instance, nobody has ever questioned the fact that each person's vote is of equal value, but that some people have more knowledge and understanding of a topic than others. It is worth listening to them when one makes a decision, which need not comply with the advice. The Leave campaign not only ignored experts but dismissed them with great arrogance and at times insinuating a conspiracy. In the second instance, in giving her rationale for voting Leave, the author suggests that the EU is run by bureaucrats who cannot be voted out. This shows no knowledge of EU institutions, no understanding of the EU Parliament and the Council of Ministers and even less understanding of sovereignty, which is here at best a caricature of Hobbes. In the third instance, people most certainly had a variety of reasons for voting the way they did, but the Leave campaign was above all about immigration and an understanding of sovereignty as power over others rather than pooled sovereignty in an interconnected world. To try to dissociate oneself from the deep xenophobia and colonial construction of the nationalism displayed during the campaign is simply perverse. When siding with xenophobes, one is guilty by association.'
Let me try to explain: Europe is peace, commonality, solidarity, friendship--above and beyond the pitfalls of any bureaucracy. Europe is your kids travelling freely, mingelling [sic], studying, learning other languages, and working where they please--after centuries of hate and bloodshed. Europe is feeling home wherever you go. Europe is unity, rather than isolation. Being a European citizen makes you a citizen of the world. Europe is a dream that has become reality. Saying no to Europe takes us back to the Dark Ages. If you vote against Europe, you vote against this first and formost. It's like if you tear down you house to fix a pipe leak. You all seem not to catch that.'
The English really do hate intellect, don't they? But then, it's built into the language - too clever by half, too clever for your own good. I guess that the expanding numbers who chorus their denigration of expertise never visit the doctor or dentist.'
To be fair, some were supportive too...
Then the legendary controversialist Frank Furedi entered the fray on July 14:
By Monday, I realise that in academic circles, frustration at the referendum outcome has mutated into a collective sense of injury and emotional upheaval: a climate of quasi-mourning. Many target their anger at lying politicians, but they are also bitter towards the public for letting them down. It is as if the academy has been stabbed in the back by a section of the population that lacked the moral and intellectual resources to understand its wisdom. Some – taking politics far too personally – interpret the verdict as an attack on academic identity itself...During the days after the referendum, some institutions’ administrators assume the role of censorious moral guardians. As if the university faces a national emergency, my own institution establishes a “Post-EU referendum advice and support” web page. Other institutions warn anyone against upsetting emotionally brittle members of the university...An email circulated to all staff by Sir Keith Burnett, vice-chancellor of the University of Sheffield, laments the plight of EU academics in the UK: “By far the worst aspect of Brexit inside the university is the awful hurt it is giving many of my colleagues,” it reads. “This hurt comes in many parts. The first is the shock and dismay at being labelled as nastily ‘other’. A second is the dark sense of insecurity that has enveloped them.” But he does not mention the fact that members of the academy have also been in the business of “othering” the supposedly uneducated, racist Brexit voters.'
The comments were much more balanced this time --signs of 'healing'?
.
Saturday 16 July 2016
Scot Nats good, UK nats bad
This was an early issue in the constuction of a discourse about Brexit, readers will recall. The BBC wholly approved of Scottish nationalism but not of English or UK nationalism,mainly on the grounds that the former must be good because it seemed to support remaining in the EU.
Deborah Orr in the beloved Guardian points out another difference. SoctNats are wholly good and honest because they expressed their views in an election as well as a referendum, voting the SNP into power. English nationalism, on the other hand was cowardly and lying when (not if) it led to Leave -- it was all driven behind the scenes by UKIP.
There are problems of course. SNP is a respectable mainstream party, or so the media constantly tell us,whereas English nationalism is confined to the loony fringe. What might be called in mediaspeak 'moderate' English nats have no mainstream party to vote for since all the main ones supported Remain. UKIP migh tbe the nearest equivalent,but they were kept well away from the official Leave campaign --perhaps they operated surreptiously, using their extensive networks of secret operatives to leave pamphlets in town squares in the middle of the night, and address meetings of workers in the woods
Deborah Orr in the beloved Guardian points out another difference. SoctNats are wholly good and honest because they expressed their views in an election as well as a referendum, voting the SNP into power. English nationalism, on the other hand was cowardly and lying when (not if) it led to Leave -- it was all driven behind the scenes by UKIP.
There are problems of course. SNP is a respectable mainstream party, or so the media constantly tell us,whereas English nationalism is confined to the loony fringe. What might be called in mediaspeak 'moderate' English nats have no mainstream party to vote for since all the main ones supported Remain. UKIP migh tbe the nearest equivalent,but they were kept well away from the official Leave campaign --perhaps they operated surreptiously, using their extensive networks of secret operatives to leave pamphlets in town squares in the middle of the night, and address meetings of workers in the woods
Thursday 14 July 2016
Straw men tussle for power
Newsnight is slowly getting the hang of doing ideology. Tonight we had two possible models of the post-Brexit UK, one where the UK turned into Singapore, and the other where it looked like Europe again. The first one would not be nice and social-liberal, but the second one would show how silly we had all been in voting to leave. Evan Davies was delighted to point that out to us. He has been chuckling all along that there is no clear plan, and getting cross with people who would not just opt for one of his alternatives.
Where did these scenarios come from? Last time I heard of the Singapore option it was a possible future being considered by Mrs Thatcher. Someone on Newsnight had thought of it while considering the contradictions in Theresa May's speech -- here was a Tory offering social justice, equality of opportunity and all that, and Evan mouthed someone's view that this was a rejection of Thatcherite neo-liberalism in favour of social liberalism. This handy dichotomy was used to structure the item on Brexit futures, although Evan insisted it had been put to him by some Brexiteers.
The BBC has long abandoned any idea that it might offer typical views or a range of views of course. A couple of nights ago we had opinions voiced by some people they had talked to. It wasn't scientific, Evan assured us, but it was offered nonetheless, so he must have thought it had some validity. We were not given even the basics like how many people were interviewed, and there was obviously no need for balance.
However, there was a substantial change tonight in the discussions. Two Brexiteers appeared! One was introduced as a pro-Brexit economist (I thought there weren't any of them). Another was Charles Moore, former editor of the Daily Telegraph, a pro-Brexit newspaper. However, they were not allowed to discuss Brexit but had to confine themselves to Evan's structure about the contradictions in May's speech. Nevertheless, the Brexit economist did manage to challenge Evan's view that a serious model was the Singapore option -- Evan just asserted he was right and that it had indeed been presented to him/them.
He wasn't allowed to challenge much else. Evan didn't want to fight the Brexit campaign again (certainly not with a Brexit economist), although he has been fighting it every night,of course,smuggling it in on almost every item. Unlike the other three speakers who were there to balance (!) him, the economist blokey was vigorously interrupted after getting out one sentence.
In the other discussion, C Moore was balanced (!) by 3 studio guests, including a despairing Matthew Parrish who could only mock the silly people who had thought there was an option outside Europe, much as does Evan Davies. As the dissenter, Moore was not in the studio. Ideally for ideological purposes, he should have been out in the street, but they skyped him in his own (luxurious) home so he could come over as an out-of-touch aristo.
Where did these scenarios come from? Last time I heard of the Singapore option it was a possible future being considered by Mrs Thatcher. Someone on Newsnight had thought of it while considering the contradictions in Theresa May's speech -- here was a Tory offering social justice, equality of opportunity and all that, and Evan mouthed someone's view that this was a rejection of Thatcherite neo-liberalism in favour of social liberalism. This handy dichotomy was used to structure the item on Brexit futures, although Evan insisted it had been put to him by some Brexiteers.
The BBC has long abandoned any idea that it might offer typical views or a range of views of course. A couple of nights ago we had opinions voiced by some people they had talked to. It wasn't scientific, Evan assured us, but it was offered nonetheless, so he must have thought it had some validity. We were not given even the basics like how many people were interviewed, and there was obviously no need for balance.
However, there was a substantial change tonight in the discussions. Two Brexiteers appeared! One was introduced as a pro-Brexit economist (I thought there weren't any of them). Another was Charles Moore, former editor of the Daily Telegraph, a pro-Brexit newspaper. However, they were not allowed to discuss Brexit but had to confine themselves to Evan's structure about the contradictions in May's speech. Nevertheless, the Brexit economist did manage to challenge Evan's view that a serious model was the Singapore option -- Evan just asserted he was right and that it had indeed been presented to him/them.
He wasn't allowed to challenge much else. Evan didn't want to fight the Brexit campaign again (certainly not with a Brexit economist), although he has been fighting it every night,of course,smuggling it in on almost every item. Unlike the other three speakers who were there to balance (!) him, the economist blokey was vigorously interrupted after getting out one sentence.
In the other discussion, C Moore was balanced (!) by 3 studio guests, including a despairing Matthew Parrish who could only mock the silly people who had thought there was an option outside Europe, much as does Evan Davies. As the dissenter, Moore was not in the studio. Ideally for ideological purposes, he should have been out in the street, but they skyped him in his own (luxurious) home so he could come over as an out-of-touch aristo.
Wednesday 13 July 2016
Brexit and superprofit
Energy companies have put up their prices because of Brexit! Not their fault of course -- they are simply responding to the 10% loss of value of the pound against dollars and euros. They have to trade in these currencies so they get fewer euros and dollars if they are paid in pounds. Since the price of energy wholesale is half the price of the retail price (so what makes up the other half?),that means prices must rise, by the 'laws of the market', by 5%.
Prices have already risen.So when and if the pound regains its value against the other currencies, prices will fall? Apparently, the pound did rise yesterday after news of Theresa May's coronation. Since the pound is quite volatile, will energy prices be volatile?
Of course not. Fluctuations like this offer a chance for big companies to gain superprofits by gambling, in effect. You buy lots of raw energy, or even the option to buy it at the lowest prices you can get, gambling that the price will rise again in local currencies when you get the chance to sell it. People have to buy energy, so the companies are in a very favourable position to dictate the price -- even the Tory Government has admitted it is hardly a free market.. They can also hold enough stock to allow them to gamble, while ordinary consumers cannot.
If you own a lot of cheap raw energy you can maintain local prices in the name of the stability needed to make calculable investments, attract new suppliers and all the usual stuff, and if local currencies devalue, you can add a bonus.This cannot be justified in the usual terms of fair returns for risk and so on (incidentally, the main theme now playing is that business does not like risk -- so why should 'enterprise' be heavily rewarded at all?). Instead currency markets can be blamed (usually, markets like this are celebrated) , and the idiots who depressed them by voting Brexit. Serves us right!
The category 'profit' has always been a deliberately mysterious one, including all sorts of revenues. Marx's question still remains --where does it come from if the market equalises supply and demand? The same ambiguity and dodgy generalisations affect 'markets' and 'risk'. As a result, it is easy to divide 'profits', 'markets' and 'risks' into good and bad variants according to whether their movements support or oppose ideological views.
Prices have already risen.So when and if the pound regains its value against the other currencies, prices will fall? Apparently, the pound did rise yesterday after news of Theresa May's coronation. Since the pound is quite volatile, will energy prices be volatile?
Of course not. Fluctuations like this offer a chance for big companies to gain superprofits by gambling, in effect. You buy lots of raw energy, or even the option to buy it at the lowest prices you can get, gambling that the price will rise again in local currencies when you get the chance to sell it. People have to buy energy, so the companies are in a very favourable position to dictate the price -- even the Tory Government has admitted it is hardly a free market.. They can also hold enough stock to allow them to gamble, while ordinary consumers cannot.
If you own a lot of cheap raw energy you can maintain local prices in the name of the stability needed to make calculable investments, attract new suppliers and all the usual stuff, and if local currencies devalue, you can add a bonus.This cannot be justified in the usual terms of fair returns for risk and so on (incidentally, the main theme now playing is that business does not like risk -- so why should 'enterprise' be heavily rewarded at all?). Instead currency markets can be blamed (usually, markets like this are celebrated) , and the idiots who depressed them by voting Brexit. Serves us right!
The category 'profit' has always been a deliberately mysterious one, including all sorts of revenues. Marx's question still remains --where does it come from if the market equalises supply and demand? The same ambiguity and dodgy generalisations affect 'markets' and 'risk'. As a result, it is easy to divide 'profits', 'markets' and 'risks' into good and bad variants according to whether their movements support or oppose ideological views.
Tuesday 12 July 2016
Brexit and gender reassignment
The Guardian today has missed a trick. It reports (today and yesterday, when it was its lead story) that requests for gender reassignments have doubled in the last month. It is still a bit confused about whether this is a good or bad thing, but no doubt it will decide on good.
This subsequently makes any link with Brexit more problematic. It could be argued that the mis-assigned were expressing their alienation and rage and are now asserting themselves using Brexit as a pretext, as a protest against the virulent patriarchy that led the North to vote for Leave, but this would ally gender reassignment with racism which will not do. It could mean that Brexit has now liberated people to demand their rights, in a brave new era of choice and freedom, but that would be to see something positive in Brexit. It could have nothing to do with Brexit, but that would spoil the Guardian's attempt to lay all social upheavals without exception at the feet of the Brexiteers and/or the unwise Cameron Government who let us have a referendum.
I do hope they sort it out soon so I know what to think.
Meanwhile, the Editor of the Graun, one Katharine Viner, takes up 3 pages in her own newspaper to argue that it was the social media to blame for Brexit ( all those silver surfers I expect). Unlike proper journalism, the social media (including the web pages of dailies) deal only with dubious 'facts', including the 'lies' about the £350m weekly contribution to the EU, and the intention to end all EU immigration [I tire of repeating that these 'lies' were just routine exaggerations common to all politicians, and not likely to baffle anyone]. What is needed is proper journalism which will offer just facts (no sneer quotes), because the journalists are trained, noble, well-intentioned and highly perceptive etc.
They also have an advantage in that, unlike the BBC, there is no legal obligation to be 'balanced'. The Beeb has to react if 1 expert opposes the other 99 who prophesied economic doom, and present both cases (can't say I noticed). Newspapers have no such obligations and so can simply offer agreed wisdom.
If you spotted a vested interest in there, you are a cynic.
This subsequently makes any link with Brexit more problematic. It could be argued that the mis-assigned were expressing their alienation and rage and are now asserting themselves using Brexit as a pretext, as a protest against the virulent patriarchy that led the North to vote for Leave, but this would ally gender reassignment with racism which will not do. It could mean that Brexit has now liberated people to demand their rights, in a brave new era of choice and freedom, but that would be to see something positive in Brexit. It could have nothing to do with Brexit, but that would spoil the Guardian's attempt to lay all social upheavals without exception at the feet of the Brexiteers and/or the unwise Cameron Government who let us have a referendum.
I do hope they sort it out soon so I know what to think.
Meanwhile, the Editor of the Graun, one Katharine Viner, takes up 3 pages in her own newspaper to argue that it was the social media to blame for Brexit ( all those silver surfers I expect). Unlike proper journalism, the social media (including the web pages of dailies) deal only with dubious 'facts', including the 'lies' about the £350m weekly contribution to the EU, and the intention to end all EU immigration [I tire of repeating that these 'lies' were just routine exaggerations common to all politicians, and not likely to baffle anyone]. What is needed is proper journalism which will offer just facts (no sneer quotes), because the journalists are trained, noble, well-intentioned and highly perceptive etc.
They also have an advantage in that, unlike the BBC, there is no legal obligation to be 'balanced'. The Beeb has to react if 1 expert opposes the other 99 who prophesied economic doom, and present both cases (can't say I noticed). Newspapers have no such obligations and so can simply offer agreed wisdom.
If you spotted a vested interest in there, you are a cynic.
Monday 11 July 2016
Listen to us next time
More than 1000 barristers have written to the Prime Minister to tell him that the referendum must be considered as advisory only. They say it is customary to accept such a vote only with certain provisos such as a 60% majority or a 40% turnout. They say Parliament could overturn the Leave vote. They even say that as the Leave campaign was based on lies and misinformation, it could be dismissed.
That might all be true, of course,although as we do not have a written constitution it will be a lawyer feeding frenzy. Wouldn't this prolong uncertainty? Wouldn't it set a precedent (say to overturn the Scottish independence referendum)? Above all,wouldn't it risk the stubborn electorate refusing to listen to the legal arguments? I am not at all sure the public would accept lawyers as experts any more than they would politicians, and it is hilarious to listen to lawyers condemning lies and misinformation but not their near equivalents special pleading or weaselling.
Elsewhere in the Guardian, someone is recommending a new federal Britain with some regions able to stay in the EU.This might be fun, with national borders between England and the other places. I have read that this might be EU policy too.
London remainers are encourgaed by the possibilities of independence too, says a writer
Another Guardianista writes about how Brexit has led to a low opinion of Britain in America,with a British accent now seen as a prompt for pity or superiority. Apparently quality American dailies have been peddling this line.
Yet another has discovered that Britain is a deeply divided country with substantial inequality. However, she feels that Brexit will only benefit the rich again.So what general conclusions might be drawn about the structured nature of inequality --silence from the Guardian
Finally, a person on Facebook who has been furious and in denial about Brexit has also moved to the next stage in bereavement - rationalisation. The poor voted for change, she insists, not for Brexit as such,but they won't get it. They will get fascism instead, and a reversion not only to Thatcherism but to the Victorian period. Remaining was maybe not so good either, with the neo-liberal agenda as the only alternative on offer.So what should be done -- we should ask the right sort of people (like her) what they want and then do it.. How sad that no-one is doing that.
That might all be true, of course,although as we do not have a written constitution it will be a lawyer feeding frenzy. Wouldn't this prolong uncertainty? Wouldn't it set a precedent (say to overturn the Scottish independence referendum)? Above all,wouldn't it risk the stubborn electorate refusing to listen to the legal arguments? I am not at all sure the public would accept lawyers as experts any more than they would politicians, and it is hilarious to listen to lawyers condemning lies and misinformation but not their near equivalents special pleading or weaselling.
Elsewhere in the Guardian, someone is recommending a new federal Britain with some regions able to stay in the EU.This might be fun, with national borders between England and the other places. I have read that this might be EU policy too.
London remainers are encourgaed by the possibilities of independence too, says a writer
Another Guardianista writes about how Brexit has led to a low opinion of Britain in America,with a British accent now seen as a prompt for pity or superiority. Apparently quality American dailies have been peddling this line.
Yet another has discovered that Britain is a deeply divided country with substantial inequality. However, she feels that Brexit will only benefit the rich again.So what general conclusions might be drawn about the structured nature of inequality --silence from the Guardian
Finally, a person on Facebook who has been furious and in denial about Brexit has also moved to the next stage in bereavement - rationalisation. The poor voted for change, she insists, not for Brexit as such,but they won't get it. They will get fascism instead, and a reversion not only to Thatcherism but to the Victorian period. Remaining was maybe not so good either, with the neo-liberal agenda as the only alternative on offer.So what should be done -- we should ask the right sort of people (like her) what they want and then do it.. How sad that no-one is doing that.
Sunday 10 July 2016
Deport Shirley Williams to Bologna
More on the themes linking Tony Blair and Brexit today in the Observer, and more on how the nice people need to get together to form a new centrist party, featuring Shirley Williams, founder member of the SDP, an earlier nice people's party that split Labour briefly. Their passion for Europe was a major factor.
So what is the passion for Europe? Ed Vulliamy offers an amazingly frank column in the Absurder. Ed lives in Paris. He seems to show a major shame for being British and feels the barbs or 'superior amusement' of his neighbours after Brexit. He tells us being European was part of his adolescent fantasies, wearing shoes that made him look European (kickers). This last part is especially odd - -that being European was primarily a matter of style, heavily influenced by consumerism, for Ed, and he seems tearful and angry that so many of his countrypeople voted Leave.They voted Leave because they did not want to live in Paris or wear kickers? Or perhaps because they felt Ed might be just a little bit affected?
This is the bad side of seeing the personal as the political --share my tastes or be condemned as political idiots.
Now I admit these fantasies were important for supporting my growing distance from working class culture in the 1960s and 1970s too. I smoked Gaulois when I felt like being sophisticated,or rather showing others I was. I enjoyed my school trips to France, loved being able to drink absinthe in cafes at 11 am on the Boul' St Mich, and came home demanding of my bemused parents that we try some French cuisine -- soft cheese with peas, I recall.
Those ideas were still around when I voted to enter the EEC, as it was then, in 1975. I remain pro-Europe, but maybe less so in those adolescent fantasy terms. There is a dimension to politics which is not primarily cultural or personal
But the global economy is something else, threatening even those ill-thought out, sentimental and nostalgic aspects of national cultures. What better sign of cultural barbarism than the appalling Bologna Declaration that said the knowledge economy and its apparent demands for business-friendly skills should dominate higher education in Europe? Non-relevant social sciences and humanities subjects should no longer be funded was the recommendation -- and the UK Government bought it in full (Italy and France were far less keen, thank heavens). Hence market-oriented HE in England and Wales, the dithering about the 'skills agenda', higher fees,endless irrelevant business-facing courses.
So what is the passion for Europe? Ed Vulliamy offers an amazingly frank column in the Absurder. Ed lives in Paris. He seems to show a major shame for being British and feels the barbs or 'superior amusement' of his neighbours after Brexit. He tells us being European was part of his adolescent fantasies, wearing shoes that made him look European (kickers). This last part is especially odd - -that being European was primarily a matter of style, heavily influenced by consumerism, for Ed, and he seems tearful and angry that so many of his countrypeople voted Leave.They voted Leave because they did not want to live in Paris or wear kickers? Or perhaps because they felt Ed might be just a little bit affected?
This is the bad side of seeing the personal as the political --share my tastes or be condemned as political idiots.
Now I admit these fantasies were important for supporting my growing distance from working class culture in the 1960s and 1970s too. I smoked Gaulois when I felt like being sophisticated,or rather showing others I was. I enjoyed my school trips to France, loved being able to drink absinthe in cafes at 11 am on the Boul' St Mich, and came home demanding of my bemused parents that we try some French cuisine -- soft cheese with peas, I recall.
Those ideas were still around when I voted to enter the EEC, as it was then, in 1975. I remain pro-Europe, but maybe less so in those adolescent fantasy terms. There is a dimension to politics which is not primarily cultural or personal
But the global economy is something else, threatening even those ill-thought out, sentimental and nostalgic aspects of national cultures. What better sign of cultural barbarism than the appalling Bologna Declaration that said the knowledge economy and its apparent demands for business-friendly skills should dominate higher education in Europe? Non-relevant social sciences and humanities subjects should no longer be funded was the recommendation -- and the UK Government bought it in full (Italy and France were far less keen, thank heavens). Hence market-oriented HE in England and Wales, the dithering about the 'skills agenda', higher fees,endless irrelevant business-facing courses.
Saturday 9 July 2016
Let's roll back democracy
Several ingenious attempts to do ideology today in the Guardian:
1. Tony Blair's awful blunder shows the deadly notion of macho leadership that dominates British politics when heroes take risky decisions and heed no words of caution from the faint-hearted but correct. That's why Britain went to war in Iraq (and Afghanistan, but that might still be a 'good' war, as was promised at the time? And Libya, but no-one is talking about that, and we still have special forces there? And we nearly went into Syria --well, bombed it -- and some people still want to, so no mention of that). How does that fit Brexit? The same arrogance infected Cameron when he decided to have a referendum, the fool. And now look what has happened! Another disaster - -on the scale of the Iraq bloodshed for Guardianistas, no doubt.
2. There is a review by Kathryn Hughes of George Eliot's neglected novel (Felix Holt, the Radical --haven't read it) which is about the social turmoil in Britain in 1832 surrounding the agitation for electoral reform which had produced a riot and a death in Nuneaton -- the real location of the novel. Hang on though -- the 1832 reform had allowed respectable middle-class people to vote,so that couldn't be wrong,surely? OK then Eliot must have really been writing about the 1866 reform and the accompanying riots (Chartist ones as I recall).These were much more dangerous and unsettling because they extended the franchise to working class people. The message of the novel for the reviewer is that too much democracy can cause social disorder.The title of the piece is Can democracy be relied upon? I wonder if that still might apply today, say in a recent referendum that also has led to much disorder --weeping Islingtonites, seriously rattled media commentators, deep anxiety about the price of second homes in Tuscany, if not exactly riots in the streets, unless you count street parties in Northern towns.
1. Tony Blair's awful blunder shows the deadly notion of macho leadership that dominates British politics when heroes take risky decisions and heed no words of caution from the faint-hearted but correct. That's why Britain went to war in Iraq (and Afghanistan, but that might still be a 'good' war, as was promised at the time? And Libya, but no-one is talking about that, and we still have special forces there? And we nearly went into Syria --well, bombed it -- and some people still want to, so no mention of that). How does that fit Brexit? The same arrogance infected Cameron when he decided to have a referendum, the fool. And now look what has happened! Another disaster - -on the scale of the Iraq bloodshed for Guardianistas, no doubt.
2. There is a review by Kathryn Hughes of George Eliot's neglected novel (Felix Holt, the Radical --haven't read it) which is about the social turmoil in Britain in 1832 surrounding the agitation for electoral reform which had produced a riot and a death in Nuneaton -- the real location of the novel. Hang on though -- the 1832 reform had allowed respectable middle-class people to vote,so that couldn't be wrong,surely? OK then Eliot must have really been writing about the 1866 reform and the accompanying riots (Chartist ones as I recall).These were much more dangerous and unsettling because they extended the franchise to working class people. The message of the novel for the reviewer is that too much democracy can cause social disorder.The title of the piece is Can democracy be relied upon? I wonder if that still might apply today, say in a recent referendum that also has led to much disorder --weeping Islingtonites, seriously rattled media commentators, deep anxiety about the price of second homes in Tuscany, if not exactly riots in the streets, unless you count street parties in Northern towns.
Friday 8 July 2016
Hang Tony Blair!
The blame game goes on, and now it is MrTony in the frame.
The argument goes like this...We now know that Mr Tony and his cronies were telling a lot of porkies about the threat from Iraq. OK, to be fair, Tony calls them 'judgments in good faith'. Once we knew this, when Chilcot finally reported,we could see how Tony had caused everyone to lose faith in politicians, and this loss of faith led to people disregarding the wisdom of politicians in 2016 and voting leave.
All you need for this one to work is to postulate a vortex in space-time itself that connects 2016 with 2003, so that people knew of Chilcot's findings before the war with Iraq actually took place.
I'm convinced
The argument goes like this...We now know that Mr Tony and his cronies were telling a lot of porkies about the threat from Iraq. OK, to be fair, Tony calls them 'judgments in good faith'. Once we knew this, when Chilcot finally reported,we could see how Tony had caused everyone to lose faith in politicians, and this loss of faith led to people disregarding the wisdom of politicians in 2016 and voting leave.
All you need for this one to work is to postulate a vortex in space-time itself that connects 2016 with 2003, so that people knew of Chilcot's findings before the war with Iraq actually took place.
I'm convinced
Thursday 7 July 2016
Boris speaks!
I don't often agree with Boris Johnson, but I reproduce below his blog(?):
On Friday I heard a new dawn chorus outside my house. There was a rustling and twittering, as though of starlings assembling on a branch. Then I heard a collective clearing of the throat, and they started yodelling my name – followed by various expletives. “Oi Boris – c---!” they shouted. Or “Boris – w-----!” I looked out to see some otherwise charming-looking young people, the sort who might fast to raise money for a Third World leprosy project.
They had the air of idealists – Corbynistas; Lefties; people who might go on a march to stop a war. And so when they started on their protest song, I found myself a bit taken aback. “EU – we love YOU! EU – we love YOU!” they began to croon. Curious, I thought. What exactly is it about the EU that attracts the fervent admiration of north London radicals? It was the first time I had ever heard of trendy socialists demonstrating in favour of an unelected supranational bureaucracy.
In the old days, the Lefties used to dismiss the EU as a bankers’ ramp. Tony Benn thought it was unacceptably anti-democratic. Jeremy Corbyn used to vote against it in every division. Why has it suddenly become so fashionable among our nose-ringed friends? I tried to think which of the EU’s signature policies they were so keen on. Surely not the agricultural subsidies that make up most of the budget, and that have done so much to retard development in the Third World. They can’t – for heaven’s sake – support the peak tariffs that discriminate against value added goods from Sub-Saharan Africa. Nor can they possibly enjoy the sheer opacity of the system – the fact that there are 10,000 officials who are paid more than the Prime Minister, and whose names and functions we don’t know.
They can’t really be defending the waste, the fraud – or the endless expensive caravan of crémant-swilling members of the European Parliament between Brussels and Luxembourg and Strasbourg. Are they really demonstrating in favour of the torrent of red tape that has done so much to hold back growth in the EU? It seems an odd sort of campaign theme: what do we want? More Brussels law-making! When do we want it? Now!
Naturally, Lefties might want laws to protect the workforce – but they would surely want those laws to be made by politicians that the people could remove at elections. No: the more I thought about it, the odder it seemed. It was incredible that these young and idealistic people should be making a rumpus about the euro – the key policy of the modern EU – when that project has so gravely intensified suffering in many southern EU countries, and deprived a generation of young people of employment.
Perhaps, I mused, it was a general feeling that the EU was about openness, tolerance and diversity. But they must surely know that the EU’s rules on free movement mean a highly discriminatory regime, one that makes it much more difficult for people from outside the EU to get into Britain – even though we need their skills.
So what was it about? People’s emotions matter, even when they do not seem to be wholly rational. The feelings being manifested outside my house are shared by the large numbers of people – 30,000, they say – who at the weekend came together in Trafalgar Square to hear pro-EU speeches by Sir Bob Geldof. There is, among a section of the population, a kind of hysteria, a contagious mourning of the kind that I remember in 1997 after the death of the Princess of Wales. It is not about the EU, of course; or not solely. A great many of these protesters – like dear old Geldof – are in a state of some confusion about the EU and what it does.
It is not, as he says, a “free trade area”; if only it were. It is a vast and convoluted exercise in trying to create a federal union – a new political construction based in Brussels. But, as I say, I don’t believe that it is psychologically credible to imagine young people chanting hysterically in favour of Brussels bureaucrats. The whole protest is not about the EU project, per se; it is about them – their own fears and anxieties that are now being projected on to Brexit.
These fears are wildly overdone. The reality is that the stock market has not plunged, as some said it would – far from it. The FTSE is higher than when the vote took place. There has been no emergency budget, and nor will there be. But the crowds of young people are experiencing the last psychological tremors of Project Fear – perhaps the most thoroughgoing government attempt to manipulate public opinion since the run-up to the Iraq War.
When Geldof tells them that the older generation has “stolen your future” by voting to Leave the EU, I am afraid there are too many who still believe it. It is time for this nonsense to end. It was wrong of the Government to offer the public a binary choice on the EU without being willing – in the event that people voted Leave – to explain how this can be made to work in the interests of the UK and Europe. We cannot wait until mid-September, and a new PM. We need a clear statement, now, of some basic truths:
1. There is no risk whatever to the status of the EU nationals now resident and welcome in the UK, and indeed immigration will continue – but in a way that is controlled, thereby neutralising the extremists.
2. It is overwhelmingly in the economic interests of the other EU countries to do a free-trade deal, with zero tariffs and quotas, while we extricate ourselves from the EU law-making system.
3. We can do free-trade deals with economies round the world, many of which are already applying.
4. We can supply leadership in Europe on security and other matters, but at an intergovernmental level.
5. The future is very bright indeed. That’s what Geldof should be chanting.
On Friday I heard a new dawn chorus outside my house. There was a rustling and twittering, as though of starlings assembling on a branch. Then I heard a collective clearing of the throat, and they started yodelling my name – followed by various expletives. “Oi Boris – c---!” they shouted. Or “Boris – w-----!” I looked out to see some otherwise charming-looking young people, the sort who might fast to raise money for a Third World leprosy project.
They had the air of idealists – Corbynistas; Lefties; people who might go on a march to stop a war. And so when they started on their protest song, I found myself a bit taken aback. “EU – we love YOU! EU – we love YOU!” they began to croon. Curious, I thought. What exactly is it about the EU that attracts the fervent admiration of north London radicals? It was the first time I had ever heard of trendy socialists demonstrating in favour of an unelected supranational bureaucracy.
In the old days, the Lefties used to dismiss the EU as a bankers’ ramp. Tony Benn thought it was unacceptably anti-democratic. Jeremy Corbyn used to vote against it in every division. Why has it suddenly become so fashionable among our nose-ringed friends? I tried to think which of the EU’s signature policies they were so keen on. Surely not the agricultural subsidies that make up most of the budget, and that have done so much to retard development in the Third World. They can’t – for heaven’s sake – support the peak tariffs that discriminate against value added goods from Sub-Saharan Africa. Nor can they possibly enjoy the sheer opacity of the system – the fact that there are 10,000 officials who are paid more than the Prime Minister, and whose names and functions we don’t know.
They can’t really be defending the waste, the fraud – or the endless expensive caravan of crémant-swilling members of the European Parliament between Brussels and Luxembourg and Strasbourg. Are they really demonstrating in favour of the torrent of red tape that has done so much to hold back growth in the EU? It seems an odd sort of campaign theme: what do we want? More Brussels law-making! When do we want it? Now!
Naturally, Lefties might want laws to protect the workforce – but they would surely want those laws to be made by politicians that the people could remove at elections. No: the more I thought about it, the odder it seemed. It was incredible that these young and idealistic people should be making a rumpus about the euro – the key policy of the modern EU – when that project has so gravely intensified suffering in many southern EU countries, and deprived a generation of young people of employment.
Perhaps, I mused, it was a general feeling that the EU was about openness, tolerance and diversity. But they must surely know that the EU’s rules on free movement mean a highly discriminatory regime, one that makes it much more difficult for people from outside the EU to get into Britain – even though we need their skills.
So what was it about? People’s emotions matter, even when they do not seem to be wholly rational. The feelings being manifested outside my house are shared by the large numbers of people – 30,000, they say – who at the weekend came together in Trafalgar Square to hear pro-EU speeches by Sir Bob Geldof. There is, among a section of the population, a kind of hysteria, a contagious mourning of the kind that I remember in 1997 after the death of the Princess of Wales. It is not about the EU, of course; or not solely. A great many of these protesters – like dear old Geldof – are in a state of some confusion about the EU and what it does.
It is not, as he says, a “free trade area”; if only it were. It is a vast and convoluted exercise in trying to create a federal union – a new political construction based in Brussels. But, as I say, I don’t believe that it is psychologically credible to imagine young people chanting hysterically in favour of Brussels bureaucrats. The whole protest is not about the EU project, per se; it is about them – their own fears and anxieties that are now being projected on to Brexit.
These fears are wildly overdone. The reality is that the stock market has not plunged, as some said it would – far from it. The FTSE is higher than when the vote took place. There has been no emergency budget, and nor will there be. But the crowds of young people are experiencing the last psychological tremors of Project Fear – perhaps the most thoroughgoing government attempt to manipulate public opinion since the run-up to the Iraq War.
When Geldof tells them that the older generation has “stolen your future” by voting to Leave the EU, I am afraid there are too many who still believe it. It is time for this nonsense to end. It was wrong of the Government to offer the public a binary choice on the EU without being willing – in the event that people voted Leave – to explain how this can be made to work in the interests of the UK and Europe. We cannot wait until mid-September, and a new PM. We need a clear statement, now, of some basic truths:
1. There is no risk whatever to the status of the EU nationals now resident and welcome in the UK, and indeed immigration will continue – but in a way that is controlled, thereby neutralising the extremists.
2. It is overwhelmingly in the economic interests of the other EU countries to do a free-trade deal, with zero tariffs and quotas, while we extricate ourselves from the EU law-making system.
3. We can do free-trade deals with economies round the world, many of which are already applying.
4. We can supply leadership in Europe on security and other matters, but at an intergovernmental level.
5. The future is very bright indeed. That’s what Geldof should be chanting.
Tuesday 5 July 2016
Amateur experts
Of all the lovely
examples of hypocrites wringing their hands over the Leave vote, the
reaction of university Vice-Chancellors has been outstanding. They
urged us all to vote Remain, of course, with all the authority they
could muster (very little, after clamouring for higher fees and paying themselves generously). They seem to have been really hurt by
Gove's remarks about not trusting experts during the campaign. They
see this as a crisis for universities themselves, the home of
expertise, and are urging experts to fight back.
One prof in the Guardian (30 June 2016) contrasts his own expertise (in Political Science!) with the non-intellectual views that dominated the Leave campaign (he says -- but how does he know?). He said :
Amid the doubt and speculation there is at least some certainty. We now know that we didn’t manage to convince enough people of the importance of our science, our truth or our facts. Voters preferred a more visceral understanding of the issues that we thought mattered. Untruths as opposed to experts. How did it come to that?
So naively positivist -- 'our truth or our facts' indeed! He suggests university experts must now make a real effort to contact those who despise experts -- not to learn from them, of course, but to be able to hector them more effectively. He must long for the days when people just accepted whatever a nice expert told them, without any qualifications like how the 'facts' were obtained, why others disagree with them, and what the implications might be for 'truth'. That experts do disagree is apparent to anyone who reads the news or uses social media, and so is the intrusion of their vested interests - the monopoly of the paid priests of orthodoxy are gone for good
University managers have done more than any single group to attack academic expertise in their
own institutions. They imposed management instead. They manage complex institutions by constructing a specially simplified and far from expert paper world, the home of the amateur. I don't think many of them have acquired any actual managerial expertise (maybe an MBA -- master of bugger all -- here and there), so they have to rely on noddy stuff they have encountered at idiotic management training 'workshops'. The ones I know would never dream of actually researching the effects of their decisions. They think
simple managerial techniques and slogans can replace expertise.
This is seen best in the
ludicrous practice of insisting on standard validation documents for
course proposals: subject experts would have to explain to managers what their objectives were, because it would only embarrass a manager with a background, say, in Sport Science to have to actually discuss English Literature (and vice versa) . There could be no more than 5 objectives in one institution I know. Proposers had to use only predicative verbs (a
fancy way of saying they had to be written in ways that promised to
do things). People could only suggest 10 titles for the booklist, and
had to include 4 articles. Recent publications were demanded, a hilarious requirement for courses like Philosophy or History. Actual 'discussion' took place on the basis
of these ludicrous simplifications, so that rank amateurs could have
a say on the academic standing of courses and even veto some. Verdicts were delivered in terms of bureaucratic pettiness (eg too many web articles) or childish impressions ('We did not feel full confidence...'), or wild assertions like 'Britain does not need more courses like this'.
People outside unis have to realize that this is the reality of 'quality control'. The real issues of quality turn on things like whether courses are representative of their disciplines and whether the teaching is adequate in covering the main topics, but managers cannot discuss those issues of course.
Amateur experts
Of all the lovely
examples of hypocrites wringing their hands over the Leave vote, the
reaction of university Vice-Chancellors has been outstanding. They
urged us all to vote Remain, of course, with all the authority they
could muster (very little, after clamouring for higher fees and paying themselves generously). They seem to have been really hurt by
Gove's remarks about not trusting experts during the campaign. They
see this as a crisis for universities themselves, the home of
expertise, and are urging experts to fight back.
One prof in the Guardian (30 June 2016) contrasts his own expertise (in Political Science!) with the non-intellectual views that dominated the Leave campaign (he says -- but how does he know?). He said :
Amid the doubt and
speculation there is at least some certainty. We now know that we
didn’t manage to convince enough people of the importance of our
science, our truth or our facts. Voters preferred a more visceral
understanding of the issues that we thought mattered. Untruths as
opposed to experts. How did it come to that?
So naively positivist -- 'our truth or our facts' indeed! He suggests university experts must now make a real effort to contact those who despise experts -- not to learn from them, of course, but to be able to hector them more effectively. The idiot could not even do a good job to persuade those people he had in front of him -- the young and well-educated who voted voted to Remain -- but the majority did not vote at all.
He must long for the days when people just accepted whatever a nice expert told them, without any qualifications like how the 'facts' were obtained, why others disagree with them, and what the implications might be for 'truth'. That experts do disagree is apparent to anyone who reads the news or uses social media, and so is the intrusion of their vested interests - the monopoly of the paid priests of orthodoxy are gone for good.
He must long for the days when people just accepted whatever a nice expert told them, without any qualifications like how the 'facts' were obtained, why others disagree with them, and what the implications might be for 'truth'. That experts do disagree is apparent to anyone who reads the news or uses social media, and so is the intrusion of their vested interests - the monopoly of the paid priests of orthodoxy are gone for good.
University managers have done more than any single group to attack academic expertise in their
own institutions. They imposed management instead. They manage complex institutions by constructing a specially simplified and far from expert paper world, the home of the amateur. I don't think many of them have acquired any actual managerial expertise (maybe an MBA -- master of bugger all -- here and there), so they have to rely on noddy stuff they have encountered at idiotic management training 'workshops'. The ones I know would never dream of actually researching the effects of their decisions. They think
simple managerial techniques and slogans can replace expertise.
This is seen best in the
ludicrous practice of insisting on standard validation documents for
course proposals: subject experts would have to explain to managers what their objectives were, because it would only embarrass a manager with a background, say, in Sport Science to have to actually discuss English Literature (and vice versa) . There could be no more than 5 objectives in one institution I know. Proposers had to use only predicative verbs (a
fancy way of saying they had to be written in ways that promised to
do things). People could only suggest 10 titles for the booklist, and
had to include 4 articles. Recent publications were demanded, a hilarious requirement for courses like Philosophy or History. Actual 'discussion' took place on the basis
of these ludicrous simplifications, so that rank amateurs could have
a say on the academic standing of courses and even veto some. Verdicts were delivered in terms of bureaucratic pettiness (eg too many web articles) or childish impressions ('We did not feel full confidence...'), or wild assertions like 'Britain does not need more courses like this'.
People outside unis have to realize that this is the reality of 'quality control'. The real issues of quality turn on things like whether courses are representative of their disciplines and whether the teaching is adequate in covering the main topics, but managers cannot discuss those issues of course.
Monday 4 July 2016
The ideological state apparatuses
Of all the learned
analyses of ideology I have read, the one theme they might have in
common is that ideology makes radical alternatives unthinkable.
Ideologies set out all sorts of acceptable alternatives, of course,
and sometimes ideological state apparatuses pride themselves on their
balanced treatment of these acceptable alternatives. Famous analyses
of television news, for example, show impeccable balance in
representing the respectable alternatives of acceptable political
parties – however, when confronted with an option that is outside
of this consensus, panic ensues at first followed by considerable
ideological work to demonise the outsider.
It was clear that in
the great referendum, the leave option was literally unthinkable.
Government and civil service did not prepare for it if Leave won, and
the media was badly sidelined by a Leave majority. In the run up, the
electronic media did attempt to construct a set of acceptable
alternatives, and even interviewed some spokespersons for Leave but
even here, they were using all sorts for ways to privilege the Remain
option. The structuring of unacceptable views has been well
discussed in famous studies by the Glasgow University Media Group.
Unpopular views are interrogated more closely and aggressively, and
spokespeople for them interrupted more often. Spokespeople for the
acceptable alternatives are arranged neatly in the studio, but
spokespeople for the unacceptable alternatives are usually
interviewed outside in the street. Sometimes they are introduced in
a negative way as well. Without having done a study of television
coverage this time, I have no idea how often these negative images
appeared, but they certainly did appear.
Ideological work
after the stunning effect of the Leave vote included straightforward
denial and anger, standard components of the responses to
bereavement. A good example is provided by this discussion: Will Self
usually appears as a cool sardonic cynic, but he was really angry
this time. I think he was also stymied by having as his opponent a
black woman, Dreda Say Mitchell, a novelist like him. He couldn't say
all the Leavers were racist males. He couldn't really say anything,
so cross was he. Jon Snow the interviewer was pretty cross too,then
and earlier. The prize for tantrums must go to Evan Davies of the BBC
though. His peak was asking a Tory MP, Crispin Blunt what Boris
Johnson (a leading campaigner for Leave) might have meant by
something he (Johnson) had written in a newspaper column - -when
Blunt said it was a silly question and how should he know, Davies
exploded with rage as you can see.
Two days after the
vote was declared, a discussion on a BBC news channel was still
talking about what would happen if there was a leave vote. Various
political options emerged to reverse the vote. Scotland, which had
voted overall to remain was going to declare independence and remain
in the EU. So was London. People campaigned for a second
referendum, and two million signatures were added to a petition.
Some people, including a Labour member of parliament were suggesting
that parliament itself did not have to authorize the popular
referendum vote, but could itself vote to reject the result and
overturn the decision to leave the EU. All of these are still
bubbling under at the moment. The Guardian even ran a journal piece
suggesting that there was a danger that the disaffected would turn to
a strong leader who would really represent the right views, without
the stupidity and inconvenience of things like referenda: the author
eventually rowed back a bit and suggested that some citizens might be
involved, in the form of some sort of standing committee or citizen
jury who would be able to discuss policies with the all powerful
politicians.
The media gave
surprising coverage and sometimes even support to these views.
Scottish nationalism, for example, was uncritically supported by the
BBC, and seen as wholly good, liberal, tolerant, cosmopolitan and
outward looking. English nationalism by contrast was narrow, inward
looking and intolerant. The only difference was that Scottish
nationalists supported the EU. I am still surprised that no-one
spotted the paradox here. As far as I know, the BBC has still failed
to interview anyone in Scotland who actually voted to leave, although
there were a million of them. Instead, the leader of the Scottish
parliament is able to claim that she speaks for Scotland pure and
simple, and that this voice necessarily implies joining the EU, and
there's been no attempt to critically question her on these dubious
claims. The large minority who voted Remain in England must be considered and listened to, but not the still large minority who voted Leave in Scotland! Of course the majority that voted Leave for the whole UK do
not speak for Britain. For those who might not be familiar with the
population of the UK, about 5 1/2 million people live in Scotland,
and 10 times as many in the rest of Britain.
There was
uncertainty at first followed by a determination to find someone to
blame. As the earlier blog suggested, these might be racists or
cunning politicians working on raising xenophobia. The lies of these
politicians were patiently exposed, and sometimes, rather more
rarely, so were the lies of politicians campaigning to Remain. As if
orchestrated, most of the criticism of the Leave campaign turned on
the claim that £350 000 000 per day was being paid to the EU. This
was repeatedly called a lie, and when someone tried to argue that it
was the gross figure not the nett, a BBC interviewer said she doubted
that ordinary people could tell the difference (it is clear to anyone
who receives a standard wage packet of course).
Even some
politicians who did support Remain were blamed, notably Corbyn,
leader of the Labour Party. Purely by chance, no doubt, blaming
Corbyn dominated the news exactly at the time that Blairite Labour
MPs were pressuring him to resign. The constitution of the Labour
Party provides for rival candidates to emerge if there is a problem
with the leader, and then for members of the party to choose between
them, but disaffected MPs were trying to pressure Corbyn to resign
without invoking this procedure. It is not difficult to see
why—those MPs could then agree to nominate just one candidate which
would obviate the need for any inconvenient election by the party (which Corbyn would probably win). Normally, no doubt, this would be
seen as undemocratic, but the ideological end justified the means in
this case and in the ones above—scratch a thwarted liberal and
find an authoritarian.
Other candidates for
blame included the older generation, where a majority voted to leave.
This picked up on a narrative that had been tried before, blaming the
greedy pensioners for distorting the welfare bill and monopolising
the Health Service. There had been fears during the campaign that the
elderly would vote (!) and the greedy bastards would push the young
into leaving, even though they would not be living much longer. In
this case, however, it was probably the apathetic young who
influenced the result: more elderly voted Leave, and they did have a
higher turnout; the young who voted had a majority for Remain –
but only 38% of them voted. Overall, one source claimed, more elderly
people voted for remain in absolute terms than did young people.
Nevertheless, the elderly still attract criticism, with some Remain
voters saying they will never speak to their older relatives. No
doubt a great excuse as much as a political gesture. There is a funny You Tube video taking the piss out of the young Remainers here.
There were clear
bits of contempt for the working class as usual, who were almost
universally depicted as ignorant, conservative and racist. Fat middle
aged blokes with swastika tattoos mouthing racist abuse were much
sought after. They were usually contrasted with nice middle class
women wearing badges advocating love. One classic comparison occurred
yesterday on BBC News, where the views of voters were sought – the
Leavers represented by passers-by in Boston, Lincs, and the Remainers
sought -- in Cambridge!
Finally, there
seems to be no overall master narrative to join all these
ideological bits together yet,and contradictions and paradoxes are rife,
like those over good and bad nationalism. Perhaps the ideology-making
classes are still reeling and working on a master narrative. I think
they are badly demoralised at the moment, having tried to line up all
the authorities on their side –bankers, economists, politicians,
the Archbishop of bleedin Canterbury, the military. There were a few
attempts to join up the issues into one great crusade, notably the
moral panic following the killing of a popular MP – the BBC toyed
with an overall narrative condemning a 'politics of hate', aimed at
Leavers especially, but it was pretty feeble.
I also think that what this
lack of a narrative tells us is that notions of ideology as simply
dominant have to be revised. For all the efforts of elites, people voted
Leave. The more elites they recruited, the less effect they seemed to
have. Of course the BBC and the quality dailies do not have a
monopoly of opinion: there were popular daily newspapers who
advocated Leave. No-one really knows about the impact of social media
either. The position seems to be like that advanced by critics of the
'dominant ideology thesis' back in the 1980s – ideology unites and
consoles a dominant group but has much less effect on the subordinate
groups.
Sunday 3 July 2016
Immigration and exploitation
Let's cut to the
chase with the issue of immigration to the UK. I'm not a racist,
and mine is an economic/political and social case about the need to
restrict immigration. The economic case is quite straightforward,
and has bubbled under during the great debate leading up to the
referendum. It seems to me that immigrants are being recruited to
Britain on a false prospectus, and certainly, the occasional
interview with them seems to suggest that they think the UK is a land
of milk and honey, prosperity and tolerance. My own view is that
they are being exploited to become part of the reserve army of
labour: in Marx's day, that was made up of the unemployed, and,
later, of female workers.
Those who campaigned
in favour of remaining were able to cite official statistics showing
that the net economic impact of such immigrants was positive, that
their payments into the State exceeded their benefits. That could even support my case that they are being ripped off. More technically, in
the first place, that combines together high wage immigrants and low
wage ones, and there's a strong suspicion that low wage ones are
being paid only the minimum wage or less.
Further, there has been
some evidence that the net impact of immigration has not been to
diminish wages in Britain, rather that government policy has done
this. However, sometimes a relative lack of power and influence by
the trade unions is admitted to be responsible as well. I don't know
any data, but I am willing to bet that most poorly waged immigrant
labour is not unionized, and that their introduction into workplaces
has the effect of splitting the solidarity of the workers who are
unionized.
Finally, long-term economic impacts are unknown. However,
the impact of population growth in Britain, combined with an
austerity program, has produced undoubted effects on welfare
provision, from inadequate school places, to an underfunded National
Health Service. The increase in immigration is the largest factor in
such population growth.
Interestingly, the vote to leave seems to have finally weaned the Chancellor off his commitment to austerity too.There was much scorn for the pledge to spend all the money contributed to the EU on the Health Service instead, but some of it at least might be spent that way. The Leave campaign quoted the gross figure of payments to the EU as £350m per week.The Remainers patiently and patronisingly explained to the electorate that this was a gross figure and that the net figure was only about £110m --somehow they thought that was acceptable!
This still does not
mean that we should hate immigrants, of course. Indeed, I see them
mostly as the innocent victims of a continuing attempt to drastically weaken
the place of organized labour in Britain. This has been much discussed sometimes in terms of 'deskilling' or mechanisation as the 'emancipation of capital from labour'.
I'm not sure that working
class opponents of immigration are all simply racist either.
Contrary to popular belief, the British working class has actually
been surprisingly tolerant towards immigrants, although in a variable
way, depending on factors such as the social class makeup and the
social attitudes of immigrant groups themselves. However, people are rightly
resentful at being expected always to deal with the social
disorganization involved, which can last for a decade or so before
things settle down. It is particularly hypocritical to condemn such
resentment, when you are able to live in a safely isolated gated
community which admits only highly respectable immigrants of a
similar social class, and pay for your own health care and education.
This is not to deny
the presence of working class racism. However, I've also always seen
that there is significant racism in the middle and upper classes as
well, sometimes combined with class or gender prejudice. The upper
classes only seem interested in racism if it suits their ideologies.
With ideological intent, lots of things can be condemned as racism
and thus denounced. The marvellously hypocritical denunciation of
anti-semitism in the Labour Party is a good example: as soon as it has done its work to embarrass Labour, as a 'moral panic', we never heard of it again.
Indeed, the campaign to regulate immigration was initially managed by seeing it as simple racism, not worth discussing. I am still not sure what led to the failure of that strategy - maybe it was feedback from actual voters supporting Leave? The racism tag even became a bit of a liability, showing how distant elites were from their voters.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
The trials of a sixth-form Brexiteer