The latest in a series of arguments about Parliamentary sovereignty today in the Guarndia by Nicky Morgan ( unmourned Sec of State for Ed under Cameron who wanted to force all secondary schools to move to academy status).
No-one really knows what Parliamentary sovereignty in the UK means because we have no written constitution, but it is widely regarded as a Good Thing. Brexiteers wanted it because it would mean we were no longer subject to EU law (one reason I voted for Breexit). Now Remainers want it because it would enable a Parliamentary vote on triggering Article 50, which they hope would check the Government's intention to simply go ahead using its executive power. Morgan is one of several who were not impressed by the Brexit demand for Parlimanentary sovereignty as opposed to the EU, but now wants it to oppose the Government. And vice versa for the Brexiters, it should be said.
Scots Nats also play it both ways. They insist that their Referendum results justify staying in the EU, so 'the people of Scotland' are sovereign. But they want Parliamentary votes in the UK as a whole so the UK people as a whole are not sovereign.
The whole issue could be discussed much more effectively via some well-known bits of political theory --but we don't do theory in the UK (well, we did, via people like JS Mill, but we don't now).
Meanwhile, the Great White Hope of the Graun is trotted out once again --the Liberals will save us argues John Harris. The Lib Dems did quite well in the bye-election in Whitney caused by Cameron's resignation. A poll suggests that any party arguing for stopping Brexit would gain a good proportion of votes, more than Labour. So -- the Lib Dems could sweep into power as the party that opposes Brexit, a second referendum would be announced, luvvies would win, peace and cheap strawberries would ensue for ever.
Meanwhile again, the Graun reports that grouse moors receive substanbtial subsidies from the EU's Common Agricultural Policy. Luvvies must be upset because they hate the upper classes as much as the working classes. What could be worse, Nissan has decided to stay in the UK and even invest more in their Sunderland plant, despite saying they would think of leaving if there was Brexit. Pundits were very shocked by Sunderland voting for Leave -- poor L Kuenssberg's face!
And the economy has grown by 0.5% in the last quarter. Luvvies have to report these news items -- even Newsnight -- but they immediately look for foul play somewhere, some promised subsidy for Nissan for example,some denial that there is real growth.
Even if there were a subsidy, this shows that the UK Government can plan its own industrial strategy (new buzzword for Tories), of course. What did the luvvies think? -- that Government would or could not intervene to remedy any post-EU problems, but would spend its time wishing none of it had happened?
Why, we could even renationalise the railways (popular with the public) or establish a State investment bank (both formerly dismissed as utopian -- because the EU would prevent them!)
Friday 28 October 2016
Tuesday 25 October 2016
No parrots were involved in Brexit
A Monty Python sketch introduced the idea of TV news for animals [as a parody of regional news provision] and offered a series of normal news stories which tagged on mentions of animals -- 'no badgers were involved today in a motorway pile-up on the M4' etc
There is a growing tendency in Graun and Observerwet to cram in a mention of Brexit to a list of factors explaining some problem. Brexit is usually added right at the end, and sometimes in the headline as well.
There is a good one in a sports article in the Guardian where English fans were being urged to adopt the practices of European ones to increase the atmosphere in the ground (a big worry for the English game which is pricing people out.) Apparently, lovable German 'ultras' are inspired by left-wing ideals of community, but :
Another classic example in today's Guardian from the beloved P Toynbee. Here is the headline:
So far it seems like a perfect Tory Government storm, but wait ...shortfalls in trained nurses are being met by recruiting overseas.Polly doesn't comment on the ethics here but moves straight to the point she has been worried about for 4 months -- Brexit. Some of these nurses might think about going back to their countries of origin. Some from EU countries presumably -- Polly doesn't say -- or maybe all migrant nurses will feel unwelcome?
Evidence? Well
There is a growing tendency in Graun and Observerwet to cram in a mention of Brexit to a list of factors explaining some problem. Brexit is usually added right at the end, and sometimes in the headline as well.
There is a good one in a sports article in the Guardian where English fans were being urged to adopt the practices of European ones to increase the atmosphere in the ground (a big worry for the English game which is pricing people out.) Apparently, lovable German 'ultras' are inspired by left-wing ideals of community, but :
even as Britain stands on the verge of shrinking itself culturally as it prepares to pull the shutters down on Europe, young people here could never be as politically motivated as mid-90s post-reunification Germans, so any catalyst must come from somewhere else.
Another classic example in today's Guardian from the beloved P Toynbee. Here is the headline:
Our nurses are being cast into a perfect Brexit storm
The story is about the awful conditions endured by nurses in the NHS -- frozen wages, increased workload, substantial cuts to general and specialist training, the abolition of bursaries for student nurses, occasional scandals about standards of care, indifference from the Government.
So far it seems like a perfect Tory Government storm, but wait ...shortfalls in trained nurses are being met by recruiting overseas.Polly doesn't comment on the ethics here but moves straight to the point she has been worried about for 4 months -- Brexit. Some of these nurses might think about going back to their countries of origin. Some from EU countries presumably -- Polly doesn't say -- or maybe all migrant nurses will feel unwelcome?
Evidence? Well
Mark Power, [Radclliffe Hospital's] director of human resources, has written a detailed report warning his board that the present 10% vacancy rate in the Thames Valley area may worsen following the Brexit vote. In 2015 his hospital brought in 448 EU nurses who are now “concerned and uncertain” about their future...
The John Radcliffe’s chief nurse, Prof Catherine Stoddart, fears many [UK students] will be discouraged [by the cut in training and bursaries]...Ask her about her EU nurses and the way she brims with extravagant praise betrays her anxiety following the referendum: “They make a huge contribution with very strong skills that lift the standard of our own. Our best nurses have worked all over the world.” They’re worried, she says. “Since the vote, we have organised special lunches for them to reassure them and say how much we want them to stay. [No pay rise then?] There’s a risk they will go home in the present climate. Our patients worry too, asking them: ‘Where are you from and are you going home?’”Hardly convincing. I can see why managers would want to recruit cheap but skilled labour, but let's revert to the ethics: (1) should we expect overseas recruits to work in our NHS despite the poor conditions and crap pay already mentioned as a disincentive for UK ones? (2) is it right to import nurses from other countries that have trained them and have an equal if not greater need for them? (3) who should we blame first for the 'perfect storm' -- Tory Government or Brexit voters?
Saturday 8 October 2016
Luvvie algorithms
There was a flash crash of sterling a few days ago with the pound suddenly plummeting to a new low against the dollar (as bad as in 1985 --what happened then?). Remainers are panicking, of course. They have now chosen the exchange rate as the key indicator of impending doom, rather than the Stock Market FTSE index (which is buoyant) or the elusive 'Confidence Index' (disappeared altogether from the public view). In the Freedland piece below, the high stock exchange is simply an effect of us still being in the EU: however, strangely, the falling exchange rate is equally a sign of panic about us not being in the EU in the future.
Among those wetting themselves is the Guardian's Jonathan Freedland, who
is talking not just of 'hard Brexit' but 'extreme Brexit'. He argues that the fall in the pound occurs every time politicians talk of a hard Brexit, or rather that 'Brexit really will happen'. He says the Government should have been opting for loopholes in agreements on free movement of labour not people, and a general deal to stay in the free trade area, as with Norway (who pay for the privilege and accept 'free' movement of labour). We should have been welcoming (skilled) overseas labour not threatening to replace them with Brits (so far only medics). If we play tough, he warns, 'basic food imports won’t be allowed in either.' (this could mean, for Guardinists, cheap fresh strawberries all year round, as we saw).
Freedland argues that no-one actually voted for this disaster (he knows how 17 million people voted, of course). Someone must speak up for sanity and the thwarted 48% Remain voters. The Tories all seem to have been converted to Brexit, so that leaves only Labour (and media luvvies no doubt).
The BBC is also worried, as we saw, about the tough talking from Government. A number of spokespersons have tried in vain to explain that you need to talk tough entering a negotiation -- Brits as well as the EU. The failure to realise this is another hallmark of luvviedom -- no-one has to talk tough where they live, and they are used to just getting their own way.
However, the flashcrash might have different origins according to another piece. This says the whole crash might have been a mistake in data entry (a 'fat finger') or the result of an over-tuned algorithm designed to sell sterling if a negative headline appears in any financial press. This really appeals as an example of the utter lunacy of modern capitalism: someone (probably quite a junior person, perhaps even a non-native English speaker, in a kind of Empire's revenge) decides to provide a programmer with a number of definitions of 'negative words'; someone else writes a headline (in the Financial Times, it was rumoured) to summarise a speech, in French, using negative words in English (perhaps to attract readers rather than to summarise the story). The two meet. A sterling crash ensues. Other algorithms then cut in to buy sterling at the new low price and sterling regains its value within 20 seconds -- but not to the same extent. People in the market interrpet this as a weakness in sterling! Some metropolitan journalist then writes a panicky story triggered by the episode!
Among those wetting themselves is the Guardian's Jonathan Freedland, who
is talking not just of 'hard Brexit' but 'extreme Brexit'. He argues that the fall in the pound occurs every time politicians talk of a hard Brexit, or rather that 'Brexit really will happen'. He says the Government should have been opting for loopholes in agreements on free movement of labour not people, and a general deal to stay in the free trade area, as with Norway (who pay for the privilege and accept 'free' movement of labour). We should have been welcoming (skilled) overseas labour not threatening to replace them with Brits (so far only medics). If we play tough, he warns, 'basic food imports won’t be allowed in either.' (this could mean, for Guardinists, cheap fresh strawberries all year round, as we saw).
Freedland argues that no-one actually voted for this disaster (he knows how 17 million people voted, of course). Someone must speak up for sanity and the thwarted 48% Remain voters. The Tories all seem to have been converted to Brexit, so that leaves only Labour (and media luvvies no doubt).
The BBC is also worried, as we saw, about the tough talking from Government. A number of spokespersons have tried in vain to explain that you need to talk tough entering a negotiation -- Brits as well as the EU. The failure to realise this is another hallmark of luvviedom -- no-one has to talk tough where they live, and they are used to just getting their own way.
However, the flashcrash might have different origins according to another piece. This says the whole crash might have been a mistake in data entry (a 'fat finger') or the result of an over-tuned algorithm designed to sell sterling if a negative headline appears in any financial press. This really appeals as an example of the utter lunacy of modern capitalism: someone (probably quite a junior person, perhaps even a non-native English speaker, in a kind of Empire's revenge) decides to provide a programmer with a number of definitions of 'negative words'; someone else writes a headline (in the Financial Times, it was rumoured) to summarise a speech, in French, using negative words in English (perhaps to attract readers rather than to summarise the story). The two meet. A sterling crash ensues. Other algorithms then cut in to buy sterling at the new low price and sterling regains its value within 20 seconds -- but not to the same extent. People in the market interrpet this as a weakness in sterling! Some metropolitan journalist then writes a panicky story triggered by the episode!
Wednesday 5 October 2016
Populist ventriloquism
According to Larry Eliot, a confessed Brexiteer, mind, the IMF has now decided that there will be no UK crash after Brexit. Instead, moderate economic growth this year will be followed by small growth next. Eliot's point is not to jeer at them changing their mind but to say that this shows the range of accuracy of economic forecasting.But then he asks a more interesting question -- why did not the IMF reveal this range of possibilities in the run-up to Brexit? Was it deliberate conspiracy to keep the facts from the public, Larry? Or was it that ideological commitment was such that more positive possibilities literally did not spring to mind?
Meanwhile, Evan Davis on Newsnight is still prone to outbursts of rage (second stage of bereavement?) when discussing Brexit with Tory politicians at their Conference. Two nights ago he badgered a Treasury minister in typical fashion: Treasury forecasts still saw an overall loss of 4% in economic growth after Brexit. The Chancellor had not denied the forecast and indeed had used figures from the same report in his speech on another matter. So, for Davis, this meant the Chancellor was supporting the view that Brexit would mean a loss, proving him, and all his luvvie mates right all along.
The minister's response was pretty obvious -- the UK was still negotiating over the details and so there was no point in commenting on forecasts. No great intellectual sparkle there but no suprises either. Politicians have always refused to comment on hypothetical questions but they don't use that phrase any more because no-one seems to understand it, including the BBC. Davis persisted and explained his question again. And again. Same answer each time. Tantrums from Davis. Finally the minister said there was no point continuing the discussion anyway -- the UK had voted Brexit and that was that, implying that even if there are to be economic losses it is too late to do anything about it. Not for Davis though --on and on he went until told, presumably by the voice in his ear, to give up.
The same broadcast featured a comedy turn in the formof some young knob called Alistair(?) Goodall. Armed with a fake dictionary of EU terms he wandered around asking delegates if they knew the difference between a single market and a customs union. Understandably he was avoided by most delegates who did not want to indulge such an obvious arsehole --but Davis liked it.
Last night, same deal. Davis this time was asking about -- the difference between a customs union and a single market, knowing few people knew or cared to get involved in bureaucratic legalese. Davis had obviously mugged it up and was hoping to catch someone out. Same response from a different minister. Same tantrums. Same comedy turn from Goodall, this time with props like a set of bioculars, this time looking for Cameron supporters. Hilarious. Took up about 5 minutes of airtime.
Another interview by Davis, this time of the new Prime Minister. He had a trick question prepared again -- would she now rule out giving honours to party donors. It was a nice precise issue to test her ethics. She sidetepped, understandably refusing to answer whether she had now stopped beating her husband. He persisted. He assured her that lots of people watching would be asking the same question. I think he really believes that.
Meanwhile, Evan Davis on Newsnight is still prone to outbursts of rage (second stage of bereavement?) when discussing Brexit with Tory politicians at their Conference. Two nights ago he badgered a Treasury minister in typical fashion: Treasury forecasts still saw an overall loss of 4% in economic growth after Brexit. The Chancellor had not denied the forecast and indeed had used figures from the same report in his speech on another matter. So, for Davis, this meant the Chancellor was supporting the view that Brexit would mean a loss, proving him, and all his luvvie mates right all along.
The minister's response was pretty obvious -- the UK was still negotiating over the details and so there was no point in commenting on forecasts. No great intellectual sparkle there but no suprises either. Politicians have always refused to comment on hypothetical questions but they don't use that phrase any more because no-one seems to understand it, including the BBC. Davis persisted and explained his question again. And again. Same answer each time. Tantrums from Davis. Finally the minister said there was no point continuing the discussion anyway -- the UK had voted Brexit and that was that, implying that even if there are to be economic losses it is too late to do anything about it. Not for Davis though --on and on he went until told, presumably by the voice in his ear, to give up.
The same broadcast featured a comedy turn in the formof some young knob called Alistair(?) Goodall. Armed with a fake dictionary of EU terms he wandered around asking delegates if they knew the difference between a single market and a customs union. Understandably he was avoided by most delegates who did not want to indulge such an obvious arsehole --but Davis liked it.
Last night, same deal. Davis this time was asking about -- the difference between a customs union and a single market, knowing few people knew or cared to get involved in bureaucratic legalese. Davis had obviously mugged it up and was hoping to catch someone out. Same response from a different minister. Same tantrums. Same comedy turn from Goodall, this time with props like a set of bioculars, this time looking for Cameron supporters. Hilarious. Took up about 5 minutes of airtime.
Another interview by Davis, this time of the new Prime Minister. He had a trick question prepared again -- would she now rule out giving honours to party donors. It was a nice precise issue to test her ethics. She sidetepped, understandably refusing to answer whether she had now stopped beating her husband. He persisted. He assured her that lots of people watching would be asking the same question. I think he really believes that.
Sunday 2 October 2016
Minorities for Government veto!
W Keagan's piece in the Observer today seems to offer an ingenious connection between Labour Party leadership elections and his favourite rant -- Brexit.
The stuff on Labour is strangely supportive, saying that Labour economic policy (to borrow money for investment) is on the whole quite a normal way to redress the aftermath of the Great Crash, and is supported by a lot of orthodox economists. Then he sees a way forward. Labour can still be criticised for not opposing the Government sufficiently rigorously especially (wait for it) their decision to implement Brexit.
What's his beef this time? It wasn't a proper majority that voted Brexit. It was only 37% of those actually eligible to vote. And he is prepared to 'bet that a fair proportion of the 37% did not appreciate the implications of what they were doing', this means 'Our sovereign parliament must veto this absurd and self-destructive policy'.
This is special pleading of course. If we take those voting for something as a percentage of those eligible to vote, very few simple majorities survive. 'Scotland' did not vote to Remain, for example, if we include those eligible to vote as the total electorate (I reckon the Leavers and the non-voters together outweighed the Remainers --just) .
What about our sovereign Parliament? In the 2015 General Election, only 37% voted of those eligible. The Tory Government attracted only 25% of all potential voters, and, obviously, a smaller percentage of the total of those eligible to vote voted for Labour (30%). I wonder if Keegan would want to bet that a fair proportion of those percentages DID appreciate the implications of what they were doing.
The stuff on Labour is strangely supportive, saying that Labour economic policy (to borrow money for investment) is on the whole quite a normal way to redress the aftermath of the Great Crash, and is supported by a lot of orthodox economists. Then he sees a way forward. Labour can still be criticised for not opposing the Government sufficiently rigorously especially (wait for it) their decision to implement Brexit.
What's his beef this time? It wasn't a proper majority that voted Brexit. It was only 37% of those actually eligible to vote. And he is prepared to 'bet that a fair proportion of the 37% did not appreciate the implications of what they were doing', this means 'Our sovereign parliament must veto this absurd and self-destructive policy'.
This is special pleading of course. If we take those voting for something as a percentage of those eligible to vote, very few simple majorities survive. 'Scotland' did not vote to Remain, for example, if we include those eligible to vote as the total electorate (I reckon the Leavers and the non-voters together outweighed the Remainers --just) .
What about our sovereign Parliament? In the 2015 General Election, only 37% voted of those eligible. The Tory Government attracted only 25% of all potential voters, and, obviously, a smaller percentage of the total of those eligible to vote voted for Labour (30%). I wonder if Keegan would want to bet that a fair proportion of those percentages DID appreciate the implications of what they were doing.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)