yesterday it was
Tuesday 21 February 2017
Commnews
El Garundian continues its shock horror headlines campaign for all this week it seems. Oh good.
yesterday it was
yesterday it was
Sunday 19 February 2017
Fake headlines
There was a marvellous example of the BBC being outed on fake news -- in a Newsnight (16/02) item on Trump not Brexit, although the ideological manoeuvres are very similar.
The increasingly sad Evan Davis was trying to denounce Trump's lies. The item was fronted by a longish, sympathetic and open-ended questioning of an anti-Trump liberal (B Stretel) , then an interview with a Trump spokesperson (S. Gorka) followed. Quite a different hectoring bullying and aggressive tone for the second as we might expect -- but the spokesperson wiped the floor with Davis by exposing and taking on his agenda, having just dismissed Stretel, with whom he was supposed to argue.
A typical Davis question for Gorka was whether Trump intended to counter media hostility by taking to Twitter and social media -- or by controlling the media. Where did the latter suggestion come from demanded Gorka. Evans did not say. 'That's fake news, right there!' Gorka declared (rightly).
The whole debate nicely exposed the BBC's notion of 'objectivity' -- one loony is allowed to argue with another while the BBC interviewer stands for the reasonable liberal consensus in the middle. The BBC used to do this really well once, when it had interviewers with gravitas who could do objectivity and detachment, but presenters like Davis just cannot forebear to hector and parade their own values.
An older techniques is the fake headline, useful when headlines were emblazoned on hoardings or newstands to catch the eye of busy commuters. The headline announces something as if it were simply 'factual'. A good example today is this headline from the Observer:
The increasingly sad Evan Davis was trying to denounce Trump's lies. The item was fronted by a longish, sympathetic and open-ended questioning of an anti-Trump liberal (B Stretel) , then an interview with a Trump spokesperson (S. Gorka) followed. Quite a different hectoring bullying and aggressive tone for the second as we might expect -- but the spokesperson wiped the floor with Davis by exposing and taking on his agenda, having just dismissed Stretel, with whom he was supposed to argue.
A typical Davis question for Gorka was whether Trump intended to counter media hostility by taking to Twitter and social media -- or by controlling the media. Where did the latter suggestion come from demanded Gorka. Evans did not say. 'That's fake news, right there!' Gorka declared (rightly).
The whole debate nicely exposed the BBC's notion of 'objectivity' -- one loony is allowed to argue with another while the BBC interviewer stands for the reasonable liberal consensus in the middle. The BBC used to do this really well once, when it had interviewers with gravitas who could do objectivity and detachment, but presenters like Davis just cannot forebear to hector and parade their own values.
An older techniques is the fake headline, useful when headlines were emblazoned on hoardings or newstands to catch the eye of busy commuters. The headline announces something as if it were simply 'factual'. A good example today is this headline from the Observer:
EU citizens living in the UK could face legal limbo after Brexit
The actual story is that a group of EU officials 'fear' that the UK will not be able to process the claims to stay of lots of EU nationals in the UK after Brexit. It is a 'fear' expressed by this group in a leaked memo (good enough for the Observer to be able to think it was not a deliberate plant?) . In a final twist:
Lord Newby, the Lib Dem leader in the Lords, said: “The government [sic] is generating real fear and uncertainty amongst large numbers of people.”
Similar 'stories' have appeared in the Guardian on a regular basis, like this one:
UK fishermen may not win waters back after Brexit, EU memo reveals
The Guardian warns that this might be one of several 'red lines' drawn up by the EU in its negotiations. No doubt. Presumably, the UK Government has no alternative but to accept them. Of course, this exposes the 'lies' behind Brexit arguments (as ever, rendered as promises).
It might be a bargaining ploy, the actual story quotes a spokesmen for British fisheries as suggesting, but this is (over) 'balanced' by lots of concerned liberals who just see it as a really likely outcome
The paper evidently sees no difference between an opening demand, based on opinions and interests, and an actual final result! Not exactly fake news but close to it.
Friday 10 February 2017
Lord save us
The Bill got through its third reading unamended. The Labour Party proposed several important amendments but having lost them, mostly voted for the Bill anyway -- confusion or realpolitik? One Tory, K Clarke, a pro-European all his life, voted against.
So the Bill now goes to the House of Lords. Two nights ago, a certain Lord Hain, former Labour MP Peter Hain, said he would definitely vote against. A Tory Brexiteer MP, making a rare appearance indeed on Newsnight, challenged him -- Lords were appointed not elected, the Commons had voted overwhelmingly for the Bill without amendment, a clear majority of voters in the Referendum voted out. How could Lord Hain justify his vote?
Hain said he saw himself as representing other constituencies [imaginarily of course because they had not voted for him:he said he would have preferred to have been an elected Lord, for there are indeed such persons]. The majority of Labour MPs were in favour of Remain (even though most of them voted for the Bill), and there was the minority of Remain voters [who had not elected him either]. He also had in mind the national interest.
The last claim echoed a really old argument in British politics, that the aristocracy and above all the monarchy are the only ones who can represent the national interest.The bourgeoisie, who make up most MPs, have their own business interests, but those of independent means, or independent access to power, regardless of bothersome things like having to appeal to constituents and voters, can rise above those.
There might be something in this, several historians and philosophers have argued, pointing to occasional important alliances between proletariat and aristocracy, like resisting the tyranny of Puritan campaigns against public enjoyment (including blood sports). Even so, feudal reciprocity is not really terribly liberating, and the aristocracy has its own interests too, which they are liable to see as public or national interests. Many landowners supported Remain, for example, no doubt partly because they enjoyed massive EU subsidies on agricultural land, even on shooting estates.
Anyway, Lord Hain is a bourgeois, unless a mere title has elevated him to Great Defender of the Nation.
The Lords will back down. May has emerged as a ruthless leader who will amend the rights of the Lords if necessary (often threatened by frustrated Governments).
So the Bill now goes to the House of Lords. Two nights ago, a certain Lord Hain, former Labour MP Peter Hain, said he would definitely vote against. A Tory Brexiteer MP, making a rare appearance indeed on Newsnight, challenged him -- Lords were appointed not elected, the Commons had voted overwhelmingly for the Bill without amendment, a clear majority of voters in the Referendum voted out. How could Lord Hain justify his vote?
Hain said he saw himself as representing other constituencies [imaginarily of course because they had not voted for him:he said he would have preferred to have been an elected Lord, for there are indeed such persons]. The majority of Labour MPs were in favour of Remain (even though most of them voted for the Bill), and there was the minority of Remain voters [who had not elected him either]. He also had in mind the national interest.
The last claim echoed a really old argument in British politics, that the aristocracy and above all the monarchy are the only ones who can represent the national interest.The bourgeoisie, who make up most MPs, have their own business interests, but those of independent means, or independent access to power, regardless of bothersome things like having to appeal to constituents and voters, can rise above those.
There might be something in this, several historians and philosophers have argued, pointing to occasional important alliances between proletariat and aristocracy, like resisting the tyranny of Puritan campaigns against public enjoyment (including blood sports). Even so, feudal reciprocity is not really terribly liberating, and the aristocracy has its own interests too, which they are liable to see as public or national interests. Many landowners supported Remain, for example, no doubt partly because they enjoyed massive EU subsidies on agricultural land, even on shooting estates.
Anyway, Lord Hain is a bourgeois, unless a mere title has elevated him to Great Defender of the Nation.
The Lords will back down. May has emerged as a ruthless leader who will amend the rights of the Lords if necessary (often threatened by frustrated Governments).
Wednesday 8 February 2017
Hobson wins choice
Appalling skill was shown by the Govt in outmanoeuvring Remainers in Parliament, and thus demoralising Remainers everywhere else. After much talk in the luvvie press about imminent revolts and filiibustering amendments, the Govt finally granted a concession --there would be a vote at the end of the negotiating process on the deal which had been hammered out with the EU. Labour was very pleased with itself, and K Starmer said how it showed that steady pressure had paid off.
In the subsequent statement, clarification was offered.There would indeed be a vote for the House to decide whether to accept the deal -- or just crash out of Europe anyway, on the most basic trade terms (the so-called WTO package). Take it or leave it in every sense.
Still had to be put to the vote though. The Govt won by 33 votes. Starmer still thinks the Govt would not dare crash out -- it is maybe just Remainer permanent incredulity at events.
The Guardian sketch writer thinks the whole thing was a stunt to square away rebel Tories who thought Parliament should get a vote on principle, without demanding what sort of vote it was. Most Tories subsequently voted to accept the May proposal, no doubt leaving their principles intact, while doing their career prospects no harm.
Most of the other amendments have been swatted away too today, including Scot Nat ones. Wee Nicola Sturgeon still got a pro-EU vote through her own Parliamentary mock-up and is still threatening to demand a new Independence Referendum for Scotland. The Graun offered some hope by saying 49% of those polled would now suppot it --but confessed that the 'don't knowns' had not been included.
There has only ever been one rare airing on the BBC of one problem with Soc Nats for Europe, when an interviewee said that he could not vote for Scottish withdrawal from the Union with England in the name of independence, only to vote for a new Union with Europe.
As with many Remainers, I still don't see why the EU raises such passionate commitment in the wee breasts of Scot Nats. I can see it is a good way to show distance with people you dislike,just like the general cultural wars that break out over tastes. But is there anything strongly positive?
In the subsequent statement, clarification was offered.There would indeed be a vote for the House to decide whether to accept the deal -- or just crash out of Europe anyway, on the most basic trade terms (the so-called WTO package). Take it or leave it in every sense.
Still had to be put to the vote though. The Govt won by 33 votes. Starmer still thinks the Govt would not dare crash out -- it is maybe just Remainer permanent incredulity at events.
The Guardian sketch writer thinks the whole thing was a stunt to square away rebel Tories who thought Parliament should get a vote on principle, without demanding what sort of vote it was. Most Tories subsequently voted to accept the May proposal, no doubt leaving their principles intact, while doing their career prospects no harm.
Most of the other amendments have been swatted away too today, including Scot Nat ones. Wee Nicola Sturgeon still got a pro-EU vote through her own Parliamentary mock-up and is still threatening to demand a new Independence Referendum for Scotland. The Graun offered some hope by saying 49% of those polled would now suppot it --but confessed that the 'don't knowns' had not been included.
There has only ever been one rare airing on the BBC of one problem with Soc Nats for Europe, when an interviewee said that he could not vote for Scottish withdrawal from the Union with England in the name of independence, only to vote for a new Union with Europe.
As with many Remainers, I still don't see why the EU raises such passionate commitment in the wee breasts of Scot Nats. I can see it is a good way to show distance with people you dislike,just like the general cultural wars that break out over tastes. But is there anything strongly positive?
Saturday 4 February 2017
Damp squib threatens rickety structure
All hopes for a Parliamentary delay or reversal have evaporated. The Supreme Court said the Government must get the approval of Parliament (but not the Scot Nats) before triggering Article 50. So the Government produced a very short Bill, asking Parliament to give the Prime Minister the power to trigger Article 50 after a mx of 5 days debate. It was passed with a large majority. It now has to go the House of Lords for discussion, then back to Parliament for final amendments. The Government subsequently produced a White Paper setting out its objectives (more or less as we knew them -- gain control over immigration and legislation, leave the Single Market and the Customs Union, try to get the best possible local deals for certain sectors of industry and the City). There are lots of amendments already tabled, but no-one now thinks this will prevent a trigger in March
What has not been discussed is some implications for the fabled British Constitution:
1. After all that effort,cost and debate, the Supreme Court itself may rule whatever it likes, but an effective Government can simply bypass its recommendations within a day or two -- the legislative clearly effortlessly outweighs 'the rule of law'
2. The crucial role of the Opposition amounts to nothing if they agree with the Government anyway (as happened with Labour, and usually does)
3. MPs are in some confusion about who or what exactly they represent in Parliament -- their party; their constituents or a majority of them (an argument for voting Remain despite a Labour Party whip); the national interest as represented by the Referendum, despite their own view; the real national interest which the idiots who voted Leave couldn't see but which they can (some Labour, all Libs and SNPs but only one Tory MP); the Constitution, which would have been in crisis if Parliament voted to reject the results of the Referendum (former Chancellor G Osbourne) . All of these arguments are accepted as valid by the meeja -- they just cancel each other out so that in effect MPs can represent whoever or whatever they want and always justify it.
Luvvies, who are majorly distracted by Trumpery at the moment anyway, seem able only to rehearse old and feeble arguments. Here is John Harris in a kind of anticipatory schadenfreude reminding us we may have to give up cheap off-season strawberries --such barbarism!
What has not been discussed is some implications for the fabled British Constitution:
1. After all that effort,cost and debate, the Supreme Court itself may rule whatever it likes, but an effective Government can simply bypass its recommendations within a day or two -- the legislative clearly effortlessly outweighs 'the rule of law'
2. The crucial role of the Opposition amounts to nothing if they agree with the Government anyway (as happened with Labour, and usually does)
3. MPs are in some confusion about who or what exactly they represent in Parliament -- their party; their constituents or a majority of them (an argument for voting Remain despite a Labour Party whip); the national interest as represented by the Referendum, despite their own view; the real national interest which the idiots who voted Leave couldn't see but which they can (some Labour, all Libs and SNPs but only one Tory MP); the Constitution, which would have been in crisis if Parliament voted to reject the results of the Referendum (former Chancellor G Osbourne) . All of these arguments are accepted as valid by the meeja -- they just cancel each other out so that in effect MPs can represent whoever or whatever they want and always justify it.
Luvvies, who are majorly distracted by Trumpery at the moment anyway, seem able only to rehearse old and feeble arguments. Here is John Harris in a kind of anticipatory schadenfreude reminding us we may have to give up cheap off-season strawberries --such barbarism!
Left-leaning people may... wonder [why] are businesses reliant on all that agency labour? But try coming up with a model of consumerism that avoids huge seasonal fluctuations. As Brexit may yet prove, coming down hard on this part of the economy would lead to lots of businesses going under.
It may turn out that the EU’s key contribution to Britain’s economy and society over the past 15 years was not the high-flown stuff about European cooperation and internationalism, but the way that it provided a huge pool of workers who would do jobs most British people would balk at [for shit wages], and thereby sustained a fragile mess of stagnating wages, skyrocketing credit, cheap food and consumerism-as-culture.
Millions of leave voters have experienced the magical [sic -- profit is magic for the bourgeoisie] benefits of all that just as much as those who voted remain. And if the whole model starts to unravel, their howls of dismay will be just as loud. It would be a very British outcome: in the land of having your cake and eating it, proof that if you play fast and loose with the people who do the baking, the fun soon stops.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)