EU Referendum

Showing posts with label politics. Show all posts

Darling[i-Darling]One feels, wearily, that one ought to be interested in the pre-budget report, a drama which is being dissected in the British media at this time. Frankly though, the displays in the House of Commons are ephemera. The devil lies in the detail – which will only emerge later.

And the big news from that front – according to the BBC? "More children to get free school meals"! This is what it has come down to. A goverment which once ruled over an Empire is reduced to making statements about free (i.e., taxpayer-funded) meals for school-kids.

For sure, the political classes prefer to focus on the short-term and the trivia. Events with more complex and longer-term outcomes tend to be given less attention – more so when the consequences are several steps removed from the immediate events.

Complex and multi-factoral causations are far too difficult for their minds to deal with, so they indulge themselves in their simplistic world view, so often summed up by the simple legend - it's the government's fault (insert name of whatever political party which is currently in the hot seat).

More to the point, we have sussed the politicians. Even the holders of high office are largely play-actors. The real action is off-stage and what matters there is who is pulling the strings, who is really in charge, and what the real agendas are. Thus we search for the puppet-masters and ignore the puppets.

Only the children are enthralled by the visible display and believe it is real. They watch little Darling, even though he is slave to events totally out of his control – as indeed is Mr Brown. They posture and prance. The claque shout, jeer and applaud, waiting for Mr Punch to deliver his knockout blow and Mr Plod the policeman to take him away.

Meanwhile, the power brokers are in Copenhagen, planning – if they can get their way – to re-shape the economies of the world and to commit vast sums to a malign endeavour which will cause misery around the world and on our own doorstep, the cost of which dwarfs the amount Mr Darling is playing with. But the consequences will not be immediately apparent, and the costs will be deferred and hidden.

Thus they can be ignored by the political classes and, when the effects are felt, the cause of the problem will be simple to diagnose: - it's the government's fault (insert name of whatever political party which is currently in the hot seat).

COMMENT THREAD

Opinion polls are generally taken with a pinch of salt, although they offer occasional entertainment. One such is the current Mori poll in The Observer which puts the Conservatives on 37 percent (down six), only six points ahead of Labour on 31 percent (up five). The Liberal Democrats are on 17 percent (down 2).

Commenting on the poll for the paper is Toby Helm, who used to be the Telegraph's Europe correspondent. He suggests that, on the basis of the figures, Britain could face a hung parliament, with the Tories 35 seats short of an overall majority.

In his analysis, however, Helm argues that Labour is benefiting from "optimism about the economy". Strangely, in quite a long piece, the EU is not mentioned, with absolutely no reference to Cameron's row-back on the referendum. The "elephant in the room" is alive and well.

There may, of course, be other more plausible reasons for this sudden dip in the polls – if it is real. Not a few commenters on Tory Boy Blog seem to think that the Tory line on the EU is at least partly responsible.

That is certainly the impression we get. Cameron's "breach of faith" over the referendum seems to be far more damaging than even we expected. And it is not so much “Europe" that is at issue – more the perception that the Boy is another of those politicians who can't keep his promises.

For all that, it's only a poll – the next one could be very different, or even the same. What matter is the real poll on the day, and that is not for six months yet. But, if you count straws in the wind, this one says that Cameron's quasi-conservatives are in trouble. The people aren't buying his message.

COMMENT THREAD

queens+speech[i-queens+speech]
There seems a resolute determination in some quarters of the media to deny reality, something which is especially noticeable in The Daily Telegraph leader today.

"The State Opening of Parliament symbolises constitutional continuity," it gushes, its earlier pages offering huge pictures of the Royal procession to the throne. "It is an event intended to reassert the supremacy of Parliament," something, we are told, "that is desperately needed after conceivably the worst few months for the institution since the Civil War."

This, however, is less than two weeks to go before the Lisbon treaty comes into force, when Parliament takes another hit, on top of those it has already taken, further diminishing its powers and importance, as its primary legislative function is dragged over to Brussels.

In theory, Parliament is still supreme, but in fact, having outsourced most of its powers, it is but a hollow shell. There is nothing much left but the symbolism. Small wonder that the newspaper noted "something distinctly Lilliputian" about the proceedings. The Queen read out fewer words than were contained in the Telegraph editorial. The Commons Chamber, where there is normally standing room only for such an event, was barely two-thirds full.

Ben Brogan, the paper's political hack, nevertheless argued that the the Queen's Speech was all about "naked politics", in which there was some comfort to be found. Politics is the means by which we can start a debate about a programme for rebuilding Britain, he writes.

Beguiled by the Westminster bubble, Brogan believes that only the Conservatives can lead this programme. Voters may be fed up, even jaded, but they are not uninterested in the question of what happens next in our island story. "They will," says our egregious hack, "want to hear far more from Mr Cameron about this work of renewal before he gets to ask the Queen to read his speech."

Many voters, however, seem to think otherwise. Via WfW we see in the Tory Party Blog Eric Pickles counting down to victory, only to have the bulk of his commentators remind him about that inconvenient treaty, and Mr Cameron's desertion of his referendum promise.

Like the MPs who could not be bothered to attend the Commons chamber yesterday, they too have seen through the hollow charade, which leaves the pomp and circumstance of the Queen's Speech, but none of the substance. A more honest Parliament would have the ring of stars to flying over its Houses.

COMMENT THREAD

drain[i-drain]"The public has now so lost interest in politics ... that having a few more months of this Parliament may distress commentators and the highly politically motivated, but it probably won't matter at all to the electorate." That is Heffer in The Daily Telegraph today, talking about the Queen's speech.

He is right, after a fashion. It is almost as if a light had gone out - we look at our political classes performing and it is like watching an obscure soap opera on the television, broadcast in a foreign language. But it is not only a lack of interest. Simply, what is going on has no meaning, no relationship with the real world, no relevance, nothing to which people can relate.

Where there was once stuff of seemingly vital interest, where you would drop whatever it was that you were doing to watch the TV, is now of no relevance at all. Many times, I find myself skipping over political stories in the newspaper, or on the net – one simply can't be bothered listening to or reading what they have to say. As for political blogs, without even realising it, I've largely stopped reading them ... not consciously – one just forgets them.

To suggest that this is apathy would be completely to misunderstand the mood. "Indifference" gets close, but it even that does not really describe it. The mood is larded with cold contempt, the sort that could very easily turn into anger ... if we could even be bothered.

Elsewhere, we see that awful story of the man stuck head-first in a drain, screaming for help only to have his cries ignored. Unaware of his plight, his neighbours simply rolled over and went back to sleep.

The closest we can get perhaps is that, even if we were aware that the political system had its head stuck in a drain and was drowning (which is probably the case), we would still roll over and go back to sleep. It is that bad.

COMMENT THREAD

BNP+protest[i-BNP+protest]
In Nick Griffin, we have a minor and third-rate politician from a no-hoper party with next to no electoral prospects in the UK, a dysfunctional organisation, minuscule membership and precious few funds – espousing an incoherent political doctrine which would fall apart if seriously challenged.

Through the vagaries of the proportional representation system, he has managed to get himself and a colleague elected to the empty posts of the EU parliament members, which has given him a certain status and notoriety, reinforced by the inability of mainstream parties to mount an effective counter.

Taking note of that position, the BBC has invited him onto the panel of a political talk-show, a programme so dire that one seriously wonders why anyone other than the political nerds ever bother to watch it.

The obvious and most logical response is to yawn wearily, let those who care enough to watch do so, in the expectation that, in the light of public exposure, the vacuity of his position will become obvious and his political creed will wither away.

Yet, the response has been to elevate this minor and uninteresting event into a media orgy, with attendant "riots", recriminations, commentary and, of course, copious media appearances of the man himself. Griffin himself could not have wished for better response, one which he has been quick to acknowledge, with fulsome thanks to the BBC.

The point, of course, is exactly as we made yesterday. A robust, healthy and self-confident political system could swat aside the likes of Griffin, demolish his political arguments and consign him to obscurity.

Thus, in the category "they doth protest too much", the political claque, in its grossly disproportional response to the BBC programme, is demonstrating not its strength but its own weakness and lack of confidence.

In giving the issue such prominence, the media is also reinforcing another malign tendency – the increasing inability to distinguish between that which is important and of lasting consequence, and that which is ephemeral and of very little importance.

Furthermore, the media and the political classes are displaying another their malign characteristics – over-reacting now, when an earlier and more considered response would have had a greater and more far-reaching effect.

Almost alone of the political blogs, we were writing frequently about the BNP, highlighting what we saw as a serious and important political phenomenon. My writing was misinterpreted by some as expressing support, which was never the case.

My sympathies were and remain with those who feel so alienated from the mainstream political system that they feel impelled to support the party. And that, it seems, is precisely what the political classes cannot deal with. Thus, with their own vacuity exposed, they turn upon the unlikely "boy" who dares remark that the emperor is abroad without his expected attire.

With that, one can only wonder – to the point of despair – about the degradation of our political system. Unlike many hundreds of thousands, or even millions, I will not be watching the BBC programme. Apart from the occasional glimpse at the news, I have long since stopped watching the BBC – and television in general. This programme is no good reason for changing that happy arrangement. I have better things to do with my time.

Instead, almost by way of protest, I am putting this up early, as my overnight post. With all the important things going on in this world, I can scarce contain my disgust at the appalling bad judgement, not of the BBC but of the media and the political classes in propelling Griffin to the top of the political agenda, while – as always – ignoring issues of so much more importance.

If this is what political discourse has come to, I am not that sure I want to be part of it any more.

COMMENT THREAD

I was going to put up this comment on the forum, then decided to open it up (for what it's worth) to the readership of the blog. I have already written about Jury Team and their ideas on how to improve politics in this country and shall do so again when I checked out their candidates and whether any of them have actually understood how the EU is structured and how it functions. (Hint: I hold out no great hopes.)

I am fully in agreement with the boss: the main purpose of Jury Team is most probably to draw support away from the BNP, the existing anti-party party. The Tories have finally realized that it is not only from Labour that the party of national as opposed to international socialism will be drawing votes.

But what of the party system? Well, this is what I was going to put up on the forum. Here it is, instead.

We have had a party system since the early eighteenth century if not from the days of the Restoration. How is it a current canker? Either it was always that or it is not that now. If you want to see what a political system is like without paties but with all the other appertunances of democracy, take a good look at Russia.

In what way is it an improvement to have people who are so arrogant that they think their views and opinions expressed in a pub or round a dinner table make them eligible for a political position in Parliament or the European Parliament when they cannot be bothered to find out the first thing about the institutions they want to participate in?

There we are. Enjoy Maundy Thursday.

COMMENT THREAD

Ayn_Rand+02[i-Ayn_Rand+02]It is the Ides of March and, therefore, issues of importance need to be looked at. Not that the EU is not important but, in many ways, it is the symptom, not the cause.

Yesterday I did a longish stint on the BBC Russian Service and, in the course of it, spent two minutes talking about the growing popularity of Ayn Rand's novel "Atlas Shrugged" in the United States and the ever more frequent signs of "Who is John Galt?" appearing at the continuing Tea Parties across the country. (This movement has been documented extensively by Instapundit, Sister Toldjah and Michelle Malkin, among others.)

Continue reading here ...

Spitzer[i-Spitzer]Well, it had to happen. In this posting I turn briefly to the hilariously funny and rich with moral lessons saga of Eliot Spitzer, former Attorney General of New York and, more recently, former Governor of New York.

I am not going to go through the whole story of his fall. In my view, his unethical and legally dubious behaviour as Attorney General is far more important. One interesting aspect of that is the collusion of the, mostly, “liberal” media of the United States with Spitzer in his astonishing rejection of anything resembling rules of behaviour. For anyone who is interested there can be nothing better than Kimberley Strassel’s summary here.

This being the United States and not the United Kingdom, the blogs had run with stories about the real Spitzer for some time with only the Wall Street Journal and the New York Post joining in.

In so far as any of his cases were discussed by the British media the same phenomenon occurred – Spitzer was attacking those nasty fat cats of Wall Street and nothing was too bad for them. The fact that he behaved unethically, provided next to no evidence of real wrongdoing, effectively practiced shaking-down and had the few cases that went to court thrown out was lost in the image of the knight in shining armour who protects the little man (as long as said little man did not own shares in one of the companies Spitzer decided to destroy).

It is extraordinary how many commentators still accept that narrative.

What I would like to concentrate on is a much more interesting take on the story by the RealClearPolitics blog. Robert Tracinski gets rid of the idea that somehow this was the weakness of an otherwise noble man. As one or two other people have noted there is nothing Shakespearian in this tragedy. In fact, it is not even a tragedy and Spitzer is no Othello (though how that man could have been a successful general without the slightest ability to understand people or work out who was and who was not worthy of promotion has never been clear to me).

The real lesson here is the continuity between Spitzer's professional career and the scandal that ended it. The common theme of his public and personal life is identified, ironically enough, in the preposterously pompous name of the call girl ring Spitzer patronized: the "Emperor's Club VIP." That says it all, doesn't it? Spitzer wanted to puff himself up as an "emperor," a big-shot VIP who is the center of everyone's attention, with everyone else just there to bow to his whims.

Spitzer, in this author’s opinion is a genuine sociopath, a man unable to see anyone as a separate entity from himself. What one must remember is that in the United States an Attorney-General is an elected politician with all of that breed’s vices and weaknesses.

Mr Tracinski then outlines the basic conundrum of politics with one interesting exception:

Eliot Spitzer is a timeless example of the basic conundrum of government: the fact that anyone who really wants to wield power is, by that very fact, the last person who should be allowed to do so. I call this the Washington Conundrum, named after George Washington--who is arguably the first man in history to demonstrate the solution: the only person who can safely be allowed to wield power is someone who seeks it out of dedication to the cause of liberty.

But take away the love of liberty--and the ideological framework of individual rights that supports it--and we return to the squalid pattern of most of human history: power not only corrupts, but attracts, rewards, and promotes the most corrupt types of human character.

Without the love of liberty and the principles of liberty, we don't get George Washingtons in public office. Instead, we get the Emperor's Club VIPs--self-aggrandizing thugs like Eliot Spitzer.

This is one of those “up to a point” statements. Of course, it is absolutely true that anybody who wants to wield power or, as in the case of our politicians, wants to pretend to wield power and have all the accoutrements of it without the reality, should be barred from any such position for life. But then, how do we ever get anyone to take up a public office?

washingtonfamily[i-washingtonfamily]One could try something along the lines of the jury service – if you are summonsed, you have to be a Member of Parliament for five years – but I can see a few practical problems with that.

The alternative might be something along the lines of the American Constitution, which laid down very strict rules of how far the power of any of the three branches of government can reach. Even that can be breached by individuals temporarily and institutions more permanently.

One problem I have with that statement is that paean of praise to George Washington and, I may add, many of his contemporaries had a problem as well when he decided that his country needed him to come out of retirement and become President. But, at least, after two terms he retired back to private life and stayed there. Well, more or less. Even his love of liberty could not prevent him from taking on public offices.

The real difficulty is the definition of “love of liberty” or, indeed, any other reason why someone might try to acquire power. Some politicians, of course, have no particular notion of anything but wanting to be elected (if that is the system they live in) and then to be re-elected but most believe that they have some idea of doing good in the world.

I have no doubt that Eliot Spitzer did see himself as the knight in shining armour who wanted to deal with the rottenness and wrongness of big business. Of course, he might also have been a highly cynical personality who knew that fighting big business and shaking down CEs of big companies would make him popular and propel him further up on the political ladder. Or he was a bit of both.

If truth be told, the altruistic politician, the one who wants power to do the people good is considerably more dangerous than the amiable rogue who can easily be swayed by political opinion.

What, ultimately, every politician needs is that famous slave who whispers in his ear: “Remember thou art mortal”. What the rest of us need is not some mythical character or even several of them who will strive for power out of altruism or high principles but a system that would prevent them from imposing that altruism on the rest of us.

LAND+-+Humvee+005[i-LAND+-+Humvee+005]Such is the general disdain for things military shown by my more politically savvy colleagues and rivals, who feel they have far more important things to write about than men (and women) fighting and dying, that I almost feel impelled to apologise for writing another post about things military.

For the sake of this blog too, which always shows a slight downturn in readership when we deal intensively with military matters, one tends to the view that we should avoid the subject for a while and write about more popular issues in order to maintain the hit rate.

However, safe in the knowledge that vital matters of state are being closely monitored here and here, I feel we can nevertheless attend to what many are treating as a trivial issue - the "grim milestone" of the 3,000th recorded US military death since the invasion of Iraq.

If in so doing we are taking a side-swipe at UK political blogs, it is not only because this event is important in its own right but also because it is a political event, and one of some significance to the UK. The reaction to it by the American public will have an impact on our own foreign policy in that vital area of the Middle East, and also on the fate of our troops committed to the theatre, that in itself having political repercussions.

link[i-link]That our own bloggers are so heedless of such issues, however, is not so much a reflection on them as on the body politic as a whole. It – rather like the media - has become so introverted and wedded to its own internal affairs that it has ceased to understand the relevance of such tedious things as foreign policy and defence matters – unless a cheap debating point can be scored.

Nevertheless, of the several points arising from this sad event which are of political concern to us, all are hugely important. The first one is that, while the US military has now suffered 3,000 fatalities, in comparative terms, we are not that far behind. The US currently maintains an establishment of 134,000 in theatre against the UK's 7,200. If we maintained the same number, our fatalities (currently standing at 127) would, on a pro rata basis, have reached nearly 2,500. And that is in a supposedly more peaceful sector where there is no sectarian rivalry.

link[i-link]For the Americans, the biggest single cause of deaths from enemy action is the improvised explosive device (or IED) which has accounted for a third of US casualties. That brings us to the second point of political concern to us: roughly a third of UK combat casualties have also been caused by IEDs.

Third, in both cases, the casualty rate has been needlessly high as a result of reliance on inadequately armoured patrol vehicles, in the US case the Humvees and with us the "Snatch" Land Rovers.

link[i-link]Fourthly, in both instances, some improvements are being made. The US is fielding RG-31s, Cougars and Buffaloes, the latter two vehicles being extraordinarily resistant to IEDs. (The photographs show three instances of Buffaloes hit by IEDS, with the crews walking away unharmed.) The UK, on the other hand, is fielding up-armoured FV432s, known as Bulldogs, and Mastiffs.

Fifth, the rate of introduction of these vehicles is too slow, in the US sector, and – with the UK, overly delayed. In both cases, it is a question of too little too late.

LR208[i-LR208]Finally, both governments are going to have to make tough decisions in the near future. They are going to have look at public reaction to the current (and likely future) casualty rates and assess whether they are politically sustainable - in our case, how many more "Snatch" Land Rovers we are prepared to see burn.

If the respective governments conclude that they are going to let the casualties mount at the same rate, then they are going to have to work out how to neutralise the hostile sentiment as the figures increase. If, on the other hand, they decide that the death rates must be contained, then they are going to have to spend serious money on countermeasures.

In the UK, that means billions in new money. And, given the parlous state of public finances and the already over-stretched budget, spending more on defence - especially on an unpopular war - is going to have major political consequences. It could even be one of the issues which influences the outcome of the general election, when other "services" have to be cut in order to buy kit for our troops. And the Party that is able to make the most convincing noises about supplying that kit will garner many new votes.

As we asserted, therefore, the death of 3,000 Americans is not only a "grim milestone" in human terms. It is also a political milestone, on both sides of the Atlantic. It is indeed a measure of the failure of the body politic that it cannot see (or understand) its significance. And, for remarking on that, I make no apologies.

COMMENT THREAD