it needs…
1 Like
It’s always possible, of course, but my guess is that @almondbiscuit is right - people don’t seem to care and the media is complicit. Striking example of this with the RN ship that happened to go though territorial waters claimed by Russia with BBC and Daily Mail reporters on board - object lesson in how the news agenda can be controlled to manufacture any number of distractions.
@John_Scully 's allusion to ‘practicalities’ and @ChrisM 's to ‘marks on ballot papers’ and ‘the Enlightenment’ though remind me of discussions we’ve had on SF before - about BLM etc - about how the enlightenment and its ‘liberal democracy’ philosophy, both for the American ‘founding fathers’ and the European ‘enlightenment’ greats like Locke and Voltaire, was not about real ‘democracy’ - some of these men were slave-owners, Locke himself was involved in drafting a state constitution which rejected universal suffrage - actually even white male ‘universal’ suffrage.
When enlightenment writers refer to democracy or free speech or human rights in general they don’t mean everybody - what they really mean is the rights of a certain class and colour and sex. Hence the American electoral college system was quite openly - explicitly - designed to prevent any power passing to the people in general.
So what was the enlightenment?
On one level, it was a ‘dawn’ of awareness of a way of looking at the world different from the old medieval or feudal domination of church and bloodline (lord and king), so on that level it was progress - but it was also just another historically specific transition: from the ideology of feudalism to the ideology of capitalism - the transition of power from royalty and aristocracy and church not to the people in general, but to property-owning men. It was just one aspect of the birth pains of capitalism as it emerged from feudalism in Europe, and was exported or imposed on other parts of the world.
We see it as ‘enlightenment’ because we are still inside it - it is our ‘light’ - but it’s easy actually to expose its partiality, by asking the question 'why do key core values of ‘liberal democracy’ only extend to parliamentary elections, not to say the insides of businesses (firms) and other organisations? (The fight for real democracy, both in government and other areas of life (the trade union, co-operative, etc, movements) has been carried on for the last 250 years largely against the defenders of ‘liberal democracy’ - even at the level of political elections, some rich people in the UK had more than one vote until 1948, not all black people in America really had votes until the 1960s, and in some ways, some still don’t - indeed political organisations that directly reference the Enlightenment or American Revolution, like the Tea Party, evidently still don’t want them to have it. The fight goes on).
I wonder if an analogy with quantum mechanics might help see this clearly? In the ‘Copenhagen’ interpretation, when the wave function collapses we ‘see’ the sub-atomic particle in a particular place and time, but only because we are also in that place and time, that reality. For other observers, the particle is somewhere else (in the ‘multiverse’). What we experience, and measure, etc, is not what’s ‘really’ there, it’s just all we can see.
In the same way, the common sense, practical, obvious political ‘universe’ we experience - that appears so natural and solid - which every BBC or any other UK mainstream media programme assumes to be ‘real’ - in which for example ‘democracy’ is right for government, but not for firms and property relations (the real infrastructure of capitalism) - is similarly just one historically and locally specific ‘practicality’. They’re not allowed (excuse the pun) to ‘think outside the box’!
2 Likes
I’m guessing that no-one else has seen Peter Greenaway’s “The Cook, the Thief, His Wife & Her Lover” then?
Undoubtably the tolerance level to sleaze has increased significantly and it’s more like a smoking howitzer that’s needed these days. I can only hope (probably in vain) that a “women’s lives matter”
Regarding the HMS Defender’s unilateral challenge to the might of Russia, I think Sir Tony Brenton who served as British Ambassador in Moscow from 2004–2008 summed it up very well on PM… He starts at 47:00 into the programme.
1 Like
Good example for my perspective John - pointing out that it was stupid posturing - but only within a particular frame of reference that constrains the mainstream media. Hence no mention of the ‘coincidence’ that BBC and Daily Mail (!) reporters happened to be on board - the key fact that reveals that the real purpose had nothing to do with Russia, and nobody in the UK government really cares about the effect on international relations, etc, because the target audience was in the UK, and the real purpose of all this ‘east of suez’ ‘global Britain’ stuff, now that the old EU scapegoat is fading, is to pick new enemies and distractions.
They don’t care, John - just as they don’t care if Starmer fillets Johnson at PMQs - because the messages they’re interested in the public hearing - and what the public does hear, are precisely ‘they’re all the same’, ‘there’s no real alternative’, ‘look at our Great British macho posturing against Johnny Foreigner’, ‘let’s get behind Great Britain!’
1 Like
Absolutely Geof, it’s gunboat diplomacy, on a shoestring budget.
This will probably end Alice Roberts’ BBC TV career…
1 Like
Chris Grey in good form as ever this week I won’t go over his well rehearsed arguments regarding the effect of Brexit on the division of the nation but he quotes Frost from his recent speech
My contention would be that Frost is misguided - as the article points out there is a lot of anger about Brexit, even amongst those who accept there won’t be a rejoin campaign any time soon but he can come to this conclusion in part because no-one is systematically holding the government to account on the Brexit implementation.
Corbyn was MIA as LOTO, sadly apart from a few meaningless exchanges at PMQ’s Starmer is just as ineffective.
Not so much a gunboat as a pédalo and an air pistol given the pitiful state of the UK’s armed forces.
2 Likes
An article echoing some of my perspectives above, but finding room for more optimism…
Beckett is new-ish in the Guardian, and is not a great writer - but has undeniable insights. Biggest issue I would have with this article is that although I agree that…
Ever since the 2008 financial crisis, much of our politics has been a search for scapegoats, for people to blame for the ending of the relative prosperity and stability of the 90s and 2000s. Attacking the liberal left is a good way of drawing attention away from the real causes of today’s deep environmental and economic crises: Conservative free-market capitalism and the consumer appetites of voters themselves.
… I also think climate/ecological breakdown will keep pushing voters to extremes, so I see no return to ‘more consensual’ politics.
1 Like
I think a threat of violence in NI is a “big picture” issue Chris. One that should have been given due consideration by Johnson and his team, but wasn’t. If the NIP had been sold in NI properly it could have been seen as the wonderful opportunity it is for the dreadful NI economy and not an opportunity for the throwback Unionists to whinge like hell and stir up discontent. If you have a VPN this edition of Newsnight is very informative. The current NI standoff is totally down to Johnson’s lies, indifference and incompetence.
I would argue that the EU thought “things were agreed” but the UK didn’t, it can’t even seem to live with the agreements they negotiated and signed only months ago.
It would appear that the third raters in power have confused “sovereignty” with doing whatever they like. As proven , for example, by the solo run in the Crimea.
Non of these people are IMO capable of delivering on any of the importent “big ticket” items you identify. They are just untrustworthy sycophants.
2 Likes
To be honest Chris, I do believe that these guys just don’t give a damn and that we have subconsciously become inured to their behaviour. Look at what the bastard Hancock has done, he handed out government contacts to cronies, he’s appointed his bit of fluff to a government job, then made it a paying job, he’s cavorting with her in the office - like a schoolboy. He’s broken his own covid rules having sanctimoniously endorsed Prof. Ferguson’s resignation over a similar incident. He’s made a complete mess of the pandemic and caused tens of thousands of unnecessary deaths and yet, un-fucking-believably he doesn’t think he should resign. And the lying, cheating, fornicating plonker he works for agrees.
Sorry Chris, take Johnson, Raab, Patel, Williamson, Shapps, Hancock, Truss, Coffey, Frost, Eustice, Kwarteng, Jenrick, the idiot Wallace and his Yangtse incident moment this week and Gove, a man who makes Gollum seem a paragon of integrity. I’m prepared to listen to anything good these people have done, but I’ve yet to discover it. They are, IMHO, the worst bunch I’ve ever seen.
8 Likes
@John_Scully
John, yep, thanks, I now see the error of my ways. Keir being ´rational’ etc is not sufficient to hold the current disingenuous basterds to account. Perhaps someone with more fire-in-the-belly is needed now, and Keir would have been more appropriate against the lesser-evils of May/Cameron etc.
But who?
I know you’ve answered this before by suggesting Miliband, but it just seems Keir is not only forced to play Captain as well as Coach, but multiple key attack and defensive positions due to a lack of field strength.
(I was going to try using forwards/backs but too confusing with football/rugby).
e.g. Rayner had good ideas but was inarticulate. No-one in shadow-cabinet gets good media.
All these people knocking Keir find it easy to criticise, but aren’t suggesting any alternatives.
I’m genuinely curious to see who they would throw their support against.
1 Like
A passionate, convincing and well-written post John - the one thing I’m not sure about is the ‘bit of fluff’ - I haven’t read the salacious details, but isn’t she a mature, experienced, professional lobbyist? Chances are she’s a hell of a lot brighter than Hancock, anyway, and for all we know might not only - or mainly - be interested in him as a lover. Which makes it worse, I guess.
1 Like
I do think Starmer is in a difficult position - he would indeed have been more effective in the more consensual political environment pre-2010. On the NIP, for example, the real issues are that (a) it’s only needed because the Tories recklessly went for a hard brexit, (b) they agreed to the NIP as a solution to the problem caused by (a), then immediately tried to renege on the agreement, and (c) there are obvious solutions, but they involve some kind of alignment with the EU which the Tories won’t accept either. The problem for Starmer is that in attacking any or all of this stupidity he aligns himself perfectly with the EU - and in the present ‘extremes’ political environment this would place him squarely in the ‘unpatriotic metropolitan urban woke elite’ (or whatever) silo. So he’s damned whatever he does: his choices are to be ineffectual, or be Corbyn.
His problem lies precisely in his ‘constructive opposition’ third-way kind of politics - and interestingly this is precisely why he is also making a total mess of internal party management.
You mention Rayner, Chris, and her good ideas but inarticulacy. I’m not sure about the latter - but also I’m not sure if it really matters much in the current political environment. I do think that a working-class woman might in principle make a better opponent of Johnson - at least at PMQs etc exploding the men-in-suits-public-school-debating-society image that comes across to most people, and reintroducing some Corbyn-style reality. She would of course be ripped apart by the media (I wouldn’t wish it on her) - and as with the manufactured anti-semitism thing, if they found nothing true to pin on her they will just make stuff up. But I guess she’s pretty strong.
(On articulation in general, by the way, do you know the work of linguists like Labov - The Logic of Non-Standard English was one research report I remember reading. They recorded people putting forward an argument in standard English, then in the non-standard English of the research title (I recall mainly black kids in disadvantaged neighbourhoods in New York). When they played them back to listeners, the majority thought the standard English arguments were better; but in fact - when analysed methodically by logicians - the non-standard arguments were better. Interesting stuff.)
@Geof_Cox
Thanks Geof. I am not trying to convince anyone either way, I am just trying to gauge the emotional versus rational motivations for the wave of anti-Starmer sentiment. I didn’t understand it in the media, but this forum has given me a better idea. Again, I oversimplify a lot, but it seems the first and foremost need is a voice for discontent at cronyism and incompetence (even the Torygraph is against Hancock now, his days are clearly numbered).
Yes, unconscious bias is a fascinating topic, I’m going to try to find the article you mention. I’ve undertaken unconscious bias tests and they are very eye-opening, however identifying and acknowledging it is difficult, and whilst I did learn from your Enlightenment piece, the dawn, whilst not perfect, was a necessary progression towards the brightly lit midday of reason.
I agree Rayner is strong, however her social media feed littered with spelling mistakes (but now the BBC is as well, I’ve wasted too much time emailing their editorial/complaints team as a lost cause) and some of her interviews initially seemed to me to be evasive and limited to a smaller scope than some of the other candidates for leader, and also seemed a little lost at the beginning of her deputyship, perhaps this is good training ground for her.
Again, there seems to me to be a dearth of talent available. Would you prefer Rayner be the LOTO against Boris right now, or someone else?
Rayner has the strongest base in the membership, so would be the most realistic prospect, and better than Starmer I think - IF she would be willing (this is a very serious question for a left-inclined Labour leader, because they will have their character viciously assassinated, and for a working-class woman in this position it will be particularly personal and nasty).
Of the leadership candidates last time I rate Clive Lewis highly - interestingly he advocates the ‘progressive alliance’ idea (my own view is that Labour has to co-operate/merge with the Greens - or steal their clothes like the Tories did with UKIP - without this Labour die (as the Tories would have); co-operation with the LibDems, other than the odd local arrangement, is more problematic, because Labour’s activist base would evaporate, the Greens would mop up all the left votes, and soft Tories probably hold their noses and go back to the Tories anyway - given the current move to the right by the Tories it’s probably best for Labour to have the LibDems as a separate repository for soft Tory votes).
I also rate David Lammy - who thought about standing last time - and Emily Thornberry - and of course John McDonnell.
But actually I think there are lots of good candidates - it’s always hard to see ability in people that have not been in office or in the public eye, until they are.
2 Likes
I really like Hilary Benn, but I liked and admired his father as well.
2 Likes
Many years ago I spent a lovely couple of hours with Tony Benn. I was Treasurer of ICOM (the Industrial Common Ownership Movement) and we were hosting him on a visit to the Toad Lane Co-op museum in Rochdale - the staff member supposed to be showing him round was taken ill at the last minute, and I had to step in even though I didn’t really know the museum. Still, we had a great time looking round and sharing stories - lovely man.
That evening he did his famous ‘cabaret’ with folk-singer Roy Bailey - a mix of old and new radical folk songs and Tony’s readings from left history and his own diaries - brilliant stuff (there are clips on Youtube etc).
I haven’t met Hilary but he comes across very well on television etc.
1 Like
It is, and always has been naïve to think that Brexit can be “done” as a single point-in-time event.
It is an ongoing process which can be handled more - or less - intelligently and right now I’d say that the government is making a total hash of it and making the UK look more and more of a set of fools as they try to wriggle out of the more burdensome problems of their own making by ignoring parts of an international treaty that they negotiated and signed because they did so only to get elected and never intended to honour it anyway.
Given that sectors as diverse as fisheries, musicians, hauliers, the steel industry, food exporters, farmers, finance, manufacturing, research, pharmaceuticals, airlines, horse racing and even pigeon fanciers have been negatively affected, not to mention the integrity of the Union itself (which a silly song will not patch back together - in fact the opposite) and the Northern Ireland peace process, yes I bloomin’ well do expect Starmer to have something to stay - yet he stays quiet.
Would you like to name a “big ticket” item not affected in some way by Brexit?
Starmer wanted to be leader of the Labour party, he presumably wants to be PM - solving problems not of your own making comes as part of the job description.
The Tories use the “it’s a hard job” excuse, sorry, it doesn’t wash. If you can’t do the job feck off and let someone else who can have a go.
No, that’s not his role at the moment.
It’s a pertinent question, certainly one I have been asking myself - how did this affair come about? Was the position and salary, not to mention contracts for her brother Hancock attempting to curry favour and improve his chances with someone he wanted to bed or was the affair a way of manipulating him. It’s pretty bad either way.
However I agree with Geof on this point:
This was never more true than in deciding whether to support the TCA, it was a poor deal but the only one on the table and the alternative worse so he was dammed whatever he did.
He can’t attack Brexit itself, that much is clear, nor the referendum even given the obvious problems of validity, he can attack the incompetence and the sleaze and hold the government to account on the bad behaviour and lack of adherence with their own agreement.
He has an uphill battle with the media but the mainstream press holds less sway than previously - the modern battlefront is online. I hate to say it but Labour could do with a left wing version of Cummings and I don’t see it at present.
Good stuff is coming from Led by Donkeys, The Churchill Project and Byline Times but I don’t see anything as effective from Labour itself (that said I’m probably not the target audience).
3 Likes