The trapped nerve in my left arm which prevented me from writing a couple of blogs before the election, is forcibly making itself known to me again today, with the result that typing this sends shooting pains down my arm.
But my almost pathological need to share my thoughts is greater than the pain hence some short observations.
Teresa May reminds me of Oliver Hardy. It was reported earlier by the BBC that
Theresa May has apologised to Tory MPs for the party’s election performance, telling them “I got us into this mess I’ll get us out of it.”
Although thinking about it Hardy would accuse Laurel of getting him into “Another fine mess!”. And although she has landed us in a mess, certainly, fine however it is far from.
Actually it has just occurred to me who she better reminds me of. Charlie Croaker. Who? The loveable criminal played by Michael Caine in ‘The Italian Job’. Who, when his gang of chancer’s attempts to flee Europe with the gold after the robbery, the coach they’re escaping on slides on a narrow mountain road, resulting in the back of the bus is left teetering over a cliff and the gold slides towards the rear doors. As Croker attempts to reach the gold, it slips further. The film finishes on a literal cliffhanger with Croker announcing he has a “great idea”.
Let’s hope she has.
*********************************
Appointing Michael Gove as the Environment Minister is rather like appointing Katie Price as a marriage guidance counsellor, because when he was Education Minster, he tried to get the teaching of climate change taken off the National Curriculum!
************************************
It’s ironic that the D.U.P’s Arlene Foster believes in devolution because she doesn’t believe in evolution!
I’ll admit it, she nearly has me fooled, her impression of a leader who was courageous and unafraid. All of her campaign – almost presidential – went to great lengths to draw an unflattering comparison between the supposed weaknesses of Jeremy Corbyn against the steely determination of Teresa May. It was only when it was actually tested however, that we saw her for what she really is.
She reminds me of second rate criminal in a third rate Hollywood film, who even when the cops confront her with overwhelming evidence of her crimes and arrest her, refuses to accept the new reality in which she funds herself and in her deluded state, makes plans on that basis. In what possible universe does Teresa May think her repeated claims of ‘strong and stable’ leadership is anything other than as questionable as it is illusory?
It is almost as laughable as her agreement ‘in principle’ to enter into a deal with the D.U.P. Principled? She has shown herself to have none – well one, if you consider clinging on to power like a chubnut a principle – whilst the D.U.P have principles certainly, just some distasteful ones. So if Mays campaign thought it was fair enough to repeatedly attempt to smear Corbyn with the utterly fallacious claim that he was a terrorist sympathiser, what are we to make of her doing a deal ‘in principle’ with a hard-line political party that has links to one of Northern Irelands former loyalist paramilitary groups?
What about her claim that because Corbyn met Gerry Adams that he was in some way unfit to be Prime Minister? This rather continently overlooks the rather uncomfortable historical fact that years earlier, the British government was holding ‘back channel’ talks with the I.R.A. that helped bring about the Good Friday agreement. Indeed her even countenancing entering into talks with the D.U.P, let alone sending her Chief Whip, Gavin Williamson, to discuss what the terms might be not only underline how manifestly unsuitable she is to conduct any Brexit negotiations – possibly being beholden to the D.U.P and the E.U knowing it. But it also demonstrates her willingness to put at risk the Northern Ireland Good Friday agreement, which ended decades of sectarian violence How this is so – and what might happen if it does is explained with greater insight than me here.
Teresa May is to ‘strong and stable leadership’ what prayer is to, well anything really. As she’ll find out when an ‘in principle’ agreement with extreme god botherers falls apart. In fact by the time you read this, it might have fallen apart already!
Because this indeed is the day. Never before in my generation has the choice facing the electorate been starker. The choice is between two competing visions of how we think our society should be structured. And there is a choice once again, for Labour under Corbyn has regained what it lost under Blair.
For me it’s about fundamental values.
For me, it’s easy.
For me, it’s Labour.
******************************************
And being the sadsack I am, I’ll be staying up to watch the results come in on the BBC.
I mean, who watches ITV?
Anyway, I’ll be drinking champagne whilst eating pickled onion Monster Munch and intermittently blogging. As I get progressively more champagne-tastic, so my spelling will get worse.
The news yesterday that Teresa May would, if elected,
Change human rights laws if they “get in the way” of tackling terror suspects.
She said she wants to do more to restrict the freedom of those posing a threat and to deport foreign suspects.
The UK could seek opt-outs from the European Convention on Human Rights, which it has abided by since 1953
This makes me think if this blog I wrote three years ago about privacy; specifically it focused on the dichotomy between why politicians claim they are needed, under what circumstances they’ll be used and on whom and the practical implementation of them. Politicians are not in the habit of increasing our civil liberties.
*************************************************
I’d always supposed Saudi Arabia to be joyless kind of place. But it seems I was wrong! The ruling elite there in fact do posses a keen sense of irony. Who knew? It wasn’t so much that Saudi Arabia was given a seat on the UN women’s rights committee, meaning that it is now one of 45 countries sitting on a panel
promoting women’s rights, documenting the reality of women’s lives throughout the world, and shaping global standards on gender equality and the empowerment of women
That was laughably absurd, rather like putting a fox in charge of security for a chicken coop. But it was their cutting of diplomatic ties with Qatar on Monday because Qatar that really put the matter beyond doubt. The BBC reported that;
Broadly, two key factors drove Monday’s decision: Qatar’s ties to Islamist groups, and to Iran, Saudi Arabia’s regional rival.
Wealthy individuals in Qatar are believed to have made donations and the government has given money and weapons to hardline Islamist groups in Syria – Qatar says this is not the case.
Mmm. Would that be the same Saudi Arabia which it is claimed “remains a critical financial support base for al-Qaida, the Taliban…and other terrorist groups” according to the US government? Or the same Saudi Arabia which has funded thousands of madras’s throughout the Middle East – schools that promote the kind of extremist version of Islam that leads to terrorist atrocities?
One of the things that baffled me the most at the start of this election campaign was the gap between the parties in the polls. Now I’ve been very dismissive of the polls, but all of them showed that Conservatives had a seemingly unassailable lead. One or two might be wrong, but all of them? The media were complicit in this, especially the print media, in depicting Jeremy Corbyn as a nice enough chap, but nowhere near competent enough to lead our country. And I’m thinking, ‘We’ve had years of austerity, yet wealth inequality is greater than it has been, public services are facing a funding shortfall yet tax avoidance, evasion, call it what you will is rampant, tax cuts for the rich are funded by cuts to disabled peoples benefits. If this were France, there would’ve been riots. Proper riots, not the looting of a few years ago. How in the name of sanity aren’t Labour streets ahead?’
*************************************************
The first time Moby had bothered my ears was with the superb ‘Go’. It was magnificent! For me, it’s a sonic time machine that immediately takes me back to dancing like a maddo, in some dingy club with sweat dripping off the ceiling. The next time Moby bothered my ears was with the release of his ‘Everything is Wrong’ album. This was an altogether different proposition. Certainly it was danceable – the singles ‘Feeling So Real’ and ‘Everytime You Touch Me’ prove that, especially the remixes – but it was aimed more at the weekend raver, people who drank alcohol when clubbing. Next I knew was ‘Play’ an album that was so chart friendly, so far removed from ‘Go’, that every single track on the album was licensed for use in commercials. He’d literally sold out.
The Liberal Democrats are the same. For decades they managed to somehow pull the unenviable political trick of being in the political wilderness with no prospect of being elected into government, whilst simultaneously having worthily earnest manfesto’s, that people liked, just not enough people liked them. One might say that one begat the other. So in the 2015 election, the electorate voted them into a coalition with the Conservatives.
Soon it became all too apparent that they were just as venal and self-serving as the public imagines politicians to be. They had sold out in the same way I thought Moby had.
*****************************************
This afternoon (last Thursday) typified the faults inherent the present first past the post system of electing a government. I had rather naively put up in a window a poster advertising my support of the Labour party but someone else in the house saw it, pointed out that they were going to vote Liberal Democrat and that some discussion might be needed on the matter. My initial reaction was best, I thought, kept to myself. But then I reflected on the fact that we live in a safe Labour seat -( a 26,000 majority in 2010) – and therefore any votes for any other party are basically wasted. As I have noted before in the 2015 election the Conservatives got 36.1 per cent of the vote which means that more people voted against them than voted for them.
The situation could have been changed in 2011, when a Liberal Democrat manifesto promise became a reality upon entering into a coalition government with the Conservatives. They proposed a referendum on proportional representation – basically every vote counts and the overall total of votes is translated into seats in parliament; essentially every vote counts. However, the Conservatives, sensing a sudden reversal in their electoral chances, chose a complicated method of proportional representation to put to the public vote. Their friends in the press did the rest. A vote for change to the electoral system was a vote for chaos, it was suggested. They also decided for added apathy to have it on the same day as local elections, notorious for their low turn out and those that did turn out to vote, voted against any change.
This situation reminds me of the recent French elections. Whilst Macron might well have got 66% of eligible votes in the second round,
The dust is slowly settling and the numbers are being tallied. While the standout figure suggests a big win for Emmanuel Macron, that doesn’t tell the whole story of the second round.
The following results are based on 99.99 percent of the votes being counted, and come from the interior ministry.
Macron gets 66 percent of the vote
Emmanuel Macron won 66.1 percent of the votes, leaving Marine Le Pen with 33.9 percent. That was a much bigger gap than the last polls suggested which had Macron at 62 percent.
According to official results, the abstention rate stood at 25.38 percent – the highest since the presidential election in 1969.
That means some 12 million voters did not vote in the election, three million more abstainers than in 2012, when the turnout was 80 percent.
Among the abstainers it was the young (34%) and the unemployed (35%) who had the highest abstention figures.
Four million cast blank votes
The interior ministry reported a record number of blank and invalid ballots, accounting for 8.49 percent of all registered voters, compared to two percent in the first round.
So that means four million French voters went to the polls to cast a blank vote. That’s two million more than in 2012.
So adding the blanks to the abstentions, a third of French voters declined to choose between Macron and Le Pen — a record rate in nearly half a century.
In other words out of 47 million voters, some 16 million declined to cast a vote for either candidate. That’s compared to 11 million in 2012.
“That would make a total of one French person out of three who decided not to choose between the two candidates. It’s really a lot for a presidential election,” Anne Jadot, political science professor at the University of Lorraine, told AFP.
So if we look at the votes overall Marine Le Pen actually finished in third place on Sunday, behind Macron and abstentions/blank votes.
Macron picked up 43.6 percent of the vote (20.7 million votes), ahead of the 34 percent (16 million votes) who did not vote for either candidate and Marine Le Pen who won 22 percent (10.6 million votes) of the vote.
The French characterise this as a form of civic disobedience; inasmuch as they go to the ballot box but they don’t vote for any candidate and they’ve registered their disapproval.
If only there was a similar attitude in the British electorate. But then, when we were given the chance to vote for a change we didn’t take it. We are stuck with the present system – whereby more people voted against this government than voted for it – so my housemate might as well flush his vote down the toilet for all the good it will do.
************************************************
In the Conservative manifesto it says;
We respect the fact that society is a contract between the generations: a partnership between those who are living, those who have lived before us, and those who are yet to be born.
to restore the contract between the generations that provides security for older people while being fair to the young; and
That would be the coffin dodgers who voted overwhelmingly to leave Europe, safe in the knowledge that they wouldn’t have to live with the consequences for long? Where was their respect for any social contract?
Rousseau would be turning in his grave.
And it claims;
We will need to take sometimes difficult decisions that ask more of one generation in order to help another.
Unless, of course we put something in the manifesto that’s’ unpopular with press, in which case we’ll fold like an envelope.
One of the things that has really annoyed me about the election is how often the electorate have made me want to smash my radio against a wall. It happens every time I listen to ‘Any Answers’ on Radio 4, the chance for listeners to air their reaction to the previous nights ‘Any Questions’. The last time it happened I was in my car, so smashing the radio would’ve been dangerous. It’s when people say things along the lines of they used to vote Labour for years, then they voted UKIP but now they’re voting Conservative. How on earth did they manage that that ideological journey? Have these people no firm unshakeable beliefs, no core values, and no fundamental principles?
With the election on Thursday, it behooves me both to use a couple of posts that weren’t posted and to briefly outline some idea’s that would have posts or just asides.
*************************************
In 2015 I posted a blog about my experience of attending the hustings for my constituency. This time around there wasn’t one. No opportunity to challenge those wanting our vote. No opportunity to get the measure of them, to see how they quick on their feet they were answering questions both from the audience and each other. Neither has there been any canvassing at our house. Despite the fact we live in a safe Labour seat, some effort from the others would be nice. Evidence of the scandalous lack of such is before me now in the form of election leaflets that have been pushed through our door. One of them looks like it was done on someone’s computer and the Conservatives haven’t even bothered to produce one!
***************************************
I love my brother, don’t get me wrong and he makes laugh more than anyone I’ve ever known – sometimes just with a look – but it does wind me up no end when my Mother says he takes an interest in politics. All this because he watches BBC1’s ‘Question Time – which is to matured and reasoned political debate what homeopathy is to science – and that he simply spews out second-hand opinions that he’s either read about or heard about.
And therein is the problem, not that he doesn’t join the dots up and more that he doesn’t know they exist. I’m not arrogant enough to delude myself that I see all the dots, but I am aware that there are some dots I don’t join and some I’m unaware of. But any discussion with him about anything to do with politics is frustrating enough, but as soon as I’ve provided evidence to refute yet another his bizarre assertions, does he comeback with evidence of his own? No. He simply goes off on another unrelated tangent that he imagines conclusively proves his point. It’s like conversational hopscotch; he jumps from one topic to another without warning leaving me constantly bewildered by his limited viewpoints.
When I tell him that the newspapers that he reads have their own political agenda, how newspapers are not impartial arbiters of facts, but have left or right wing agendas, he says that he has no idea what I mean by a left or right wing agenda. When I try to explain how newspaper owners seek to promote their own world view, he says I’m talking nonsense. Mind you, when I upbraided him some years ago for taking his daughters to McDonalds on an almost weekly basis, citing the health problems, poor farming conditions and workers rights violations as evidence, his argument to refute this? ‘Well if it was as bad as you say, then they wouldn’t be allowed to sell it’
I think of this mindset, this naive faith that the media is somehow above the grubby world of politics and not itself knee deep in dishonour, when I think of the snide and savage attacks on the character of Jeremy Corbyn. The Labour manifesto was officially launched on Tuesday and the press has been quick to castigate it for what perceives as it’s economic recklessness. But they weren’t so quick to point out that since 2010 the national debt has increased by 50%. Or that as Chancellor, George Osborne missed nearly all his economic forecasts? But Labour are economically reckless?
McDonalds!
************************************
There aren’t words capable of expressing the complex range of emotions that I felt upon watching the news of the terror attack in London Saturday night, so I won’t.
But having said that.
My partner saw a report on the internet about the attack and immediately turned on the T.V. Now I get my news from the BBC – BBC Radio 4 that is – and consequently I am therefore used to news reporting, of not only an excellent quality and informed analysis, but above all, of sober, fact based reporting I was horrified by the coverage on BBC News 24 and on Sky News.
It wasn’t just the sheer repetition of the horrific facts. That was bad enough. One of the inherent problems of all 24-hour rolling news channel is that at times such as Saturday night they can be an insatiable self replicating behemoth, inasmuch as there isn’t much to report that is new, so they repeat the same thing over and over again.
It’s both seductive and incredibly cheap to make. Seductive, because my partner was aware she was watching the same footage over again, but was concerned that if she turned it off, she might miss something. It’s also cheap to produce -judging by what we see anyway – featuring accounts given by people who didn’t see the thing happen, but were caught up in the immediate aftermath. And some of the questions they’re then asked! Variants of “Were you scared?” or “How did you feel?”
When I raged against the triteness of the coverage of an unfolding trajedy, the inability not say something like ‘ The sitaution is confusing as you might expect and we don’t want to add to the chaotic scenes with ill-informed speculation my partner explained that all T.V news was like this now.
What happened in London on Saturday night was yet another outrage, a frightening example of the new reality in which we now live. The sudden and violent ending of many lives, with many more wounded, some with life changing injures is something that mere words alone cannot adequately express.
Secondly. how to deal effectively and proportionally to this new reality, whilst ensuring the our civil liberties are protected is nor an easy task, Everyone will call for something to be done, but if that something contains measures that erode the freedoms that are a hallmark of ways of life in this country, is it a something worth having?
Anti-terror laws made up on the hoof in the heat of the moment are not always the best ones.
Before noting,
This was a recognition by the prime minister that security is now a significant issue in this election. Long after the rows of this campaign are over the government that is elected will still be facing the threat of Islamist terrorism.
Where once the last few days of the election might have been focused on Brexit or tax or spending, much time and space will now be devoted to police numbers, intelligence capacity and extremist ideology.
And that in itself is a problem. What exactly is extreme? Seriously, it’s all well and good banning something if that something is a tangible thing. You ban murder, for example and impose punishment for those that transgress. But extremism? Isn’t there a danger we’re in danger of veering into Big Brother style ‘thought crime‘ here? What views are extreme and not extreme? Who defines them?
Her ( Teresa Mays )original 2015 anti-extremism programme included banning orders against groups that fall short of existing terrorism proscription thresholds, extremism disruption orders against individuals who incite hatred and closure orders against premises used to host extremist meetings or speakers.
That “full spectrum” response has been largely frustrated by the reservations of her cabinet colleagues and serious problems finding a legally robust definition of “extremism” that will survive its first legal free speech challenge in the courts from a banned individual or group.
Dealing effectively and proportionally to this new reality won’t be easy. And as I wrote in a blog about proposed privacy laws some years ago, the people these laws are meant to protect are often the very people they’re used against.
With less than a week to go until polling day, last nights debate with the two main party leaders, offered both Teresa May and Jeremy Corbyn the chance to set out not only what they thought were the challenges facing Britain, but more importantly, how they planed to best them.
Despite the fact that they were not debating with each other but instead taking questions from the audience, it was nonetheless fascinating for a whole load of reasons.
Firstly, it helped explain why Teresa May hasn’t been willing to debate with other party leaders, people who’d be more informed than a studio audience and might challenge her more. The reason is she’s rubbish at it. Pure and simple. On a news report where there’s a brief clip of her either at the dispatch box, or making a speech, granted, she might seem magisterial and assured. But then again, anyone could. It’s when you see her at length and listen to her and more importantly, watch the way she says it, that one inescapable fact becomes all too apparent.
She reminds me of an evil step-mother trying to be nice to her children. She knows she has to, but her patience is thin. She tries to hide her irritation but her body language screams ‘Do I really have to do this? ‘ At the end, she scarpered off as fast as she could.
Thence came Jeremy. And he was off! This was a seemingly newly invigorated Jeremy Corbyn, speaking like a human being, managing not to let his passion overwhelm the message, but it was clearly there. If a news report can make you look good, it can equally portray you as weak. For quite a few people watching, this version of Jeremy Corbyn it must have been a revelation, at odds with the version that they are spoon fed by most of the media. Here was a man with a quiet dignity, with a grasp of details, and almost looking as if he was enjoying the whole thing
But his energy couldn’t last and it didn’t. He noticeably flagged a bit toward the end and seemed uncomfortable with a series of questions asking variants on the topic of nuclear weapons, specifically under what circumstances he’d use them. His answer was, I think, that if one had to use them then diplomacy had failed and in a nuclear war there’d be no winners.
Rather like the debate itself methinks, given that only 18.2% of the viewing public (3.8 million) watched the whole thing. What are the broadcasters meant to do? When nearly 2/3 of people claim not to have seen any of the debates or interviews with party leaders? Really? They weren’t hidden away in a graveyard slot, they were primetime! There was loads of press speculation about who would or wouldn’t appear.
This didn’t surprise me though, given that at the last election 34.9% of registered voters didn’t leaving the Conservatives triumphant with a 36.9% share. If the public can’t even be bothered to maintain the fiction that they’re somehow engaged with the political process, is it really that much of a shock that the Prime Minister acts the way she does?
Yesterday proved the rank stupidity and shortsightedness of the Conservative governments energy policy was revealed, as the BBC reported;
A record amount of solar power was generated on Friday as Britain basked in sunshine and temperatures of up to 28C, the National Grid has said.
It said 8.7 gigawatts (GW) had been generated at lunchtime, representing 24.3% of total generation across the UK.
The level tops the previous record of 8.48GW set on 10 May.
Duncan Burt, head of control room operations at National Grid, called it the “beginning of a new era”.
“We now have significant volumes of renewable energy on the system,” he said. “We also have the tools available to ensure we can balance supply and demand.”
So when the Conservative party cut environmental subsidies for to homeowners whilst at the same time give the go ahead to permit large scale drilling for shale oil, UK one has to ask what the frack is going on? At a time when we’re supposed to be reducing our reliance on fossil fuels and instead re-orientating our energy usage towards renewables this makes about as much sense as homeopathy.
Solar’s rapid growth is overturning conventions for the managers of the UK’s power grid. In March, for the first time ever, the amount of electricity demanded by homes and businesses in the afternoon was lower than it was in the night, thanks to the cut in demand due to solar panels.
This ridiculous state of affairs is further compounded by a the previous governments decision to give the green light plans, not only to upgrade some existing nuclear power stations, but a build a completely new one. Of course it will be expensive both in financial and much more importantly, in environmental terms. Expensive financially because the costs of building it – around £18 – are to be offset by a guaranteed price for the electricity it sells, which as The National Audit Office has pointed out;
Falls in wholesale prices would increase the level of support that consumers provide through CfDs. CfDs fix the cost of electricity from new generating sources so that investments in low-carbon technology are viable. Falls in the market price therefore need to be offset by top-up payments. While this reduces the risks to consumers from price volatility, it means they benefit less from wholesale price reductions.
Which is a polite way of saying that no matter how much the wholesale cost of electricity drops by, consumers using electricity generated at the new nuclear power station will still have to pay the inflated price. The government has promised to buy the electricity at £92.50/ MWh, whereas the wholesale price in April was just over £52/MWh. Since 2010, it has never even cost £70/MWh. Teresa Mays election promise to curb exorbitant energy prices could start with re-negoiating that deal.
This at a time when this country needs a sustainable energy mix, one that is both sustainable in terms of not only environmental impact and cost effectiveness, but also energy security. Ukraine’s troubles with Russia providing a rather frightening example of the perils inherent on being over reliant on energy supplied by another country. Russia has cut Ukraine’s supply of gas three times in recent years, which when you consider that Russia supplies half of all of Ukraine’s gas – and supplies 23% of Europe’s gas. This makes renewable energy even more sensible and foreign ownership of the new nuclear power station either wonderfully optimistic at best or dangerously reckless at worst.
Back to the good news about solar power. Is it just me or does the erosion of the ozone layer mean that the sun’s rays are more powerful because they don’t have to burn through the ozone layer?
Further to my post yesterday the pain in my left arm has not abated and has if anything increased. So if I were typing this I’d be in excruciating pain by now. Thankfully it’s not me but my glamorous assistant Julie doing the typing.
She did however draw the line at wearing a bikini to do it but hey we can’t have everything…
Say what you will about Jeremy Corbyn, he does like a gamble. To this end he’s massively gambled Labours election chances by criticizing the war on terror, and by implication, blaming British military intervention abroad as being a causative factor in the terrorist attack on Monday. Whilst this is an opinion that I strongly support – and I’m possibly not alone in this – for the vast majority who feel the same, now is not the time to apportion blame. It’s a risky strategy and lays the Labour leadership guilty of using the tragic events of Monday night for their own political ends. By the time you read this, it might have already started. They could easily be accused of ghoulish insensitivity. Some of the more extreme elements of the press might level the charge that he’s in some way giving succor to terrorists by attempting to rationalise their actions
If the Conservative party have any sense they will remain above apportioning blame. They will strive to maintain a dignified and respectful silence on the matter, as if to underline the fact that they are not making the terrorist outrage a party political issue. In so doing it will enhance their reputation as serious minded politicians whom are getting on with the job at hand.
This in turn presents the smaller parties with a problem. After the events of Monday night the electorate will be properly focused on security concerns and not whether or not primary school children continue to have free school meals. They want decisive leadership and they don’t as yet see Corbyn as offering that, It is a truism of electoral thinking that in times of crisis the electorate are not willing to vote for change when they want is political continuity and for better or for much worse that’s what the Conservatives offer.
No matter that the Greens might have an innovative solution for the problems that beset this country at this time, so to might have UKIP. And not forgetting Plaid Cymru. Or the SNP, who haven’t even launched their manifesto yet? As the news media is focused the aftermath of the Manchester attack will their policies get the scrutiny manifesto they warrant.
Had pyhsio yesterday to theoretically help alleviate the pain that my trapped nerve is causing. Ironic then that my left arm is really hurting today – constant shooting pains down the arm, that sort of thing – so even typing this is painful. So rather like the – non UKIP – election campaign, I’ll resume tommorow hopefully
the brilliantly leaping gazelle 