the brilliantly leaping gazelle

Tag: politics

Forest Gump’s mum meets Winston Churchill

The most depressing thing about the way in which the entire political class and their fawning sycophants in the media reacted to George Galloways’ electoral victory in Rochdale the other night was that it reminded me of how they’d all reacted after the Brexit vote. With an almost tedious inevitability, there was the same anguished newspaper headlines, the same acres of newsprint opining at length about what it said about Britain, about how it was a sad day for democracy, even down to the PM giving a speech outside No.10.

The statesman like thing to have done would’ve been for Loafer to be gracious in defeat and to admit that whilst he had lost, democracy had won. To position himself was a staunch defender of the democratic ideal, that how he felt about the result was ultimately of no consequence. But no. He somehow managed to conflate Galloways victory and the beliefs of some of the people who supported him as evidence of “our democracy itself being a target”

The thing is, it’s a teensy-teensy bit cheeky for Loafer to even mention democracy being a target, given the obscenely undemocratic way he became PM in the first place, in an act of political chicanery that would’ve made even Kim Jong-un blush. He is to democracy what Prince Harry is to reticence. At least his predecessor, Letttuce, was elected, even if it was only by 80,000 Conservative Party members. The last PM to be elected because of an actual general election was Boris’s Johnson, back in 2019.

Secondly did any Cabinet Ministers travel up to Rochdale to support the Conservative candidate Paul Ellison, especially after the Labour candidate was withdrawn? The media were all too aware of the potential for a Galloway win, most obviously because it allowed them to pontificate upon how disastrous an outcome this would be, so it follows that Loafer and Co were aware too. So where was the one time only coalition of all three main parties suspending business as usual and uniting behind a common cause to defeat Galloway? And instead of sounding all high and mighty about putting country before party like all politicians are always testiculating about, maybe actually doing it?

Galloway won Rochdale thanks in part to a low voter turnout – 39.7% as compared to the 60.1% in 2019 – and of that he only managed to 40%. Basically, 12,335 votes. Essentially if the main political parties couldn’t be even bothered to show up, then why should the voters? Worryingly, a couple of candidates whose names appeared on the ballot paper but were withdrawn before the election itself nevertheless managed somehow get a combined total of nearly 3,000 votes. And that leads neatly onto another threat to democracy.

Politicians themselves.

They are increasingly out of touch with the everyday concerns of the people they claim to serve, hardly a surprise when one realises the huge disparity between them and rest of the population. In 2019, research revealed the sheer scale of this grotesque reality. 44% of Tory MPs, 38% of Lib-Dem ones and 19% of Labour ones went to to fee paying – private – schools, as compared to 6% for the rest of us. It gets worse, as most of the Tory ones – 61% of that 44% – are in Loafer’s Cabinet, and 45% lot of that went to Oxbridge.

Less than 1% of the rest of us do. Unsurprisingly, this disparity stretches into the upper echelons of the civil service, the media and business.

No wonder then that a kind of group-think takes place, one that allows an echo chamber of ideological conformity to flourish and for dissenting opinions to be seldom heard. And that danger to democracy extends to the judiciary; senior judges being the most unrepresentative group of them all, with 67% attending private schools and 71% graduating from Oxbridge, with 11 of the judges on the Supreme Court thusly educated. Puts the legal challenges to Brexit into a harsher light, to say nothing of the Supreme Court unanimously ruling that Boris’s Johnson had “unlawfully” prorogued – suspended – parliament for five weeks. Effectively thwarting, albeit temporally, his ability to carry out the wishes of the majority of the UK population

Much like the Brexit vote, there was a lot of scare-mongering by the commentariat and grim predictions of doom that were better suited to Macbeth, but that didn’t prevent the shocked disbelief and abject bewilderment of the entire political class when the lower orders actually used democracy to be actively involved in their own lives. Possibly not enough of them made full advantage of that possibility in Rochdale, but whose fault is that? That’s one of the great strengths of democracy, which is why the right to vote was very begrudgingly and even more incrementally broadened to eventually encompass all citizens. Just as people are sometimes contrary, often unpredictable and frequently unfathomable, so too can be election results.

And as I pointed out in a previous blog, Galloways self-professed and ruthlessly focused targeting of Rochdale’s Muslim population may well have been distasteful, but from another point of view, a brilliant piece of strategic thinking, one which all of the other parties have always used. Indeed election night analysis almost fetishises the possibility of marginal seats being lost to a rival party, often cutting away so we can see the winner bask in their fleeting moment in the spotlight. And with an emboldened Galloway eyeing up marginal seats25 of which have majority of less than 1,000 – the results may not be to everyone’s liking, but isn’t that the point of democracy, losers consent?

To quote Forest Gumps’ mum ‘Life is like a box of chocolates, you never know what your gonna get.’

On how Oscar Wilde politics may destroy humanity…….

 

I’ve always found politics fascinating. Not the theatrical pantomime of Prime Minister’s Questions – where ironically, answers are few and far between -, but actual politics.

Quite why there persists in people’s minds the idea that politics is complicated baffles me, as politics isn’t complicated at all. One is meant to think that it is, and that suits the main political parties just fine and dandy. Political parties claim to want voter engagement but actually they fear an informed electorate. Largely because, just as Dorothy discovers in ‘The Wizard Of Oz’, the electorate will realize when they pull back the curtain that the wizard is not a wizard at all, but in fact an ordinary man, and they will react with anger that for so long the truth has been hidden from them.

In a later entry, I promise to outline my theory that anyone who understands how a family operates – the dynamics and tensions that are at play, the ever shifting balance of powers between the parents and the children and the temporary alliances built on need – can understand politics. Anything that is so complicated that at its most basic level it cannot be explained to anyone with an I.Q. larger than the radius of their kneecap, suggests that the fault lies with the person attempting to simplify the complicated. I promise I will outline my theory in another post, but now is not the time.

Instead, I want to draw your attention to Caroline Lucas M.P., who – it seems to me at any rate – is congenitally incapable of uttering anything less than common sense. Given that it is said that the thing about common sense is it isn’t very common, this is a rare quality indeed, rarer still in a politician. It matters not if you agree with what she says or not, but she says it in easily comprehensible English and not in the sophistry laden nonsense that politicians normally speak.

Here is but one example;

On Wednesday 18th June 2014, the House of Commons Environmental Audit Select Committee was hearing evidence regarding the National Pollinator Strategy. Sounds boring, but is of the utmost concern to any right thinking person. Pollinator is another word for bees and other insects that pollinate a third of all plants on the planet. Einstein once prophetically remarked that “Mankind couldn’t survive the honeybee’s disappearance for more than five years”. This will take you to a far more reasoned and coherent explanation as to why you should care. If you don’t already, that is.

Giving evidence to the committee and refuting the possibility that any research funded by the very companies that stood to lose if the research proved conclusively that there was a link between certain pesticides and dwindling pollinator numbers, was Professor Ian Boyd, Chief Scientific Officer at the Department of the Environment, Food, Agriculture and Rural Affairs (DEFRA), who said

“That’s a very relevant point, but just because they’re paying for the studies and leading the studies doesn’t mean to say that the studies are invalid” Then Dr. Julian Little, from pesticide maker Bayer told the committee that,“Yes, we are putting the money up for it but it’s being done by independent scientists, they’re sorting out the protocols, they’re working with both DEFRA and EFSA (European Food Standards Authority) to ensure those protocols are relevant.”

Naturally, I was shouting in my head at the radio – the quite excellent ‘Today in Parliament’ on Radio Four – “Has no one heard of the saying ‘He who pays the piper names the tune’’’ when just in time Caroline Lucas restored some much needed sanity to proceedings, when she said,

“In such a contested area, having properly independent peer reviewed research, rather than research that could be seen from the outside as if it would be in the interest of the person paying for it, surely that is a compelling reason to look again at the degree to which the strategy depends on research being carried out by private companies”

But proving, not for the first, and certainly by no means for the last time, that this government has taken Oscar Wilde’s quote that, “A cynic is a man who knows the cost of everything and the value of nothing.” as part of its decision making process, Boyd then said, to my utter astonishment “The question is just whether we can afford from a public perspective, to fund these types of studies and I go back to what I said earlier on, that these types of studies are very large scale and the bigger they get, the more expensive they get”

Words fail. What could possibly be more important? In what universe is a tax cut to the top earners from 50p to 45p, more important than funding research into declining pollinator numbers? What good is a tax cut when there’s a chance that in the very near future there won’t be enough food to feed everyone? About as much use as a porcelain golf ball. A tax cut, moreover which, depending on whom you believe, will cost the Exchequer between a £100 million or £3 billion, sufficient methinks, to pay for the research. But hey, I could be wrong.

But we can’t afford this research? Didn’t one David Cameron, the former honorary president of The Oxfordshire Beekeepers Association, giving evidence to the same committee not so long ago, say,”If we don’t look after our bee populations, very, very serious consequences will follow.” After that performance in front of the committee, No.10 felt compelled to issue the following statement, clarifying his position “The prime minister is a strong advocate of beekeeping in his constituency and as he said in the house, it’s important we look after our bee population.” Only a skeptic would draw one’s attention to the careful wording of that statement, especially “ a strong advocate of beekeeping in his constituency” which carefully avoiding saying anything that might suggest advocacy for beekeeping beyond his constituency.

Step forward, then Caroline Lucas, who retorted to Boyd, “It just worries me greatly if alarm bells aren’t ringing throughout government because we can’t afford to do the research we need to do to see if we’re at great risk.”

Exactly.