This is just to say (Brexit remix)

This is just to say

I have taken
the votes
that were on
the referendum

the one
you were probably
thinking
you had won

Forgive me
you were wrong
so impecunious
and so discounted

Abuse, and the Remain voters who enable it

There are numerous examples of European projects from which, we’ve been told, mainly by the EU, we’ll get nothing should we have the conceit to (Br)exit, never mind the much-anticipated problems with our food and medical supplies. Were we to use the marriage/divorce analogy these threats should strike us as the kind of relationship where one partner says to their disenchanted other “if you leave, you’ll get nothing, not even that for which you’ve so clearly contributed; life will be (made) difficult.”

I voted Remain (I’m a little tired at feeling the need to say that), I was upset at the result, yet what to think of those whose anger at an impending separation is such that they blame the victim of the abuse, rather than the actions of the abuser? This is clearly an abusive relationship, and you know what they say about those. At least I thought I did.

Distracted boyfriend

Kinder, gentler politics

Sound and fury

If it takes you two years to specifically address anti-Semitism without hiding behind “all forms of racism”, and then only when you’re cornered…

If your deputy one day promises to “eradicate” anti-Semitism, and the next claims to be unable to address the issue of a prominent member of the NEC questioning the suspension of an alleged holocaust denier...

If after promising to act, you have local Constituency Labour Parties threatening an MP with deselection or, in the case of Bristol West, being called in to explain their actions in supporting the Jewish community by attending an anti-racist demo…

I’d say that counts as enabling the behaviour that you claim isn’t in your name. The rest is just noise, signifying nothing.

You can have any representation you want

Democracy, the great leveller. It cares not for education, nor wealth; no one vote is more important than the other. In this, if only this, we are all equal.

The poor, the uneducated, are - we are told - more likely to have voted Leave. Conversely this means the educated and the wealthy are more likely to have voted Remain. Despite my somewhat questionable academic achievement, and my even more questionable finances, I voted Remain too. I think leaving the EU is a mistake.

Yet were the referendum result somehow overturned what does this say? That some people don't count, that - despite what you've been told - some people don't matter. If the result is overturned, I hope we’ll all have the good grace to stop asking why some feel disenfranchised, when the cause should be obvious. It simply doesn’t cut it to say you can have any representation you want, so long as it’s the EU.

We see what we want to see

I know nothing. I was reasonably sure of Remain, more confident that Hilary would clout Trump, and convinced that people would see through Corbyn. And now I wonder where the percentages lie; how many voted for the party despite their leader, how many ignored or denied his past, or accepted his own warped history of those troubled times, or, worryingly, how many see no shame at all.

Sorry, not sorry

Not so long ago I described something as being “a bit mental” and it’s quite possible I will do again. I probably shouldn’t, we’re better than that and in the wrong context (every context?) it can be construed as offensive.

There is though - and I may be flattering myself here - a big gap between my fault and that of Ken Livingstone. Today, the former Mayor of London described a political opponent as being “obviously very depressed and disturbed” and needing “psychiatric help”. And all because Kevan Jones (same party, but it’s difficult to tell) had suggested Ken wasn’t up to his new job. This would sound like the usual rough and tumble of politics were it not for Jones’s known history of depression; something he had spoken about in the House of Commons.

Livingstone did apologise, but only after much strong arming from Jeremy Corbyn, then watered it down in a television head-to-head with the standard “sorry if you’re offended” non-apology, suggesting that, anyway, the other guy had started it. I could have left it at one politician saying something unpleasant about another - it happens all the time, it’s a democracy in ‘rude health’ - were it not for an earlier claim to be unaware of Jones’s mental health condition. This was plausible enough in itself, but when accompanied with some vague reference to not having been around Parliament for some years felt like an embellishment too far.

Jeremy Corbyn Top Trumps

Isis and the U.S military (on state-controlled Russia Today), the World Trade Centre and Bin Laden's death (on Iran’s Press TV), the IRA and the British army... One would be bad enough, but the soon-to-be-leader of the Labour party, often using/used by the state apparatus of some dubious regime, has a serial inability to condemn one without the other, and in doing so is surely condemning his own party to ignominious defeat in 2020.

Were it not for his election on the back of a large number of recent ‘registered and affiliated supporters’ I’d say they deserve it. As it is, I will actually feel sorry for them. They might be the official opposition, but it will be a joke opposition akin to Militant Tendency in the 1980s. And the Government, or the more stupid elements within, emboldened by the clear path before them, will become more intemperate. I don’t think that was the plan.

Fighting one silly argument with another

If I suggested that our current record levels of employment were related to equality legislation then some might call me out on such a ridiculous claim. And my offence wouldn’t be lessened if it were in response to a claim from a less reputable source that some UK employers aren’t hiring due to said legislation.

There is some anecdotal evidence for the latter, but whether the problem is perceived or real isn’t really the point. Every time you make a foolish point arguing against UKIP, it has the unfortunate effect of making UKIP look less foolish.

Ed the Brave

Worrying though it is to see television broadcasters attempting to dictate the terms of democratic debate – in that they must be on television – I could hardly blame a leader of the opposition in attempting to make capital of the Prime Minister’s refusal to dance. I do however object to his latest promise to enshrine in law such a requirement. This is an idea so stupid that the silence on Twitter, whose left-wing contingent are certainly not reticent in backing stupid ideas, was deafening.

Not even an article in The Guardian newspaper, whose loyalty in towing the party line is something to behold, was enough to save Ed Miliband, and this despite finding (and one can only imagine how hard they must have tried) a professor in support. Unfortunately said professor fatally undermined their argument by mentioning Prime Minister’s Question Time, which despite the raucous and occasionally vacuous nature of such occasions provides exactly what’s being asked for, only differing in being less polite, albeit a more accurate representation of our political representatives.

What’s really frightening though is how easily an irrelevant issue such as this can show the authoritarian side of the Labour party. If they’re prepared to legislate on something that the public are more than capable of judging for themselves, one wonders what other decisions they’ll decide to take out of our hands.

It’s the economy

For some time now I have been perplexed by that seeming lack of correlation between those polls asking voter intent, and those asking who they most trust with the economy. When it comes to the economy the Conservatives have a healthy lead, when it comes to how people intend to vote...

I asked a friend, a Socialist, why this might be and she came up with the rather surprising reply that people could be selfish. It hadn’t occurred to me to ascribe this particular motive, though I confess my own suspicion - that people could be stupid - is hardly less provocative.

There are of course other measurements, yet it is a strong economy that enables our love for education and the health service to be more than empty gesturing. It is a strong economy that enables our support for the vulnerable. Those things we live for, by which we measure ourselves, are made possible by that thing that enables us to live. So perhaps I should expect the ill-advised “they’re privatising the NHS” scare-mongering (otherwise known as bollocks) from my Labour friends; imputing evil to their opposition is all they have to offer.

I’m not a hypocrite, but...

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

Seconds out

Margaret Thatcher’s seemingly much anticipated death provoked all the expected nonsense from those on the left determined to offend, and those on the right determined to be offended. I was both puzzled and despairing and, as ever, determined to avoid conflict. Thus I have passed in the past on the temptation to question derogatory comments on the death of a disabled child - I mean, where do you start? And if I could do that I could resist providing an alternative view of the Iron Lady; besides, you really can’t argue with “fact” and “end of” in the same comment.

Events have overtaken me, yet I was stopped in my tracks some weeks before by a post comparing the Tory government’s supposed campaign of persecution with the “scapegoating of the Jews in the early years of the Third Reich”. Wow. I’ll credit their omission of the Liberal party as a deliberate insult to the junior coalition partners, and quite funny at that; I’ve noticed how uncomfortable my few acquaintances of that persuasion can get when joking “we’re all friends now”.

Silly comments from people with a far superior education; I’ll never get it. And I let it go because whilst I may decry the ease with which those in the middle ground (and I’d like to pretend I’m one) cede control to the more virulent of their side (and there’s always a side), if your friends of a different political hue are “off on one” it’s easier to let them get it out of their system. I’m wrong of course, I know that. In a gentle way, you can shake the world; cynicism or a general weariness, I’m not entirely sure I believe, but the occasional nudge won’t hurt.

Refactoring marriage

This Tuesday the House of Commons will be voting for the past or the future, and whilst I hope for the latter I wondered on the possibilities with our current imperfect arrangements. I confess to some trouble in deciding which derived from the other, in a software rather than historical sense. All this argument over labels drives one to distraction; an object is defined by its attributes, not by a name; and therein lay one possible solution.

Stop me if you think you’ve heard this one before

You say Labour, I say Libor. It’s hardly original, yet one feels the need to state this as another scandal that happened under the previous government. Leveson, it is true, expanded to be so general as to catch everyone in its net, and the result has been people with only a passing interest instinctively blaming the current rather than previous administration. This you feel is the driving force behind the calls from Ed Miliband and Ed Balls for a “wide-ranging” judicial inquiry to cover all bankers’ activities. Any such investigation will allow the Labour party to bury its culpability amongst a slew of other unpleasant deeds; muck spread equally is to the detriment of no-one in particular.

If there needs to be a wider look at the way banks conduct their business, let this be separate to a focussed examination on one specific area of known wrong-doing. Let’s not distract ourselves from the 2008 conversation between the now former Barclays CEO, Bob Diamond, and the Bank of England deputy governor, Paul Tucker. Diamond makes it quite clear to Tucker that other banks were lying about the rates they would be charged for borrowing and asks him to relay this to the senior Whitehall figures he'd alluded to earlier. The deputy governor repeats a reference to the level of the Whitehall figures as “senior” and suggests the Barclays rate didn’t need to appear as high as it was.

In vagueness they are damned. Diamond’s note doesn’t record an explicit request to “lie about Libor”, yet this appears to have been the inference subsequently made by the now former Barclays COO, Jerry del Missier. Ambiguity at this level springs from a knowledge that what is being asked for is wrong. What we need to know is who was asking? What we need to avoid is an attempt by the Labour party to bury the issue in a morass of endless and irrelevant detail.

Bad medicine

There is a deficit in this country that can be tackled through a mixture of cuts and taxes; the latter not being particularly good for growth, attention has focused on the former. This is nothing that the private sector hasn’t already experienced; whether through pay cuts, redundancies or the cutting of employer pension contributions. A similar exercise is underway for public sector workers whose own pensions tend to be more generous, and the decision made that proportionally more of the burden would fall on those most able to pay; it’s not a label I particularly care for, but this is often called ‘progressive’. Over several months there have been strikes from various public sectors, each convinced that someone else should pay. Today it was the turn of doctors; their own unintentionally amusing take is that they are disproportionally affected. It’s as if they’re not aware - not even the liberals amongst them, of whom I know a few - that this is the whole point.

Thatcher!

Margaret Thatcher - The Musical, it’s only a matter of time. Not actually what I wanted to scribble but a random thought on the “is she or isn’t she (a feminist icon)” maelstrom that was. The film however was an age ago; the arguments, stale, packed away awaiting their final outing. I’ll not wait; on this subject I need to scratch an itch, though it’s hardly original. The answer to the question is “yes”. Those who answer “no” seem to fall into a number of groups:

1. Those who miss the question. A person needn’t be a feminist to be a feminist icon; in the same way one needn’t be gay to be a gay icon.
2. Those with the dogma, the syllogistic fallacies common to student-level politics; socialists are feminists therefore feminists have to be socialists. Oh dear.
3. Those lacking a sense of history. Some might find the misogyny of today’s “lads mags” and the “girl power” message of not so long ago phony and dispiriting; I know I do, but it’s a breeze compared to the 1970’s.

The answer to the question is “yes”, albeit in a historical context and understanding the meaning behind a core creed of gender equality. This isn’t, as popularly stated, a belief that women are every bit as good as men, but that women are every bit as capable. ‘Good’ to my mind encourages unhelpful boxing of positive attributes to one’s own political beliefs. Equality demands impartiality, ‘capable’ allows neutrality. Whether for good or bad, irrespective of policy or her own conviction, the UK’s first - and to date, only - female Prime Minister, symbolised the possibility that a woman could reach the pinnacle of her chosen career, and at a time when “a woman’s place” could be spoken of without any sense of irony. If that doesn’t make her a feminist icon, I don’t know what does.

Police misuse of the English language is “criminal”

The Home Secretary Theresa May, speaking at the Police Federation's annual conference, did so in front of a stage bearing the slogan “Cutting Police by 20% is criminal”. Literally speaking this isn’t true, but of course this is wilful ignorance on my part; it’s a play on a word, though its passive-aggressive tone serves a purpose – to discourage debate.

The Police don’t want to discuss how a 20% cut might be achieved, because their most recent complaints have included how much time they spend doing paperwork. Some of this, they claim, is the result of cuts to back-office administrative staff, presumably to keep up the headline number of the boys and girls in blue.

I share this concern, and as I want to help might I suggest one obvious measure? Since it is cheaper to employ someone trained for admin work in an admin role, we can save money without affecting those on the ‘front line’ by making the highly trained (and expensive) police officer – the one his/her Federation says is stuck at a desk - redundant.

It’s useful to know what you’re voting for

If there’s one lesson to be learnt on the referendum held in 10 cities on whether to have directly elected mayors, it’s this: it’s useful to know what you’re voting for; because without detail on what the job entails, voters will justifiably question the need for any change. In a Guardian article, Chris Game from the Institute of Local Government (INLOGOV) comments that in mayoral meetings the two issues that came up were “what additional powers would a mayor have and how do we kick out a deadbeat?” I don’t doubt it and the “Yes” campaign are right to be disappointed in not having an answer to give, but earlier in the same article we’re told:

It was thought white, working-class communities in Birmingham were most opposed to what they saw as another layer of politicians.

Quite who “it was thought” by isn’t made clear, and neither is why “white working-class” people are singled out, let alone identified as a community. Only kidding, this is The Guardian; lumpen profiling a speciality. Never mind the perfectly reasonable concerns at another layer of bureaucracy, it’s as if the idea of replacing one layer with another hasn’t even been considered by INLOGOV, though one supposes that might result in biting the hand that feeds it.