Old Bexley and Sidcup By-election Part 1
Last week James Brokenshire, MP for the constituency of Old Bexley and Sidcup, died of lung cancer at the age of 53. He had held this parliamentary seat since 2010 and maintained a strong majority throughout the 2015, 2017 and 2019 general elections. Hence the constituency of Old Bexley and Sidcup is considered a “safe seat” for the Conservative Party. In fact it has only ever returned MPs from that party since its creation in 1983. As a result of Mr Brokenshire’s death, there will now be a by-election held in the constituency of Old Bexley and Sidcup to return a new MP to parliament. What makes this local election a little more interesting than usual, is that it will not be taking place against a wider ongoing national election. Therefore, there is scope that local issues may well play a greater part in the electioneering of all participating parties.
Last week James Brokenshire, MP for the constituency of Old Bexley and Sidcup, died of lung cancer at the age of 53. He had held this parliamentary seat since 2010 and maintained a strong majority throughout the 2015, 2017 and 2019 general elections. Hence the constituency of Old Bexley and Sidcup is considered a “safe seat” for the Conservative Party. In fact it has only ever returned MPs from that party since its creation in 1983. As a result of Mr Brokenshire’s death, there will now be a by-election held in the constituency of Old Bexley and Sidcup to return a new MP to parliament. What makes this local election a little more interesting than usual, is that it will not be taking place against a wider ongoing national election. Therefore, there is scope that local issues may well play a greater part in the electioneering of all participating parties.
The parliamentary procedure for holding a by-election are as follows. The Chief Whip of the political party whose MP held the vacant seat starts the process by “moving the Writ”. This is a motion requesting “that the Speaker do issue his Warrant to the Clerk of the Crown to make out a new Writ for the electing of a Member to serve in this present Parliament for the constituency of .... in the room of…”. The Speaker puts the question to MPs to decide whether to agree to the motion. If MPs agree it becomes an Order for the Speaker. The Speaker then issues a Warrant to the Clerk of the Crown who then sends the writ to the Returning Officer, who is responsible for the administration of the by-election. A new Writ is usually issued within three months of the vacancy. The by-election timetable is between 21 and 27 working days from the issuing of the writ.
As the current UK government enjoys a majority of over 80 seats, there is no pressing political need to hold this by-election as soon as possible. Therefore it seems logical that it will more than likely happen in early 2022. However, nothing is in tablets of stone so there is a possibility it could take place prior to Christmas, as did the last General election in 2019. A more important factor than the prospective date, is the issue of the candidates fielded by each respective party. As mentioned previously, Old Bexley and Sidcup is a safe seat for the Conservative Party. Hence, it is broadly expected that whoever becomes the Conservative candidate will subsequently win the by-election, due to the established voting patterns of the constituents. Old Bexley and Sidcup is a predominantly white, middle-class suburb of South-East London and as such is seen as a Tory “heartland”.
Like any political party, the Conservatives have their own unique set of rules with regard to candidate selection. In the past, Conservative party selection was largely in the control of the local Constituency Associations, however there was an approved list held at party HQ to be considered. In recent years the approved list has been replaced and a more equitable assessment board convened ensuring greater ethnic diversity and more female representation. However, local Constituency Associations still have a major say in candidate selection. Therefore under normal circumstances, there shouldn’t be any controversy surrounding the new Conservative candidate. However, the current Prime Minister Boris Johnson isn’t known for being a “stickler for the rules”. There is a degree of concern among the constituents of Old Bexley and Sidcup, as to whether a candidate could be “imposed” and parachuted into a convenient safe seat.
Time will tell as to what happens next. There is scope for the entire by-election to be a straightforward and uncontroversial process. Equally, things may go the opposite way. UK politics have become very unsettled in the last six years, Traditional voting patterns, party loyalties and general public opinions have shifted and not necessarily along traditional party lines. Furthermore, the Conservative party has radically changed since 2019. Many moderate MPs did not stand for re-election in the last general election. Although Old Bexley and Sidcup may still be a Tory safe seat, that doesn’t mean that the constituency is by default, well disposed toward Boris Johnson and his particular brand of politics. It will be interesting to see if such sentiments are reflected in the by-election.
Up and Down Voting User Comments
I was reading an article on Eurogamer this morning when I noticed that like so many other websites, it allows readers to vote user comments either up or down. It is a functionality that has become increasingly more commonplace in recent years. I would hazard a guess that Reddit set the trend for this so-called “social tool” and is the source of its ubiquity. If, like me, you are someone who finds the rectitude of this system “questionable”, you can set the filtering options in such a fashion so you can effectively disable the results of up or down voting. But that means taking a few minutes of your time to alter the comment settings, which means that a lot of people simply won’t bother to do it. Thus a lot of readers will miss out on content that their peers have deemed to be of little or no value, irrespective of whether or not that is actually the case. I find this a very disturbing concept and the ongoing use of up or down voting a worrying trend.
I was reading an article on Eurogamer this morning when I noticed that like so many other websites, it allows readers to vote user comments either up or down. It is a functionality that has become increasingly more commonplace in recent years. I would hazard a guess that Reddit set the trend for this so-called “social tool” and is the source of its ubiquity. If, like me, you are someone who finds the rectitude of this system “questionable”, you can set the filtering options in such a fashion so you can effectively disable the results of up or down voting. But that means taking a few minutes of your time to alter the comment settings, which means that a lot of people simply won’t bother to do it. Thus a lot of readers will miss out on content that their peers have deemed to be of little or no value, irrespective of whether or not that is actually the case. I find this a very disturbing concept and the ongoing use of up or down voting a worrying trend.
So what is the philosophy behind up and down voting of reader comments? Well those that oversee its implementation will tell you that it is a process for discovering and promoting the best comments that readers have submitted, therefore maximizing engagement and increasing the value of the content and the overall user experience. A more cynical take is that such systems are a means by which you can gamify leaving comments. The interactive element may not necessarily yield the up voting of the best comments but it encourages user interaction and increasing clicks, which means greater exposure to paid posts and advertisements. The associated dopamine rush that comes with up or down voting, or posting a comment that proves popular is tangible and makes it far more likely that readers will return. You’ve added fun but fun does not necessarily equate with value.
But the road to hell is paved with good intentions. Up and down voting comments only allows the best and most useful comments to rise to the top if the readers vote without personal bias and all approach the process with an ethical and altruistic outlook. Naturally this is not the case nine times out of ten. Up and down votes more often than not are just used as a dislike option, with people voting comments down simply because they don't agree or care for them. The process then becomes a means of controlling and silencing dissenting opinions. Thus, popularity eventually trumps validity and relevance. Critical thinking goes into decline. Websites become tribal echo chambers and so the culture wars tediously rumble on. All fun is subsequently leached out of all human interaction and so the world becomes just a little bit shittier each day, until life becomes an inescapable black hole of despair.
It can be argued that most means of airing opinions are ultimately subject to some sort of editing. The letters page of a newspaper selects what it deems are pertinent comments. The television talk show also maintains a degree of control over what is discussed and how. Yet editors are usually accountable to some degree for their decisions and are ultimately driven by a policy from their owners or shareholders. The up and down voting is simply driven by the capricious whims of “the crowd”, which I find even more concerning. Although being able to avoid things that you don’t like sounds initially quite alluring, it is actually counterproductive and hinders a broad and well balanced world view. It can also be used as an unscrupulous political tool that trivialises debate and public discourse. Sadly, because it allows people to ”stick it to the fascists”, or alternatively “own the liberals”, I don’t see up and down voting comments going away anytime soon.
Shortages
In early June I was visiting Sainsbury’s supermarket in Crayford, apparently their biggest site in the UK, when I noticed that several shelves had the following sign. “Please bear with us. We’re experiencing high demand”. At the time I thought nothing of it but then I started seeing similar notices in other stores. I then began seeing stories on some news websites about supply chain problems. This point was then reiterated on the news radio station LBC. Two month on and this issue is now finding its way into the mainstream press. McDonald’s currently cannot supply milkshakes or bottle drinks and Nando has had to close 45 branches around the UK as it has no chicken wings to serve. It is now becoming very clear that there is a big problem on the horizon, due to several complex factors. If it is not addressed this matter will only get worse with shortages directly impacting upon Christmas sales.
In early June I was visiting Sainsbury’s supermarket in Crayford, apparently their biggest site in the UK, when I noticed that several shelves had the following sign. “Please bear with us. We’re experiencing high demand”. At the time I thought nothing of it but then I started seeing similar notices in other stores. I then began seeing stories on some news websites about supply chain problems. This point was then reiterated on the news radio station LBC. Two month on and this issue is now finding its way into the mainstream press. McDonald’s currently cannot supply milkshakes or bottle drinks and Nando has had to close 45 branches around the UK as it has no chicken wings to serve. It is now becoming very clear that there is a big problem on the horizon, due to several complex factors. If it is not addressed this matter will only get worse with shortages directly impacting upon Christmas sales.
It would appear that Britain’s supply chain crisis is a result of worker shortages and transport disruption caused by Covid and Brexit. Confederation of British Industry (CBI) has stated that major retailers currently have the lowest stock levels since 1983. Furthermore a national shortage of lorry drivers and workers for food processing plants has led to increasing disruptions for food outlets and warnings of further empty supermarket shelves. Andrew Kuyk, the director general of the Provision Trade Federation, said there was no shortage of produce from UK farms, The gaps on shelves are instead the result of manpower and logistical difficulties. “Food is still being produced on farms and in factories, but it’s getting it to the consumer that is proving the challenge in lots of different ways. There is a lack of lorry drivers, warehouse staff, staff in retail distribution centres, in the supermarket to put it on the shelves”.
So what is being done to address the situation? Recruitment across all related industries has increased but so far has not remedied the situation. The big supermarket chains are offering substantial bonuses and pay increases, especially to HGV drivers. However, the short term result is that they’re merely poaching staff from smaller outlets and alleviating their own problems by compounding those of other sectors. Another aspect of these ongoing staff shortages is the fact that those who previously worked in these jobs were migrant labour from Europe. The post Brexit landscape with increased administrative work and bureaucracy has not proved conducive to attracting replacements. Furthermore, although not exclusively a Brexit issue, its very association makes this a politically charged subject. The current UK government which was elected on the mandate of “getting Brexit done” will not want to concede that there are downsides to the undertaking.
At present, although this supply and labour problem is currently known in the UK, it has not become the focus of the UK media. Therefore many members of the public will be oblivious of this problem until it directly affects them. I wouldn’t be surprised if we see the tabloid press capitalise on this aspect, once matters worsen. I also suspect that the UK government will be late to act and when they do, their response will be inadequate, as it has been with everything else they’ve dealt with since December 2019. I’m curious to see if shortages at Christmas will have a greater impact upon the Prime Minister’s approval rating than the thousands of excess COVID-19 related deaths. In the meantime, we’ve bought a second freezer and are doing our best to prepare for a difficult winter. Sadly not everyone is in a position to do so. What a ridiculous state of affairs for a G7 country.
Euro 2020 and Political Bandwagons
We live in unique and unparalleled times in which public figures can make a clear and unambiguous critical statement on Monday and then completely contradict themselves by the end of the week. Perhaps the saddest aspect of this recent shift in political discourse is the way we the UK public blithely accept it. It’s become so commonplace that we no longer treat it as a “WTF?” moment. The politically savvy shrug it off with a sigh as the latest tactic in the ongoing culture wars, while the credulous willingly go along with this premeditated reshaping of reality because their side is “owning the liberals”. It makes me cringe as I type these words but this is what political and social discourse has come to in the UK. It is no longer about competing political ideologies or strongly held principles but just trite, tribal loyalties. Many political commentators refer to this process as the “footballfication” of politics.
We live in unique and unparalleled times in which public figures can make a clear and unambiguous critical statement on Monday and then completely contradict themselves by the end of the week. Perhaps the saddest aspect of this recent shift in political discourse is the way we the UK public blithely accept it. It’s become so commonplace that we no longer treat it as a “WTF?” moment. The politically savvy shrug it off with a sigh as the latest tactic in the ongoing culture wars, while the credulous willingly go along with this premeditated reshaping of reality because their side is “owning the liberals”. It makes me cringe as I type these words but this is what political and social discourse has come to in the UK. It is no longer about competing political ideologies or strongly held principles but just trite, tribal loyalties. Many political commentators refer to this process as the “footballfication” of politics.
If you wish to see a textbook example of this process then look no further than the Euro 2020 tournament which reaches its final today. For those who live outside of the UK, I cannot stress enough how integral football is to the country's popular culture and national identity. It is a staple of public discourse serving multiple purposes. It is a convenient conduit for nationalism when needed and at other times a microcosm of the tabloid press’ negative obsession with class, racism and the objectification of women via WAG culture. Football is a multi billion pound industry that simultaneously infuriates and delights both its fans and the national commentariat. Hence the delayed UEFA European Football Championship has arrived at exactly the right time, offering an opportunity for national catharthcism after the ravages of COVID-19 and the perfect platform for the worst sort of tubthumping nationalism from the incumbent government.
However, before focusing upon today’s final between England and Italy, let’s take a moment to reflect upon the nation’s perspective of the “beautiful game” a month ago. There was a great deal of popular press and public pushback after the recent England vs Croatia match in June when the England squad “took a knee” before the game started. Some sections of the crowd booed their own team. Several government ministers such as the Home Secretary Priti Patel and numerous serving MPs took to social media to criticize the England team for daring to express any sort of political opinion (despite being registered voters). And the popular press (that is 80% right leaning in the UK) queued up to hector the players for “lecturing them”. Mind you that is a national pastime. Much of what passes for sports journalism in the UK is just a vehicle to attack white working class players and impugn those of ethnicity.
So that was the lie of the land just under a month ago. Today we find ourselves as a nation in the unusual position of England being in the final of a major international tournament, with a genuine chance of winning. A national team that in previous years has been disconnected, and poorly managed has now been transformed into a cohesive and viable squad. Both manager and the team have taken public criticism on the chin and faced the sling and arrows of outrageous fortune with fortitude and dignity. I am not in any way a sports fan and am not qualified to offer an in-depth analysis but something different has occurred this time round and it is noticeable. All involved have obviously felt they have something to prove and to quote the great Sam Gamgee “you have shown your quality, sir - the very highest”. However, this situation has now presented a bandwagon and we now have to endure the unseemly spectacle of the very worst of us trying to follow in the wake of the very best.
On Wednesday England beat Denmark and all the usual suspects went into full Shaggy mode (as in the song “It wasn’t me”) and instantly reversed their position from that of three weeks ago. Hence the Home Secretary trotted out her insincere support for the England team on social media, despite the fact she is currently spearheading legislation that would potentially have kept many of the squad’s parents from entering the UK. And several tabloid press rabble rousers suddenly became very enthusiastic and generous with their praise. But perhaps the most sickening in its inherent moral bankruptcy was the pitiful display by our current Prime Minister Boris Johnson. A man whose career has been defined by his complete lack of belief in any idea, concept or institution other than his own advancement, gurning as he desperately tried to associate himself with something positive. Populist politics has no truck with culture but will happily attach itself to it like a parasite, when it is expedient to do so.
What concerns me the most is whatever the outcome of today’s final, there is political gain to be had either way. Such is the beauty of a cleft stick. Either end can be used to beat you. In a perfect world an England win would be a shot in the arm to all genuine football fans and a moral boost to a nation that has been down by both COVID-19 and Brexit. But we live in a very imperfect world and an England win would also provide ammunition, bragging rights and propaganda for the current government and their side of the culture wars. It could be used to bolster the lies about “Global Britain” and add fuel to the fire of British exceptionalism (by which Johnson really means English exceptionalism). Conversely, a loss could aid the rights victim mentality and the specious notion that poor old Blighty is being persecuted by Johnny Foreigner, especially that mean EU. And irrespective of either outcome, political capital is a short lived gain. Within weeks the status quo would return and professional footballers would be relegated back to their status of pampered billionaires or the questionable sons of criminals by those exiting the bandwagon.
There have always been political bandwagons as they are useful vehicles to focus the ongoing national narrative on simple, binary issues. They are by nature lazy, knee jerk exercises in the worst sort of political and social bun fighting but they get traction. We currently have a government that was elected on a lie and that does not have any tangible vision for the country beyond their own nebulous soundbites. Therefore the bandwagon is an increasingly useful tool, especially Euro 2020, with its additional nationalist perspective. Astute political commentators have suggested that most of the UKs woes stem from the fact that it just hasn’t found a role for itself in the modern world and that it clings too much to its past. Some have gone as far to say that perhaps the nation only voted for Brexit as a means to feel good about itself and that this could be served just as well by winning a football tournament.
You cannot keep politics out of sport. Wherever there is money, athletes from all walks of life and a mass audience often drawn heavily from specific socioeconomic groups you will inevitably get expressions of political allegiance and ideology. Sometimes these views will be divergent and factional within sport itself. However, sometimes using such a platform as sport can be very powerful as Marcus Rashford discovered in 2020 with his campaign for free school meals during the lockdown. This is something that politicians both fear but also find alluring. They fear it because they are terrified of youth and its often honed sense of morality. These things are alien to them and they cannot control them. But they are attracted to the reach that sports men and women have and they covet it. So it is no surprise why so many of the political and chattering classes are currently circling Euro 2020 waiting to either feast on the remains of a defeat, or soar upon the thermals coming from a fevered victory. We’ll know which one by tomorrow.
Goodbye Politics
Today, I logged on to Twitter and unfollowed over 50 accounts. These included journalists, social commentators and some everyday folk who are ardent activists. It’s not something I especially wanted to do. In fact clicking the unfollow button for some accounts was especially difficult. But I had to do it. Despite the fact I am a level headed and analytical person, I can no longer tolerate the decline of UK politics and current state of national discourse. Rational debate has been replaced with tribalism and every possible subject conceivable is now presented as a partisan bun fight and you have to pick a side. For over a decade I have been politically homeless because I no longer think that any of the major UK political parties are fit for purpose. No one is interested in any form of national unity, tackling the big issues and equality. There’s a conspicuous lack of tangible, long term plans and policies. Political parties are just self serving lobbyists for specific interest groups. If you aren’t one of them or don’t fit favourably into their world view, you are effectively the enemy.
Today, I logged on to Twitter and unfollowed over 50 accounts. These included journalists, social commentators and some everyday folk who are ardent activists. It’s not something I especially wanted to do. In fact clicking the unfollow button for some accounts was especially difficult. But I had to do it. Despite the fact I am a level headed and analytical person, I can no longer tolerate the decline of UK politics and current state of national discourse. Rational debate has been replaced with tribalism and every possible subject conceivable is now presented as a partisan bun fight and you have to pick a side. For over a decade I have been politically homeless because I no longer think that any of the major UK political parties are fit for purpose. No one is interested in any form of national unity, tackling the big issues and equality. There’s a conspicuous lack of tangible, long term plans and policies. Political parties are just self serving lobbyists for specific interest groups. If you aren’t one of them or don’t fit favourably into their world view, you are effectively the enemy.
This endless conflict is deliberate and serves a specific purpose. It is essential to the “divide and conquer” ethos that is the foundation of contemporary politics. And if you have an iota of self awareness, decency and an interest in life beyond yourself and your own personal circumstances, it is utterly soul destroying. Because the daily diet of barefaced lies, the never ending refutation of objective reality and the prevailing mean spirited, sociopathic attitude that drives it all is poison. I now find myself in a situation where this unrelenting Orwellian nightmare is having a detrimental effect upon my mental and physical health. The problems that beset the UK are not going to go away anytime soon and are more than likely going to get worse. I believe the UK is following in the cultural and political wake of the US and that we are going to have to endure a period of populists madness before sanity returns.
At present the UK is sitting on a tinderbox of both private and public debt. The “First Past the Post” political system is an unrepresentative relic of the 19th Century that can be gamed and manipulated to political advantage. We have an uncompetitive economy that no longer has traditional industries but has failed to fully embrace the new. The financial sector strangles the real economy along with any means of change. And the electorate have largely abandoned reason in pursuit of dogma and blame culture and the press is dominated by client journalism. Notions of equality, the dissemination of wealth, society, collective responsibility and shared values have all been sacrificed on the altar of individualism, consumerism and capitalism. People no longer agree to disagree. A contrary opinion is a personal attack and cannot be tolerated. The various social groups that make up the UK effectively hate each other and they are not reticent about saying so. Contemporary politics feeds upon this divide and ensures that the status quo prevails, thus serving the needs of those in power.
Hence I am keeping the media circus that is UK news and politics at arm's length from now on. Part of me thinks that’s a terribly selfish thing to do. Because I have the luxury of switching off as my personal circumstances are not as bad as others. There are lots of people who are going to find themselves on the wrong side of the political and social divide in the next decade and it’s going to be a terrible experience for them. And it’s not just going to be the usual social demographics. A lot of folk who thought they were doing okay have been wrong footed by the pandemic and have had to use the welfare state and other institutions that they were previously sceptical about. And they have found them wanting and not as the tabloids told them. Without going into too much personal detail, due to my age I have a couple of options available to me which means I can move out of London and simply try to live out the remainder of my life away from the shitshow that is UK culture wars.
So goodbye politics, I am done with you. I can’t stop thinking about the song Bad Old World by New Model Army. I don’t consider myself in any way to be an ardent activist but it doesn’t sit right with me turning my back in this fashion. However this mess isn’t of my making and I’d argue that it is politics that is failing the public and not vice versa. Some may argue that it’s just a case of sour grapes and that my view is simply born of my “side” not being in charge so to speak but that is just such an intellectually weak argument. My position is driven by the fact that UK politics has simply dispensed with the pretense that it is anything other than self serving. I can’t do anything about these problems democratically at present and I don’t want to have my nose rubbed in the iniquities of the present government on a daily basis. So for the sake of my sanity, I am taking myself out of the arena (if I may quote John Morlar). You wish to do so too. I wouldn’t blame you. In the meantime, god help any politician that knocks on my front door this May, canvassing for votes.
Goodbye 2020
A very wise Vulcan once said “change is the essential process of all existence”. 2020 has demonstrated that unequivocally. How our privileged, pampered lives have altered over the last twelve months. We’ve had to stay at home, curtail our social interactions and reflect upon the meaning of existence. I appreciate that things are relative, so it’s not helpful to compare the concerns that discombobulate people today with the realities that folk had to endure during World War II for example. I won’t trivialise the sense of isolation and desperation some folk have felt over the lockdown. From my own perspective, my life as a carer is regimented and focused, so 2020 hasn’t really “cramped my style” to use an old fashioned phrase. However, several things happened over the course of the year that have had an impact upon myself and my family.
A very wise Vulcan once said “change is the essential process of all existence”. 2020 has demonstrated that unequivocally. How our privileged, pampered lives have altered over the last twelve months. We’ve had to stay at home, curtail our social interactions and reflect upon the meaning of existence. I appreciate that things are relative, so it’s not helpful to compare the concerns that discombobulate people today with the realities that folk had to endure during World War II for example. I won’t trivialise the sense of isolation and desperation some folk have felt over the lockdown. From my own perspective, my life as a carer is regimented and focused, so 2020 hasn’t really “cramped my style” to use an old fashioned phrase. However, several things happened over the course of the year that have had an impact upon myself and my family.
In April I fell ill with COVID-19. My symptoms were not sufficiently bad enough to require hospitalisation but it was a singularly unpleasant experience. The feeling of having restricted breathing as if I was being held in a perpetual bearhug, was most disconcerting. My biggest fear was infecting Mrs P who is unfortunately in a high risk group due to her heart condition. The initial symptoms burnt themselves out within two weeks but it took at least another three to four months before I felt healthy again. And then in late August my 90 year old Father became ill and was hospitalised. He endured four years of very poor health after several strokes and frankly he was fed up with it all. He passed away on September 16th. Due to COVID -19, I could only visit him once in hospital. It then fell to me to sort everything out. I still to this day do not feel I’ve grieved “properly”. Every time I think I’m coping well something trivial reminds me he’s not about anymore and I suddenly become aware that I miss him profoundly.
Another terrible weight that many have laboured under, here in the UK, has been the state of contemporary politics. Irrespective of whether you specifically voted for the incumbent government, one naturally expected them to rise to the occasion when faced with a national crisis. Because COVID-19 and Brexit are issues that should be considered above petty, partisan politics. Sadly that has not been the case. Boris Johnson has handled both issues poorly and is surrounded by an equally inept cabinet. The country is still terribly divided and he’s made no attempts to build bridges or pour oil on troubled waters. He is untrustworthy, a liar and shambolic in his rhetorical style. His paucity of talent, along with his dishevelled appearance, denigrates the office he currently occupies. He lacks principles and conviction which means he will never commit to anything that requires him to maintain a position. Hence he is late to deal with things and does so in a weak, non-committal fashion. Sadly, we have to endure this inept, coward and his craven government for another four years.
Mercifully, it hasn’t all been doom and gloom. 2020 has shown that there are still plenty talented, focused and empathetic people in the world. From healthcare professionals to the staff in the supermarket and delivery drivers. While some of our so-called best have proven to be dull and tarnished, some everyday folk have pulled together, gone the extra mile and truly shone this year. Another positive event to reflect upon is that Trump lost the US election and the entire world will not have to endure his insane ramblings in 2021. His departure certainly doesn’t fix the broken state of US politics but every journey has to begin with a first step. And on a personal note, I get to meet my new Grandson in February. So the next twelve months have some positive aspects already. The COVID-19 vaccines won’t solve everything and I’m sure the immediate future is going to be tough. But as Churchill may or may not have said, “if you're going through hell, keep going”. Wise words. Onwards and upwards I say.
Taxation and Wealth Distribution in the UK
There was a rather angry man on BBC Question Time on Thursday night who was somewhat upset over the tax proposals set out in the Labour Party manifesto. Labour intend to increase the higher rate of tax from 40% to 45% if they are elected. The person in question by their own admission earns £80,000 plus a year and he didn’t believe he was in the top 8% of UK earners. He therefore objected to the fact that under a Labour Government he would face a tax increase. Unfortunately this individual was mistaken. According to figures from HMRC, he is clearly one of 4.3 million people in the higher tax category. Perhaps what he found incongruous was the fact that he falls into a demographic that includes people on his salary all the way to multimillionaires. However, at a salary of over £80,000 a year, he is earning way above the UK average. I think this is what flummoxes people so much. There is an assumption that wealth is evenly distributed throughout the working age UK population and that any graph showing salaries is a gentle curve. Sadly, this is not the case as a little research will show.
There was a rather angry man on BBC Question Time on Thursday night who was somewhat upset over the tax proposals set out in the Labour Party manifesto. Labour intend to increase the higher rate of tax from 40% to 45% if they are elected. The person in question by their own admission earns £80,000 plus a year and he didn’t believe he was in the top 8% of UK earners. He therefore objected to the fact that under a Labour Government he would face a tax increase. Unfortunately this individual was mistaken. According to figures from HMRC, he is clearly one of 4.3 million people in the higher tax category. Perhaps what he found incongruous was the fact that he falls into a demographic that includes people on his salary all the way to multimillionaires. However, at a salary of over £80,000 a year, he is earning way above the UK average. I think this is what flummoxes people so much. There is an assumption that wealth is evenly distributed throughout the working age UK population and that any graph showing salaries is a gentle curve. Sadly, this is not the case as a little research will show.
First of all, here are the current UK Tax Rates for financial year 2019-20.
Personal allowance Up to £12,500 0%
Basic rate £12,501 to £50,000 20%
Higher rate £50,001 to £150,000 40%
Additional rate Over £150,001 45%
In 2018-19, an estimated 26.4 million individuals (82.4%) are Basic Rate taxpayers, 4.3 million individuals (13.8%) are Higher Rate taxpayers and 393,000 (1.3%) are Additional Rate taxpayers. That is a total of 31 million people paying taxes in the UK. However the working age population of the United Kingdom is 52 million. That means around 21 million people (43%) earn less than £12,500 a year and are below the Basic Rate tax threshold and therefore do not pay income tax. With these numbers in mind it then become very clear why the median annual income in the UK is £28,677 for full-time employees. There are many jobs that the public perceive as being well paid that in fact are not. Nurses, Policemen and Teachers are classic examples of public servants that fall into this category. The starting salary for all of these professions is between £22,000 and £24,000 per annum.
Once you start looking into subjects such as earnings, taxation and the distribution of wealth in the UK, it becomes very clear that there is a high level of economic inequality. One’s political perspective upon such matters is both personal and subjective but the facts are undeniable. Wealth in the UK remains primarily in the hands of the top 20% who have an income more than 12 times the amount earned by the poorest 20%. Those who are the least financially compensated for their work often find themselves having to supplement their income with such government benefits as Tax Credits. Sadly due to the increasing cost of living, especially with regard to rented accommodation, many families find themselves in poverty. Yet paradoxically the UK is sixth-largest national economy in the world measured by nominal gross domestic product (GDP), ninth largest by purchasing power parity (PPP), and twenty second largest by GDP per capita, comprising 3.3% of world GDP. It’s all very sobering and food for thought. Perhaps the irate man on BBC Question Time should reflect upon all this.
The Importance of Voting in the December 12th 2019 UK General Election
The UK is having a General Election on Thursday, December 12th. The third in five years. Due to the current volatile state of national politics, existing party loyalties are not in anyway guaranteed. The European Election in May of this year showed that many of the UK electorate where voting tactically. Furthermore the shadow of Brexit looms ominously over the forthcoming General Election and will further impact upon existing voting patterns. Simply put, this is an election unlike others we’ve seen in recent times. The outcome will have far reaching consequences. If there is a majority Conservative government, then the UK will leave the EU with the current deal. Trade negotiations will ensue and the country will face a period of transition. There is also scope that the deal on offer is rejected by hard-line Conservative MPs and there could be a “No Deal Brexit”. Alternatively, a majority Labour government could lead to a second referendum on both leaving the EU and Scottish Independence. A hung parliament should also not be ruled out, leading to potential coalitions or a National Unity Government.
The UK is having a General Election on Thursday, December 12th. The third in five years. Due to the current volatile state of national politics, existing party loyalties are not in anyway guaranteed. The European Election in May of this year showed that many of the UK electorate where voting tactically. Furthermore the shadow of Brexit looms ominously over the forthcoming General Election and will further impact upon existing voting patterns. Simply put, this is an election unlike others we’ve seen in recent times. The outcome will have far reaching consequences. If there is a majority Conservative government, then the UK will leave the EU with the current deal. Trade negotiations will ensue and the country will face a period of transition. There is also scope that the deal on offer is rejected by hard-line Conservative MPs and there could be a “No Deal Brexit”. Alternatively, a majority Labour government could lead to a second referendum on both leaving the EU and Scottish Independence. A hung parliament should also not be ruled out, leading to potential coalitions or a National Unity Government.
Voting in December’s General Election is therefore very important. The next parliament will shape the United Kingdom’s long-term social and economic future as well as our relationship with the rest of the world. Yet research by the Electoral Commission has found that 17% of eligible voters in Great Britain, as many as 9.4 million people, are either missing from the electoral register or not registered at their current address. Major errors affect up to 5.6 million people. The Commission also highlighted substantial differences in registration levels between younger people, renters, low-income and black and ethnic minority people, compared with older white people who own their homes. Furthermore, analysis clearly shows that older and wealthier members of the electorate are far more likely to go out to the polling stations to vote or utilise the postal ballot service.
Earlier this year, voter ID was made compulsory in 10 voting districts despite voter impersonation making up just 3% of all alleged electoral offences at the previous local election. This experiment could become a national policy in the UK under a Conservative government. Presented as a means to tackle voter fraud, it has been seen by some as a deliberate way to disenfranchise specific groups of voters. Voters who are perceived not to be traditional Conservative Party supporters. The two specific types of personal ID required are a current UK Driver’s License or a UK Passport. Both of which have a significant cost associated with them and are statistically not so commonly held by certain socioeconomic groups in the UK. The same socioeconomic group that also tends not to vote regularly in elections and who are usually identified by pollsters as “leaning” towards the Labour Party.
The UK has an electorate of 46,843,896. The turnout in the 2017 General Election was 68.7%. However, 14,662,139 registered voters did not participate and chose not to vote. To put this significant number into context, the amount of uncast ballots is greater than the number of votes that any single party received. 13,636,684 people voted for the Conservative Party. 12,877,918 voted for the Labour Party. Simply put if these members of the electorate decide to vote in the forthcoming General Election it could significantly change the outcome. Since the 2016 EU Referendum, the UK electorate has become increasingly politically engaged. Current data doesn’t reflect to what level or how well-informed voters are but certainly people are more disposed towards adopting a political stance and acting upon it. Perhaps polling day on December 12th will have a larger turnout than usual, despite the time of the year. Or will voter apathy play a major role? If you wish to vote in the General Election then you must register by 11:59pm on 26th November.
The New Prime Minister of the United Kingdom
From time to time, I have written what can broadly be classified as political posts. Most of these have been designed to present an overview to those readers who live outside of the UK and may not be familiar with the subtleties of British politics. Furthermore, I am not affiliated to any of the major UK political parties and broadly see myself as politically homeless at present. This post is a brief overview on today’s change in UK Prime Minister and is intended to explain how this situation has occurred and what happens next.
From time to time, I have written what can broadly be classified as political posts. Most of these have been designed to present an overview to those readers who live outside of the UK and may not be familiar with the subtleties of British politics. Furthermore, I am not affiliated to any of the major UK political parties and broadly see myself as politically homeless at present. This post is a brief overview on today’s change in UK Prime Minister and is intended to explain how this situation has occurred and what happens next.
In the 2017 General Election the Conservative Party managed to bolster its reduced numbers in the House of Parliament by doing a deal with the Democratic Unionist Party of Northern Ireland, thus having sufficient seats to form a government. The leader of the Conservative party was at that time Theresa May, so by default she became the 54th Prime Minister of the UK. However, the issue of Brexit currently falls outside of traditional party lines and therefore cannot be seen purely as a “Left versus Right” problem. The Conservative Party has been and remains divided over Brexit and Theresa May has been fighting a running battle not only with opposition parties but with half of her own backbenchers. Due to current parliamentary arithmetic she has been unable to find any support for her Brexit Withdrawal Agreement and effectively lost the ability to lead her own party. Her departure from the office of Prime Minister is down to her own party, who concluded that she couldn’t deliver Brexit in a manner deemed suitable nor win a General Election. Hence, she was politically forced to go.
So in recent weeks there has been a “battle” to become the next leader of the Conservative party because that leader will by default become the next Prime Minister. Needless to say early opinion polls showed the Ex-Foreign Secretary and former Mayor of London Boris Johnson was heading for a substantial victory. Yesterday it was announced that he had won the leadership race against the current Foreign Secretary Jeremy Hunt, by 92,153 to 46,656 votes. Now, it is very important to stress that this was not in anyway, a public vote. This was a vote of Conservative Party members; the members of the general public who are sufficiently engaged politically to pay their subscriptions fees and join the Conservative Party. It wasn’t a vote for Prime Minister but a vote on who would be the new leader of the party. But because that party is currently in government, then that new party leader automatically steps into the role of Prime Minister. Therefore the leader of the 5th largest economy in the world was decided by 138,809 people. The current electorate of the UK is 46.8 million people.
As of this afternoon, Theresa May has visited The Queen and formally resigned her premiership. Boris Johnson will subsequently have an audience with Her Majesty and state his intentions to form a government. Once these formalities have been addressed, he will return to 10 Downing Street and take residence. His next immediate duty is to sign the “letters of last resort”. These are four identically worded handwritten letters from the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom to the commanding officers of the four British ballistic missile submarines. They contain instructions to retaliate or not to retaliate against a nuclear strike, or for the Commander to use their own judgement or to place the vessel under command of an Allied Power. Once this has been done, then it is a question of politics. No doubt the new Prime Minister will make a formal statement to the British public before then proceeding with forming a new cabinet. Political opponents will be dismissed and those loyal, or invaluable will be given new positions. It should be noted that Boris Johnson is a controversial figure within his own party. That combined with current Brexit divisions means that some MPs will not work with him. Several Ministers have already resigned.
What happens in the next few weeks of Prime Minister Johnson’s term of office is much harder to predict. He has stated that he means to return to the EU and “re-open Brexit negotiations, although there is little or no political will from Europe to do such things. There is still very strong political resistance against “no deal” in parliament across all parties. Will there be any tangible movement on Brexit? I’m not so sure. Then there is the issue of international relationships and due to the shadow of Brexit, will there be a shift towards the greater ties with the US and its current incumbent president. There some in the UK that would like to see a Prime Minister that followed suite with President Trump and pursued a similarly unorthodox approach to government. One that is happy to break with tradition and existing perceived wisdom. Yet there are others both at a parliamentary level and as registered voters that are deeply sceptical of Boris Johnson, his political track record, associations and overall approach to politics.
If the new Prime Minster finds himself stymied on all fronts it may well lead to another general election. There is the possibility of a vote of no confidence by MPs or Prime Minister Johnson may well take a calculated risk to hold an election himself to give his position political legitimacy and to seek to increase the Conservative majority in parliament. It should be noted that one of the reasons that Johnson was voted into office by party members, is because he’s one of the few politicians that is recognised nationally. Because a substantial percentage of the UK electorate are not greatly politically engaged, he has the advantage of brand recognition and is perceived as affable and a charismatic. Therefore Conservative party members hope he be able successfully win a further term of office for the current government. Yet the recent Local Council Elections along with the European Election showed that the country remains divided and broadly entrenched in its political positions. I’m not sure if such a gamble would payoff or make any significant difference to the parliamentary landscape.
Effectively it is now just a question of time and waiting to see where Prime Minister tries to go politically. Will he pursue a dogmatic approach to Brexit or will he prove to be more pragmatic and flexible to get this extremely difficult matter resolved? Or will he be politically consumed by his Premiership as his predecessor? As for the man himself and the controversy surrounding him, I will leave that to others to analyse as they have far more information at their disposal than I. Here is a link to an article in today’s Washington Post by Ian Dunt is the editor of Politics.co.uk, in which he scrutinises Boris Johnson and reflects upon both his political and private personas.
Nothing Has Changed
On the 23rd of June 2016, the UK held a referendum on whether to remain or leave the European Union. The results were 51.89% to leave and 48.11% to remain. Due to the significance of the subject matter and the way the European question has been discussed in the media over the past decade, there was a high voter turnout of 72.21%. 33,577,342 people cast their vote out of a total electorate of 46,500,001. The levels of public engagement were far higher than those seen with local or general elections. However, despite a binary question yielding a binary result, the issue of Brexit has not been laid to rest. It can be cogently argued that the entire referendum was rushed, poorly thought through, with neither side running campaigns that provided all the relevant facts of the impact of leaving the EU. As ever the entire matter has been driven first and foremost by party politics and remains so today. Perhaps the biggest issue that stems from the 2016 vote is the size of the leave victory. A “win” of 1.89% is far from decisive and makes a nonsense of political rhetoric such as “the will of the people”. At the time, Nigel Farage, then leader of the UK Independence Party, stated that “a 52-48 referendum this would be unfinished business by a long way. If the Remain campaign win two-thirds to one-third that ends it”. Unfortunately, nearly three years on Brexit shows no sign of ending.
On the 23rd of June 2016, the UK held a referendum on whether to remain or leave the European Union. The results were 51.89% to leave and 48.11% to remain. Due to the significance of the subject matter and the way the European question has been discussed in the media over the past decade, there was a high voter turnout of 72.21%. 33,577,342 people cast their vote out of a total electorate of 46,500,001. The levels of public engagement were far higher than those seen with local or general elections. However, despite a binary question yielding a binary result, the issue of Brexit has not been laid to rest. It can be cogently argued that the entire referendum was rushed, poorly thought through, with neither side running campaigns that provided all the relevant facts of the impact of leaving the EU. As ever the entire matter has been driven first and foremost by party politics and remains so today. Perhaps the biggest issue that stems from the 2016 vote is the size of the leave victory. A “win” of 1.89% is far from decisive and makes a nonsense of political rhetoric such as “the will of the people”. At the time, Nigel Farage, then leader of the UK Independence Party, stated that “a 52-48 referendum this would be unfinished business by a long way. If the Remain campaign win two-thirds to one-third that ends it”. Unfortunately, nearly three years on Brexit shows no sign of ending.
Traditionally, UK politics is mainly driven by two major parties, which hail from different ends of the political spectrum. Major socioeconomic issues are usually championed or opposed by each of these groups. The UK electorate are broadly tribal and due to the first past the post voting, deciding outcomes on the big issues such as taxation, the economy and social matters is fairly straightforward. However, Brexit has thrown a major spanner in the works, as it has fallen outside of this existing methodology. The choice of whether to remain or leave has divided both the Conservative and Labour parties, therefore neither are fully invested in one particular position. Parliament is therefore split on Brexit which is why it has been unable to deliver a definitive outcome. The referendum asked a very simple question and the results were then handed to parliament to implement. But parliament has not managed to do this and it would appear that this inertia will prevail for the immediate future. There is no majority view on either side of the debate and more importantly, parliamentary numbers to back a specific position and force it through.
The entire Brexit debate has also seen a shift in UK politics away from evidenced based, factual driven policy and measured reasoned debate. In many ways Brexit has been co-opted into a broader political cause that encompasses many long-standing grievances. Regional inequality, a decade of austerity and fears over globalisation and social change have resulted in a major sense of pushback against a political system and traditional parties that do not appear to serve any interest other than their own. Societal changes have seen broadly held political ideologies erode and the rise of consumerism and individualism means that many now view politics as a mechanic for facilitating one’s own needs, rather than the collective “good” of the nation. Hence Brexit is a very dogmatic and tribal driven debate. Contemporary politics has always been up until now about compromise and what can be achieved over what is hoped for. Yet attempts to compromise over Brexit have failed in parliament and certainly the public appears to have no stomach for it. It’s very much a case of all or nothing.
Last week, the UK voted in the European Parliamentary Elections. Due to the ongoing Brexit impasse, the country was legally bound to participate. As many of the electorate were deeply unhappy with the status quo there was a strong show of support for the newly formed Brexit Party, which has campaigned on a single issue and has at present no other distinct policies. Hence the traditional parties of Labour and the Conservatives suffered an unparalleled loss of public support. Again this stems from neither having a clear policy on the matter. At first glance, it would appear that the Brexit Party was the major success story of these elections. As ever politicians interviewed across multiple news outlets fought to put their own unique spin on the results, to either validate their own positions or to mollify the political fallout. But if one looks beyond the rhetoric and consider the results in a measured analytical fashion, they offer a rather stark conclusion. It is broadly agreed that these elections where fought predominantly on one issue alone; the question of Brexit. Therefore if the results are viewed from such a perspective you find that leave voters predominantly supported the Brexit Party which polled 31.6% of the vote. Remain voters backed the Liberal Democrats and the Green Party who collectively made up 32.4% of the vote share. If you then consider the Scottish and Welsh Nationalist votes, as both parties have a clear remain agenda, then that adds a further 4.6% to that position.
The question of where the two big parties stand is more ambiguous so it is hard to assign their numbers to either of the two sides of the Brexit debate. Ultimately these numbers show that there is still no majority view in the UK of the subject of leaving the EU. Furthermore, the electorate appear to be becoming more entrenched in their position and have simply transferred their votes to those parties that have a clear policy on the subject. Therefore the conclusion is that after nearly three years, despite numerous debates in parliament, new facts and details about the reality of Brexit becoming apparent and continual public discourse on the matter, nothing has changed. This conclusion is certainly food for thought.
For those who wish to see a speedy resolution to Brexit, these results are a clear sign that such a thing is not going to happen any time soon. The question of Europe and our relationship with the continent has claimed yet another Conservative leader and we now face the prospect of an acrimonious battle for the position. Currently the next leader will become Prime Minister by default, yet regardless of whether that individual adopts a tougher stance on Brexit, favouring a no deal resolution, it doesn’t alter the current parliamentary reality. There is still no prevailing consensus among MPs and no one political party has sufficient numbers to force through any kind of definitive decision. Furthermore, the divide within the Conservative party is such that some MPs are preparing to vote against their own government and party to initiate no confidence proceedings if a no deal scenario becomes likely. Simply put, last night’s election results have made the Brexit conundrum even harder to resolve.
So what happens next? If both Labour and the Conservative parties wish to survive as functioning political entities, then they need to rethink their positions and effectively pick a side very quickly. It will more than likely be a case that the Conservatives will now pursue a no-deal stance and go all in on concluding our exit from the EU by the current October 31st deadline. Labour will now have to clearly adopt a confirmatory vote policy that includes a remain option, on any proposal that parliament agrees upon. Again, the notion of compromise is jettisoned. There will naturally be consequences for picking a side, as much as there will be for not doing so.
Brexit remains the most impossible political circle to square in current peace time politics. And due to the lack of a clear consensus among the electorate, no single outcome will “heal the nation”. The UK is not only going to remain an angry divided nation, it is more than likely going to get a lot worse. For those outside of the UK with an interest in global politics, I’m sure the Brexit issue may well provide fascinating viewing and much to consider. Yet for those living and enduring the ongoing Brexit debacle it is becoming a major source of worry and concern. There is scope for a no deal Brexit to have calamitous results upon the UK economy, potentially of the kind you cannot just ignore. Similarly, overturning Brexit and revoking Article 50 could also lead to the implosion of nation politics and the collapse of the “perception” of democracy. A political “Kobayashi Maru test” if you will. What happens next is anyone’s guess.
Get Your House in Order
Theoretically, the fallout from the Christchurch mass shooting should be far reaching. There is at present an opportunity to address numerous problems and issues while the tragedy still has both political and social momentum. Because “it is the doom of man that he forgets”. 24-hour news culture has severely strained the public’s attention span. Plus it is in the interests of numerous institutions for the news cycle to move on, because current scrutiny is highlighting how culpable they are. The tabloid press, media commentators, tech companies and internet communities have been found wanting for a while and last weeks carnage is now raising questions over their involvement in the growing culture of hate and therefore their potential regulation. This may be the last chance for many to put their own house in order before the establishment does. And considering the knee-jerk, ham-fisted nature of contemporary western politics, the latter is not likely to be either subtle, efficient or even beneficial.
Theoretically, the fallout from the Christchurch mass shooting should be far reaching. There is at present an opportunity to address numerous problems and issues while the tragedy still has both political and social momentum. Because “it is the doom of man that he forgets”. 24-hour news culture has severely strained the public’s attention span. Plus it is in the interests of numerous institutions for the news cycle to move on, because current scrutiny is highlighting how culpable they are. The tabloid press, media commentators, tech companies and internet communities have been found wanting for a while and last weeks carnage is now raising questions over their involvement in the growing culture of hate and therefore their potential regulation. This may be the last chance for many to put their own house in order before the establishment does. And considering the knee-jerk, ham-fisted nature of contemporary western politics, the latter is not likely to be either subtle, efficient or even beneficial.
It sadly did not come as a surprise that Brenton Tarrant is steeped in numerous aspects of the unsavoury side of internet culture. Namely, 8chan, shitposting and the alt-right. A “manifesto” allegedly attributed to him is filled with the usual weaponised use of memes to try and obfuscate and confuse. And then there’s the fact that he was allegedly a gamer and conversant with You Tube sub-culture to consider. While old school politicians, mainstream journalists and senior members of the public struggle to catch up, those of us who are more familiar with fluid and rapidly evolving nature of internet culture are facing the stark reality that it played a part in shaping this killer’s beliefs. Furthermore gaming, online communities and You Tube personalities are some of the many intersecting circles of a wider and ultimately harmful Venn diagram. Memes aren’t necessarily “just harmless, movements such as #gamergate aren’t purely about “ethics in gaming journalism” and when You Tube personalities say racist, sexist or homophobic things, it not just “banter” or “a joke”.
Tarrant stated, “Remember lads, subscribe to PewDiePie!” just before he started shooting. Felix Kjellberg has made a statement disavowing any association with him, his ideology and being “sickened” by his comments. However, Kjellberg has used racist language in the past, as well as given shout-outs to questionable individuals. With 89 million plus YouTube subscribers who are predominantly young, male and white, he has a lot of reach. Then there are other personalities and channels that cater and court this specific demographic. One filled with poorly skilled, disaffected young males, struggling with emotional literacy and social awkwardness. Add to this a growing adversarial culture that eschews nuance and increasing zealotry in previously benign social interactions and pastimes such as fandom and there’s trouble. PC culture has failed and the pendulum has now swung the other way with populist bandwagons such as Brexit and MAGA. A perfect storm has been forming for a while and it appears to have now arrived.
It is both sad and ironic that the old cautionary mantra of “the only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing” which has almost become hokey in recent years, has suddenly become alarming relevant again. Online communities, You Tube, Twitch, even game developers have not done enough (if indeed anything) to adequately police and moderate the communities they financially benefit from. They’ve hidden behind “freedom of speech”, claims they are not publishers and generally complained that the technology or man power required to do the job would be too difficult to manage and inefficient. And so we saw both Facebook and You Tube desperately trying to get in control of the continuous reposting of video content of the Christchurch shootings. “Why not just suspend all uploads during such circumstances?” some politicians have asked. The ensuing silence from the tech companies was deafening. And the real answer is money as anyone with a functioning intellect knows.
There are no simple reasons for the rise in hate crimes or easy explanations for such tragic events such as that in Christchurch. Nor are there any quick fixes. Multiple factors have contributed to an ongoing drip, drip, drip of populist rhetoric that have normalised racism, xenophobia and hatred of “the other”. Online culture has evolved quickly from a quirky, backwater niche to an unchecked, unpoliced “frontier town”. We now find that such an environment is dangerous and action needs to be taken. Codes of conduct need to be enforced, moderation is required and we must stop mollifying sanctions with bogus attempts at reform, because we still want everyones money. We all need to play our part and call out those who peddle hatred. We also need to be smart and ensure we don’t throw the baby out with the bath water. With regard to the bigger players such as You Tube and Facebook, if they don’t take real steps now to prevent abuse of their services, they will find control rested away from them and given to the politicians. Not the most desirable solution. The time for “whataboutery” and generally prevaricating is over. There is guilt by association and in some cases blood on the hands of those who profit from the status quo. So to all involved, get you house in order. While you still can. The consequences for not doing so don’t bear thinking about.
A Divided Nation
I’ve heard some journalists and political pundits refer to Brexit as an insoluble problem. Technically that is not the case. A Hard Brexit would effectively meet the criteria of the 2016 referendum result and its binary question. What is insoluble is the government delivering a result that pleases all parties and more importantly doesn’t put the UK economy at risk. Brexit is a microcosm of everything that is wrong with UK politics at the present. The original very straight forward question on the ballot paper did not indicate in any way the logistical, procedural and legal complexities of extricating the UK from the EU after over forty years of major harmonisation and integration. The leave campaign openly stated that this very process would be easy and getting a good deal was not an issue. Both were lies. Hence, we now find ourselves in a situation where the realities of what Brexit entails are manifestly clear, and no one agrees as to what is the best way to proceed. And all of this is panning out against a background of broken, tribal and hostile politics. It is a recipe for disaster and now that the Brexit Pandora’s Box has been opened, there is no scenario that doesn’t lead to future problems and unrest.
I’ve heard some journalists and political pundits refer to Brexit as an insoluble problem. Technically that is not the case. A Hard Brexit would effectively meet the criteria of the 2016 referendum result and its binary question. What is insoluble is the government delivering a result that pleases all parties and more importantly doesn’t put the UK economy at risk. Brexit is a microcosm of everything that is wrong with UK politics at the present. The original very straight forward question on the ballot paper did not indicate in any way the logistical, procedural and legal complexities of extricating the UK from the EU after over forty years of major harmonisation and integration. The leave campaign openly stated that this very process would be easy and getting a good deal was not an issue. Both were lies. Hence, we now find ourselves in a situation where the realities of what Brexit entails are manifestly clear, and no one agrees as to what is the best way to proceed. And all of this is panning out against a background of broken, tribal and hostile politics. It is a recipe for disaster and now that the Brexit Pandora’s Box has been opened, there is no scenario that doesn’t lead to future problems and unrest.
The UK is a divided country. Its political parties seem to have abandoned very specific parts of society and entire regions have been neglected by successive governments. The gap between rich and poor is increasing, and the middle classes are no longer insulated from the country’s economic woes. Social changes over the last fifty years have seen a shift away from traditional political doctrines and the sense of being part of specific communities and groups. Consumerism has led to politics being seen as a means of personal gain and that is what often shapes the electorates position on major issues at elections. There is also an ever-widening gulf between the generations and the way they view the world. The young are happy to embrace a global market and are not constrained by past prejudices and cultural baggage. They also do not fear social change. Where as the Baby Boomer generation are very much entrenched in a mindset born of their time. Hence foreigners cannot be trusted and fantasies about British Exceptionalism are still harboured. A fictional past is mourned, and a modern future is feared.
Possibly the most worrying development in recent years is the shift in politics from fact based, intellectually driven debate into wanton tribalism. The “politics of feelings” has emerged as a result of social media and the internet. Equal access to online platforms has fostered an environment of false equivalence and the mainstream medias obsession with balance has perpetuated the myth that all views, no matter how unfounded or extreme, are of equal merit. Then there was Michael Gove’s misquoted statement that “people in this country have had enough of experts”. Although he was referencing a very specific group of tail chasing think tanks, the point was embraced in certain quarters. There has been a growing pushback of late against academia because it is by its very nature exclusionary. Some people simply do not like the idea that having no knowledge or experience of a specific thing, somehow keeps them from the top table and that their views are not treated with the same deference of those with a deeper understanding. The current socio-political changes in the UK go hand-in-hand with the spreading intellectual blackout throughout western democracies.
A great many people are legitimately unhappy with the way politics and social change has bypassed their concerns and wishes. The UK has an ageing political system that seems to be ill equipped for the modern world and more importantly an increasing diversity of opinions and views. Both the major political parties seem to be far too self-obsessed and removed from the reality of most of the electorates daily experience. Parliament needs to be overhauled, relocated and divested of many of the patrician traditions it is steeped in. Proportional representation also needs to be embraced. Yet sadly, none of these things appears to be immediate propositions. The growing disillusionment with mainstream politics leaves much of the electorate politically homeless. The major concern here is that the gap left by the demise of the only UK protest party, UKIP, may drive some into the waiting arms of the hard right or the extreme left. Are we looking at a return to the violent and tumultuous political times of the seventies? Because politics and governance driven by either extreme of the political spectrum seldom benefits the country.
What next for Theresa May’s EU deal?
And so the UK continues to act out of character with ongoing acts of protest and catharticism. Journalist Agnes C. Poirier, the UK editor for the French weekly magazine Marianne recently said on the BBC news discussion show Dateline London, that the UK “was behaving in a very un-British way” in so far as after decades of not cleaving to strong ideologies it is now doing the opposite over Brexit and also by being “passionate”, which is not a trait usually associated with the UK populous and their relationship with politics. It begs the question where will it all end? Well I think with regard to Brexit, the answer is not well. I believe any outcome available will be broadly unsatisfactory to the UK electorate. A Hard Brexit comes with potential economic turmoil, job loss and more. The Prime Minister’s compromise deal pleases neither side of the debate and entails the risk associated with a finite transition period and a dependency for the government to negotiate “good trade deals”. And the prospect of cancelling Brexit and retroactively remaining will cause social unrest and a further loss of faith in the UK political system. No one group is going to win, because there’s nothing to win. Brexit has simply removed a plaster from a festering national wound that has been neglected for decades.
As we as a nation are navigating uncharted territory politically and socially, it makes it very difficult to make any accurate predictions. I have never held the view that we cannot leave the EU. I have simply maintained that it cannot be done quickly and yet expected to yield the economic results that some politicians claimed. If the referendum had asked a more detailed question, stating a staged exit over several parliaments, then the very small leave result would be more palatable and practical. But it wasn’t and that is why we find ourselves in this mess. And Brexit is just the tip of the iceberg. It is simply a distillation of ongoing divide in opinion that is rife in the UK. Over the last two years it has become increasingly clear that many of the so-called shared “British values” are not universally embraced. The public do not all think in the same way regarding racism, equality, empathy and shared economic prosperity. And due to the “footballfication” of these sorts of issues, there is no scope for concessions, compromise of “agreeing to disagree”. You simply pick a side and hate the other. If you dare to opt out, then by default you’re an enemy because the prevailing mindset is “it’s my way or the highway”.
The British Empire at its height in the 20th Century
I am expecting a Hard Brexit and the consequences that go along with that. One can prepare to a degree but so many of the potential issues that could arise are out of our personal control. I fully expect the UK public to be in turmoil as a result and for there to be a series of minority governments in the immediate years to come. If there are hard economic consequences, then many who voted for Brexit may well be surprised that they are suffering as a result of their actions. Naturally blame will be placed at every door bar those who are genuinely responsible. The divide between rich and poor will grow, and social unrest increase as a result. As for the thorny issue of immigration, we will simply see European migrant labour replaced with international or, more than likely, Commonwealth migrant labour. That will not be well received in certain quarters. The systemic failing of our educational system and the cultural snobbery regarding many service-related jobs will leave us ill equipped to maintain the status quo regarding the way we live and consume. I suspect that the resulting backlash that is coming will end in violence and even fatalities. I believe the political classes will be at increased risk. But maybe Brexit and what proceeds it is a much needed and long postponed reality check for a nation. Perhaps we can finally lay to rest the myth on British Exceptionalism as well as put our colonial past and glory days behind us and find a new appropriate role in the modern world. However, if such a lesson can be learned it will be long, extremely painful and come with a significant price.
Thoughts on the 2018 Local Elections
There are numerous local elections taking place in England today (not Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland). 150 councils are electing new councillors, and there are six mayoral contests. They include all the seats in all 32 London boroughs, as well as every seat in the metropolitan districts of Birmingham, Manchester, Leeds and Newcastle. Specific seats are also being contested in areas such as Liverpool, Sheffield, Sunderland and Wigan. All the major UK political parties are fielding candidates with an aim of gaining the majority of seats in a specific area and thus controlling the local councils. These local authorities then subsequently control and administer the borough budget for services such as policing, local schools, refuse collection and such like. The budget is raised through a borough council tax, which is based upon property banding.
There are numerous local elections taking place in England today (not Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland). 150 councils are electing new councillors, and there are six mayoral contests. They include all the seats in all 32 London boroughs, as well as every seat in the metropolitan districts of Birmingham, Manchester, Leeds and Newcastle. Specific seats are also being contested in areas such as Liverpool, Sheffield, Sunderland and Wigan. All the major UK political parties are fielding candidates with an aim of gaining the majority of seats in a specific area and thus controlling the local councils. These local authorities then subsequently control and administer the borough budget for services such as policing, local schools, refuse collection and such like. The budget is raised through a borough council tax, which is based upon property banding.
Local elections are often considered a litmus test of public opinion for the incumbent national government. If the Prime Minister and their party is perceived to be failing in its duties or suffering any major political set backs or scandals, then voters can and will punish party candidates at a local level to show their displeasure. However, this is not always the case and voter turnout for local elections can at times be very low, due to apathy or the fact that a local borough has a strong majority favouring a specific party. Where I live in Bexley Borough, in Greater London, there is an inherent leaning towards the Conservative Party, due to the demographics of the area. The borough is still perceived as a leafy suburb where the professional middle classes go to raise a family. It is also a relatively affluent borough which is often an indicator of political affiliation in the UK.
However, local elections are frequently determined by unique local factors and issues. The closure of a school or fire station can galvanise the electorate. Again, where I live, the sale of several public parks to property developers has been a contentious issue for several years. The poor handling of this matter by the majority Conservative held council has been strongly contested by local residents and some have even gone so far as to stand as independent candidates in today’s elections. Similarly, across the country various smaller parties are either collaborating or deciding not to stand against each other in an attempt to maximise the number of seats they can win and thus work collectively against the larger parties. Often at a local level, tactical voting becomes far more effective and it will be interesting to see if and how it is used when the results of today’s vote are known over the course of the next 48 hours.
From my own perspective, local politics has declined as much as national politics over the course of my life. My local council has demonstrated in recent years the exact same failings as the national government. Political discussion has become trivialised and infantilised, focusing on trite soundbites and disseminating false information. Councillors often inhabit a completely different “world” and have no conception or interest in the reality of constituents’ lives. Policies are frequently self-serving or driven by “lobbying culture” and all its iniquities. Furthermore, having visited the council chamber and watched proceedings from the gallery, I can confidently say that many councillors lack any debating and public speaking skills. They are often ill-mannered, bellicose and generally over enamoured with themselves. Remember these are not professional career politicians, with degrees in the subject and media training under their belt. Most councillors are simply local residents from varied backgrounds and professions.
Perhaps what I find most galling about today’s local elections is the total lack of credible campaigning by any of the major parties. The only candidate that has had the courage to knock on doors in my street is an independent. The rest have just taken the path of least resistance and simply attended minor rallies at local church hall’s populated by a handful of the party faithful. There have been no debates, no concerted efforts to meet and engage with the electorate, no discussion of policies and future planning. Instead we are left with conspicuous displays of hubris and entitlement along with a barely suppressed contempt for the electorate. It would appear that many that currently hold office seem to be oblivious to the mood for change that is currently abroad in the country and are merely focused on business as usual and all the financial benefits that go along with it. All too often the aspirational and ideological aspects of party politics are lost over time, leaving just a self-serving imperative to maintain the status quo.
However, the UK has had a noticeable falling out with the status quo and is currently enduring a period of major political upheaval and societal divide along with a general disliking of most establishment institutions. Regardless of where you stand politically at present, a new “wild card” approach has been introduced into contemporary politics. Subsequently, traditional political certainties are not so reliable. The electorate has shown that it will upset the existing “apple cart” if it sees fit, even if that is ultimately an act of self-harm. Therefore, we may well see some interesting results and political fallout by the weekend. These elections may well be the final nail in UKIPs coffin. Brexit, The Windrush Scandal and a multitude of bespoke local issues could result in the government being punished and the Conservative Party losing control of several “safe” councils. We will also finally find out if Jeremy Corbyn’s leadership has any impact upon Labour support at council level. On a positive note, perhaps this set of elections will mark the beginning of a cultural shift away from traditional bi-partisan politics towards a broader system with more independent and minority party candidates.
This is Why We Can't Have Nice Things
"This is why we can't have nice things" is a well-established internet meme. Over time it has been over used and has become a bit of a cliché. Yet under certain conditions it can still be utilised in a pertinent fashion to make a salient point. Recently, something somewhat innocuous and trivial occurred that caused me to recollect this saying. The incident itself is not of any major importance but it resulted in me realising that this sort of thing happens more and more often these days. Allow me to explain myself. I like many of you frequent a few forums and subreddits. On one particular site, a thread was derailed by someone who decided to just simply name call. Nothing unusual there I hear you say. But for me personally, it was one time too many. Name calling serves no purpose in an adult debate, so I decided to point this out. Eventually, the problem post was removed as there were others that thought that such behaviour was crass. However, the person in question who posted the remark, would not concede the point in any way shape or form. They either did not want to or what was more likely, were totally incapable of comprehending their own transgression.
"This is why we can't have nice things" is a well-established internet meme. Over time it has been over used and has become a bit of a cliché. Yet under certain conditions it can still be utilised in a pertinent fashion to make a salient point. Recently, something somewhat innocuous and trivial occurred that caused me to recollect this saying. The incident itself is not of any major importance but it resulted in me realising that this sort of thing happens more and more often these days. Allow me to explain myself. I like many of you frequent a few forums and subreddits. On one particular site, a thread was derailed by someone who decided to just simply name call. Nothing unusual there I hear you say. But for me personally, it was one time too many. Name calling serves no purpose in an adult debate, so I decided to point this out. Eventually, the problem post was removed as there were others that thought that such behaviour was crass. However, the person in question who posted the remark, would not concede the point in any way shape or form. They either did not want to or what was more likely, were totally incapable of comprehending their own transgression.
Whether they were trolling, or utterly convinced of the certainty of their position remains unknown. As they were only sanctioned and not banned, they will no doubt continue to pursue their "unique style" of social interaction. I am left considering whether I wish to continue to participate in such an environment. Hence my recourse to the titular meme, because this always seems to be the pattern. It appears that any medium that is designed for social interaction is eventually usurped by the lowest common denominator. Furthermore, the problem elements who often cause these problems are sufficiently savvy to keep within the rules (although they are often a moderator’s nightmare), thus remaining relatively unassailable.
Now I'm sure we've all experienced this sort of behaviour in some shape or form, during our excursions online. It’s quite common place. Here are a few examples of the usual sort of tactics that are used to derail or hijack any conversation:
- Straw man and Ad hominen arguments. Pretty much the oldest two tricks in the book. Argue against something that wasn't said or attack the person to discredit their opinions or position.
- Gaslighting.
- Whataboutery.
- Grammar Nazis. If you can't win an argument then why not criticise someone's spelling. A classic act of misdirection.
- The Wall of Text. This is often done by minutely dissecting a previous post and is a tool designed to wear an opponent down. If the wall of text is not replied to in kind, a victory is claim by default.
- "Freedom of speech". This nebulous ideological concept (which so often erroneously interpreted) is the "get out of jail card" of choice for many online malcontents. Allegedly it affords people the right to be racist, sexist, and pretty much any other sort of "ist" that you can name. Sometimes it is seen as a justification to simply be bellicose and ill mannered, affording the individual the option to abdicate from normal social conventions.
For those who would like to explore further examples of these esoteric arts, try the following links. How to Win Online Arguments and The Subtle Art of Trolling. Also checkout Graham's Hierarchy of Disagreement. It seems that there is little scope for a civilised debate and social interaction anywhere on the internet these days. In researching this post, I picked three random articles that were linked on Twitter and read their respective comments section. All descended into chaos within a short period of time. Furthermore, this seems to be the standard mode of debate in all walks of life these days. TV shows and news channels seem to favour it, as does the press. Politics has fully embraced the Punch and Judy approach to public discourse. It no longer seems to be about having an intelligent debate. Now it's simply about shouting someone down, not blinking while lying through your teeth and revelling in the perceived glory of your victory. All of which is far easier than having a proper discussion based around critical thinking and decorum, because that obviously takes too much effort and more importantly skill.
So, what do people such as you and I do about this problem? Well it would appear the common solution is to simply withdraw. Thus, we see forums and websites become havens for trolls and gain the label "toxic". Just go and look at the small cadre of malcontents on the LBC website. It’s a sad reality of modern life that regular people frequently have to manage their affairs around avoiding problems and conflict, rather than the problems and troublemakers being dealt with. Yet withdrawing is ultimately counterproductive. So what can we do. Well rather than wade in and make a potential slanging match worse, why not simply use the facilities that are in place? Use the moderation procedures that are available to you. If you are unhappy with the way a debate is being conducted, then flag it for moderation and give cogent and succinct reasons as to why you have done so. Encourage other users to do so. However, this doesn’t guarantee results. Moderation comes with a cost attached and thus often gets neglected. If that’s the case, then escalate matter further up the chain of command. Email the owners, or domain holders. Complain publicly via Twitter. Negative publicity can often attract attention.
If you find yourself in a situation where you write or provide a forum or subreddit, then it is essential to have a clear policy with regard to comments and interaction. I take a fairly liberal approach to policing comments on Contains Moderate Peril and often allow the crass and trolling posts to remain, as their stupidity is often self-evident. Occasionally I will delete a comment if it is simply of no value. As it is my site I reserve the right to determine exactly what the definition of "value" is. I would again encourage others to do the same regardless of what platform they are maintaining. Decide your rules, be clear about them and enforce them rigorously. You are not obliged to have an "off topic" channel on your Discord server if you don’t want one. If you do, then enforce an adherence to standards of behaviour that are commonly held.
It is very difficult to counter the negative effects that alleged internet anonymity generates. Broadly speaking freedom means we have to endure a degree of unpalatable behaviour and that it is the price that we pay for liberty. However, I see no reason not to attempt to re-educate those who troll and rile. We should more often use the existing procedures to sanction problem individuals and re-iterate the fact that there are consequences to certain actions. In some respects, it is similar to the recent debate had in the UK regarding regulation of the press. It was argued that there are sufficient rules in place at present that can deal with transgressions without the need for further legislation. The current rules just need to be enforced. The same is applicable to Twitter. Prosecute those that breech the current laws with regard to threat and libel. As for general bad behaviour, the responsibility lies with you and I to state are displeasure.
I am very interested at present with the way that some games developers are dealing with this problem. Community decisions on a troll’s punishment, temporary exile of problems players to specific servers and other sanctions do seem to have an impact. It would seem attempted rehabilitation is a more beneficial approach to simply banning. Perhaps this is the future and a way to stop the spread of the rot. Hopefully these methods can be brought to bear on other mediums and platforms. The first step on this road is for regular folk to remain robust, express their displeasure and not to withdraw. I know that’s hard and a big ask. But the only truly effective way to counter bad ideas and ideologies is to tackle them head on. No-platforming simply doesn’t work. Stupidity should be exposed and ridiculed. You don’t have to be like Peter Tatchell and fight every battle. But calling someone out who says something racist or such like, helps reinforce the notion that some behaviour in not acceptable. It’s the weight of all the smaller battles that often eventually tip the scales.
But it takes time for things to change. It’s not going to happen overnight. Technology, human behaviour, and ethics have not kept in step with each other. The law is also lagging behid in some areas. However, if we're persistant, then we will be able to bring about change. During the seventies, there started i the UK, a long campaign against drinking and driving. By the mid-nineties the message finally got traction and the culture begin to shift accordingly. I believe if we take a similar long-term approach with social media can "have nice things" eventually. It may not ever be perfect but hopefully it can be better than it is now. Because the alternative simply doesn’t bear thinking about. Therein lies madness.
Ambiguous Language
I have both a love and fascination for the English language. I enjoy both its formality and informality, its diversity, as well as its inherent evolutionary nature. To my mind having a wide vocabulary is an invaluable social and intellectual skill as well as being essential to self-expression. How can you mean what you say if you cannot say what you mean? So, when confronted by contemporary phrases such as “milkshake duck”, rather than balk at them, I strive to understand them. Language is not immutably, set by the parameters and standards of when you learnt it. If you endeavour to grasp the subtleties of popular culture along with slang from different socio-economic groups, communication becomes so much easier. The English Language is beautifully malleable and offers different modes for different situations. I therefore choose a specific manner of speech depending on who I’m talking to.
I have both a love and fascination for the English language. I enjoy both its formality and informality, its diversity, as well as its inherent evolutionary nature. To my mind having a wide vocabulary is an invaluable social and intellectual skill as well as being essential to self-expression. How can you mean what you say if you cannot say what you mean? So, when confronted by contemporary phrases such as “milkshake duck”, rather than balk at them, I strive to understand them. Language is not immutably, set by the parameters and standards of when you learnt it. If you endeavour to grasp the subtleties of popular culture along with slang from different socio-economic groups, communication becomes so much easier. The English Language is beautifully malleable and offers different modes for different situations. I therefore choose a specific manner of speech depending on who I’m talking to.
Political language is a very specific subset of English and has been designed to serve a very exacting purpose. In recent years honesty and intellectual rigour has slowly evaporated from the terms used by politicians and political discourse reflects the current prevailing mindset. Hence politicians will often use terms that are deliberately ambiguous. It happens so often now that we tend to ignore it, but sadly these terms frequently have a major impact upon the course of the national conversation, so perhaps we should be less forgiving. I would like to highlight a few of these terms that are frequently bandied about, that I find especially egregious. They’re often predicated on something that is unquantifiable or an idea or concept for which there is no real standard or universally accepted definition. Hence they’re used by the political classes as a means to maintain plausible deniability if things do not go the way they’d like.
So first off, we have the increasingly politicised term “hardworking”. This a real crowd pleaser as most people will claim to be such, whether they are or not. Politicians like it because it can be used as a non-specific compliment and its very flexible. It can be employed when visiting a factory as a means of ingratiating one’s self with the working classes. It can also be bandied about at the Mansion House Speech as a means to defend substantive pay awards to captains of industry. Yet it is ultimately a subjective term, which is impossible to quantify and measure. Who exactly works harder; someone on the checkout at Sainsbury’s or an Investment Manager at Morgan Stanley? A network administrator or a midwife. A You Tube personality or a carer for the elderly? Furthermore, if you try to debate the definition of the term, it can all get reminiscent of the Four Yorkshireman sketch. “Hardworking” therefore exemplifies the pointless terms bandied about by the worst sort of politicians, bandwagon jumpers and tub thumpers.
Another phrase which is very popular at the moment is the nebulous “British values”. At first glance it is supposed to bring to mind a set of noble principles and notions that are inherent to the UK. According to Ofsted these are as follow. Democracy. The rule of law. Individual liberty. Mutual respect for and tolerance of those with different faiths and beliefs and for those without faith. Yet surely these are not unique to the UK alone and are the foundation of all western democracies? It seems somewhat arrogant to claim these are uniquely British traits. However, when taken in a wider context, “British values” too often refers to nationalism, a sense of cultural superiority and sadly worse. Conversely, other definitions may well be free from xenophobia but can still be couched in nostalgic terms. British history and culture is somewhat unique and in many ways, we as a nation seem to lack the means to view it objectively. As a nation we are living in it, looking out, rather than vice versa. “British values” however honestly intended seems to be the phrase of choice by those who aren’t.
Other phrases of this idiom that occur frequently, are “silent majority”, “common sense” and “elite”. Although all have a specific meaning, these terms are often used in situations where that definition is distorted or not wholly applicable. Often these words are substitutes for others that would paint a different picture and are employed to obfuscate. “Silent majority” is an impossible thing to qualify and prove. It is often invoked to try and imply a wider degree of backing or support. “Common sense” is a wonderful way of bypassing the logistical and legal complexities of a matter. It’s a phrase designed to mitigate detail. And “elite” is a word that is fast being devalued, frequently being employed as a pejorative term for any group or body that holds a contrary opinion to the one being espoused. Furthermore, it is often used by those who are part of an elite group of their own, who think that by using the term they somehow remove themselves from the paradox they have created.
There are many more examples of this sort of linguistic duplicity that is used every day in the UK by the tabloid press, politicians and parts of the professional commentariat. The sad reality is that its daily use adds to the ongoing trivialisation and partisan debasement of politics as well as other forms of public discourse. This is why it is so important to ensure that schools teach a robust and broad understanding of the English language. Not just the traditional grammatical rules and structure but an understanding of evolution of language and how words can be used as a more than a functional tool. Public speaking and debate requires not only critical thinking and reasoning skills but a diverse vocabulary. Hence, I encourage everyone to never pass up the opportunity to learn new words. If someone uses one that you’re not familiar with there is no shame in asking its definition. As Benjamin Franklin said, “without continual growth and progress, such words as improvement, achievement, and success have no meaning”.
Black Friday
I have been subject to a continual barrage of emails over the course of the week, promoting Black Friday sales. These have covered everything from power tools to medical supplies, children’s toys and even granite work surfaces. Obviously. there’s also been a lot of promotions for discount games. This eclectic mix reflects the fact that I use my online accounts to purchase items for my entire family. I hate to think what the various analysts and number crunchers make of this. My Amazon recommendations includes both urine bottles and Thomas the Tank Engine paraphernalia. But I digress, I’m sure pretty much all of us have been battered around the head and shoulders this week by various kinds of unsubtle marketing. However, I am happy to report that I have not succumbed to this “encouragement”. The simple fact is that I don’t need anything at present so have bought nothing. Furthermore, I had an epiphany nearly two decades ago, when I discovered that buying stuff really doesn’t make you feel any better, solve any of your problems or fulfil any of the inferred promises of the advertisements.
I have been subject to a continual barrage of emails over the course of the week, promoting Black Friday sales. These have covered everything from power tools to medical supplies, children’s toys and even granite work surfaces. Obviously. there’s also been a lot of promotions for discount games. This eclectic mix reflects the fact that I use my online accounts to purchase items for my entire family. I hate to think what the various analysts and number crunchers make of this. My Amazon recommendations includes both urine bottles and Thomas the Tank Engine paraphernalia. But I digress, I’m sure pretty much all of us have been battered around the head and shoulders this week by various kinds of unsubtle marketing. However, I am happy to report that I have not succumbed to this “encouragement”. The simple fact is that I don’t need anything at present so have bought nothing. Furthermore, I had an epiphany nearly two decades ago, when I discovered that buying stuff really doesn’t make you feel any better, solve any of your problems or fulfil any of the inferred promises of the advertisements.
Economically speaking, the Black Friday pre-Christmas sales have become increasingly important to retailers and in the UK are a big indicator of consumer confidence and a litmus test of how well the public feel the country is fairing. So far from the numbers that have filtered through today, it would appear that spending is up 6% over last year. But before we put out the bunting and shout “Yay for the UK economy”, let’s temper our enthusiasm with the fact that consumer debt (mainly unsecured loans via credit cards) is currently £200 billion. That’s for a country with a population of 65 million. And at a time when interest rates are finally rising after a decade. Oh, and let’s not forget that minor political and economic event known colloquially as BREXIT. That may also have a bearing on the situation with regard to the value of the pound, the cost of living and future consumer borrowing.
If you take time to reflect upon the big picture, it’s a very sorry state of affairs. We live in a society where many are trapped in low paid jobs with little chance of opportunity or improvement. Many are deeply unhappy with what they do for a living and see little chance of life getting any better due to a decline in social mobility. Social media has lifted the scales from the public eyes and the divisions between the haves and the have nots are laid bare. The country currently bitterly divided and rational thought is in retreat. The decline in institutions such as the church, along with a waning of a sense of community has resulted in a nation of “individuals” desperately trying to assuage their personal sadness through retail therapy. It’s a recipe for disaster and 2018 is potentially the year when the proverbial chickens come home to roost. I am not optimistic that things are going to get better soon, nor do I have faith in any politicians to fix these problems. But hey, that was a sweat deal you got on an electric haemorrhoid massager.
Jury Service
If you wish to enjoy the benefits of living in a “civilised” and democratic society, then there are certain “obligations” that the state calls upon its citizens to fulfil. Taxation is one. It’s is not especially popular but most rational people understand that the machinery of government and the provision of public services needs financing. Another example of a “civic duty” is jury service. All UK citizens have a right to trial by jury of my peers, should the need require. Naturally, these juries have to be filled with people, so you may well be invited to serve if you meet the following criteria.
- Between the ages of 18 and 70 years old.
- Registered to vote in parliamentary or local government elections.
- A registered citizen in the UK, the Channel Islands or the Isle of Man for at least five years since their 13th birthday.
If you wish to enjoy the benefits of living in a “civilised” and democratic society, then there are certain “obligations” that the state calls upon its citizens to fulfil. Taxation is one. It’s is not especially popular but most rational people understand that the machinery of government and the provision of public services needs financing. Another example of a “civic duty” is jury service. All UK citizens have a right to trial by jury of my peers, should the need require. Naturally, these juries have to be filled with people, so you may well be invited to serve if you meet the following criteria.
Between the ages of 18 and 70 years old.
Registered to vote in parliamentary or local government elections.
A registered citizen in the UK, the Channel Islands or the Isle of Man for at least five years since their 13th birthday.
There are the usual caveats that may exclude you from participation, such as mental impediment and being a convicted criminal. The courts can also waive participation under extenuating circumstances. Four years ago, I received a letter for jury service at The Old Bailey in London. The court deals with major criminal cases from within Greater London. Trials at the Old Bailey, as at other courts, are open to the public; however, they are subject to stringent security procedures. As I was self-employed at the time and didn’t have any reasons not to attend, I happily went along. It proved to be a very interesting yet emotionally challenging experience. One that I regularly reflect upon, hence this post.
I arrived late at the Old Bailey in October 2013. There had been a major storm on the day in question and rail services were heavily disrupted. Luckily, many other serving jurors were also affected so there was no consequence for me being behind schedule. The first thing that struck me was the security at the main entrance to the court. I had to show my letter from the court services along with proof of identity. I then proceeded through a series of x-ray machines and metal detectors, while my personal effects were examined. I then went up to the juror’s lounge and had to sign the court attendance register. I then identified myself again at reception where I was assigned an ID badge. I was told to take a seat and wait to be called. Within an hour I and twenty-four other jurors were randomly called and taken down to one of the courts for a case that was about to begin. We were then split in to two groups of twelve. My group remained in the court we were in and the other were taken elsewhere. The Judge then asked if any of us came from a specific area of London or were familiar with the accused. No one indicated that they were. Both the defence and the prosecution barristers were happy with the jury’s demographics so the case then immediately proceeded.
It is this latter point that I found fascinating. Within minutes of being called down to the court we were sworn in (I got to choose between a faith based or a secular oath) and then allocated specific seats on the jury benches. The case then began within minutes. We were immediately shown CCTV footage from a bus in which a teenage boy stabbed another who was sitting. The prosecution made a short speech about establishing a case that this was an act of premeditated murder. The defence offered a counter argument that the accused was defending himself. I specifically remember thinking, “wow, I was not expecting things to get so heavy, so quickly”. The lady next to me was very upset by the footage that we watched and broke down in tears. The reality of death is seldom like how it is presented on TV. Needless to say, over the next few days, we were regaled with a far more detailed account of events. There was further CCTV footage from the vicinity of the attack, along with the testimony of the witnesses on the bus. The coroner proved to be very informative and not at all what I expected. Furthermore, the cross examination of the witnesses by each barrister was extremely low key and a far cry from the hyperbolic melodrama we see depicted on TV. As ever with life, it’s the little things that somehow leave the strongest impressions. The prosecution barrister had a fancy briefcase for all his legal documentation. It actually had a fold out flap on which he lent while holding forth in court. Conversely, the defence had a similar mannerism when public speaking but instead used a box of leaflets to similar effect.
Another major point of interest in this experience were my fellow jurors. To my mind, the responsibility that had been placed upon our collective shoulders was immense. We had to decide another human being’s guilt or innocence. Depending upon our verdict that individual would then lose their liberty. I was concerned as to whether everyone else took the task in hand as seriously as I did. Thankfully they all did. In fact, the integrity of my fellow jurors did much to restore my dwindling faith in humanity. There was individual who I did think lacked the necessary rigour to undertake the task. Their attention would frequently wander and they had a propensity for garrulous inanities. However, they seemed to be content to go with the flow, which was essentially missing the point of jury service but it did make the proceeding a lot easy. Another gentleman sadly, took umbrage at some poorly phrased comments by fellow jurors which he felt were racially biased. He then decided to take a particular stance irrespective of the facts of the case, on a matter principle. There were also two other jurors who reached their positions regarding the verdict a little too quickly in my view and I suspect that where driven more by emotion, rather than the facts and logical thinking.
The case ran for two weeks and we spent three days deliberating our overall verdict. I was initially sceptical of guilty verdict. The CCTV footage was incomplete, as a key camera had failed on the bus and therefore didn’t provide essential footage. However, it was the forensic evidence that convinced me otherwise. Combined with the witness testimony and the CCTV footage which we did have, the facts indicated that the accused had struck first and not in self-defence. Furthermore, the nature of the injury demonstrated a level of force that could not be classified as anything other than deadly. Thus, we arrived at a verdict of guilty by eleven votes to one. The judge then thanked us for our service and gave us the option of being dismissed. However, due to unusual circumstances, the judge decided to pass sentence of the defendant that same day. The majority of the jury felt that as we had seen fit to reach this verdict, we should stay for the sentencing. So, eleven of us remained and listened to the judge pass sentence. The defendant although sixteen years old had been a minor when the offense took place. Therefore, a plethora of Home Office rules had to be applied which tempered the judge’s verdict. One consideration was that the defendant had spent nearly a year in a young offender’s unit, awaiting trial. The final sentence was seven years. Four years on, with “good behaviour”, the defendant may well now be eligible for parole.
I could write a lot more about this experience but I that’s not really practical. Plus, I guess even four years on I shouldn’t really give too many specifics of the case away. We were bound to silence at the time of the trial for obvious reasons. However, there are a few more random points that I would briefly like to make. It is often said that the senior judiciary in the UK are old and out of touch but this was not the case in this instance. This particular QC was worldly and understanding. He was very aware that due to the nature of the case, the defendant as well as many of the witnesses were young and may be intimidated by the formality of the court. He therefore waived a lot of the traditional trappings of the courts conduct to provide a more accommodating environment. Another thing that impressed me was the efficiency of the courts themselves. Considering the fluid nature of their work, they coped very well with managing the logistics. Oh and here’s a fun anecdote; one juror on another case was apparently always late back from lunch. Finally, after their third warning, the judge asked why they were late. “I bought a new coat in the sales. I save nearly a hundred pounds” they replied. And that is the amount they were subsequently fined for wasting the courts time.
Four years on, every now and then I still reflect upon my time on jury service. We live in troubling times and I have a somewhat sceptical outlook upon life and many of its major institutions. However, I found jury service to be a positive experience. The people I served with were a diverse but sound group of individuals. I felt that we did do the right thing by returning a guilty verdict and that justice was served. However, I cannot help but feel that there were no winners in this particular situation. The whole case, which I am not at liberty to describe in further detail, was an utter tragedy. If one chooses to stand back and look at the wider picture, both parties involved were a microcosm of so many of the social ills that blight this country. That however, is a much bigger discussion and not one I shall embark upon here. So, I’ll end this post as I started it, with the subject of “civic duty”. Having seen first-hand how the courts works, as well as how jurors still to this day take their role seriously, I believe that the system that we have in place is still inherently sound. It’s not perfect and I’m sure much can be done to improve it. Yet until we as a society come up with something better, I think we should stick with it. So if you ever get asked to participate, I would urge you to do it. It is both socially responsible and a very sobering personal experience.
“I'd Like to Have an Argument, Please”
This post has been fermenting for a while. I’ve postponed writing it because I've gotten somewhat tired of constantly “spitting in the wind”. Because that is what speaking out on certain subjects frequently feels like these days. There is a sense of tedious inevitability that any post on sexism, racism or any form of marginalisation will eventually lead to a torrent of vile, ill-informed and just plain dumb comments. The list of subjects “best avoided” seems to be getting bigger each day. Politics, religion and social issues have now been joined by the likes of economics, education and healthcare. But it doesn’t end there. Critiquing a book, movie, TV show or game can be deemed contentious and open a can of worms. Frankly, soliciting comments on any subject via social media seems to be courting disaster these days. The sad reality is that some people just revel in being vile and trying to hurt others. It puts me in mind of that quote from Platoon "Hell is the impossibility of reason". And you'll find precious little reason on the internet.
This post has been fermenting for a while. I’ve postponed writing it because I've gotten somewhat tired of constantly “spitting in the wind”. Because that is what speaking out on certain subjects frequently feels like these days. There is a sense of tedious inevitability that any post on sexism, racism or any form of marginalisation will eventually lead to a torrent of vile, ill-informed and just plain dumb comments. The list of subjects “best avoided” seems to be getting bigger each day. Politics, religion and social issues have now been joined by the likes of economics, education and healthcare. But it doesn’t end there. Critiquing a book, movie, TV show or game can be deemed contentious and open a can of worms. Frankly, soliciting comments on any subject via social media seems to be courting disaster these days. The sad reality is that some people just revel in being vile and trying to hurt others. It puts me in mind of that quote from Platoon "Hell is the impossibility of reason". And you'll find precious little reason on the internet.
Two things have occurred recently that prompted me to write this post. One is the ongoing decline of both the Official and Unofficial LOTRO forums. The other was a minor twitter exchange I was involved in recently. A simple comment made in reply to a political pundit, meant that my timeline was subsequently flooded by an argument that went on for hours, as all parties chased their own tails and frothed at the mouth. As for the two LOTRO forums, they’ve become so polarised that they now mirror each other with their own militancy and are effectively different sides of the same coin. Both of these events are far from unique. It happens every day (“no matter what you say”, according to Tom Jones). Yet they got me thinking why does it have to always be this way and is there anything that can be done?
Well I believe there is. However, don't go looking for a miracle cure in this post because I don’t claim to have one. What I am suggesting is fairly basic and certainly requires lots of time. In a nutshell, keep writing and debating. Don't throw in the towel. I know it's very tempting sometimes, hence my spitting in the wind reference. Yet if we do, then the only information that will remains out there in the public domain is misinformation. Therefore, we should not shy away from speaking out on difficult matters. In fact, I would go so far as to say that it is our duty to do so. Sooner or later you have to pick a side. The alternative is to do nothing and watch it all go to hell in a hand basket (other portmanteaus and porterage devices are available). Here are few thoughts on what specifically can be done.
Research and a well-constructed argument: Debating is a skill. There is a process applied to discussing and arguing a point, the same way as mathematics and grammar have specific rules. Unfortunately, most folk either aren’t ware of them or feel their opinions are not subject to such criteria and so are happy to jump in to arguments feet first. It's a shame more schools do not teach critical thinking as it is an invaluable skill that can be brought to bear on so many aspects of life. However, it is prudent to consider that logic and objectivity cannot always be imposed upon a debate. Emotions do play a part and cannot necessarily be set aside. Especially if you have first-hand experience of the very matter being debated.
I believe it was the blogger Tobold who stated, "There cannot be any meaningful discussion of any subject if you start out by declaring only one side of the argument as valid". That is perhaps true of some subjects, especially if you are debating a matter that hinges on subjectivity and personal taste. However, in a debate regarding a subject such as equality, I cannot logically see any argument to validate a contrary stance. There are no degrees of equality. You either believe in it and live by it as a concept or you don’t. I guess the same can be said regarding certain scientific discussions, where specific rules and concepts are established. Mind you that doesn’t stop some people. But that raises a different matter where some individuals like to play devil’s advocate just for the fun of it.
Life is not simple: If you are intending to hold forth on a particular subject, it never does any harm to remember that most problems are what they are because of their complexity. Which is a nuisance because contemporary society really doesn't like or do “complex”. Listen to most radio phone-ins, read any internet forum or just glance through a tabloid newspaper and you'll find many of the most difficult and contentious problems the world currently faces, distilled in to some rather glib and factually questionable sound-bites. Furthermore, the public lap these up because they're easy to remember and trot out. It's far less hassle to spout some superficial nonsense you gleaned from the pages of the Daily Bastard, than spend time researching a subject and actually having to think and analyse data.
So, bear this in mind when you tackle a big issue when blogging etc. Question whether you are in a position to make a substantive point. Do your research and ensure you link to the sources you quote. Check the credentials of those supplying data and statistics. Is it a reputable organisation? Do they have any reason to be bias? Too often I see links in comments and forum threads that lead to questionable sources. Therefore, ensure that when you write about complex issues you don't make the mistake of inferring that it's a binary situation and easy to fix. Unless of course it is.
Change takes time: The previous point dovetails nicely in to this one. Progress is a long and often arduous path. Entrenched social attitudes and ideologies do not change overnight. Often, it’s a generational thing. For example, my parents were born in the 1930s and both have specific views on social status, race, religion, politics, patriotism and that other old favourite drugs. A quarter of the world was part of the British Empire during their most formative years and this era definitely shaped their world view. They have made some changes over the years but on some matters their beliefs remain strong. No amount of arguing will ever change that. However, such views are not so endemic with my own or my son’s generation. Simply put, some of the more unsavoury views from my parents’ generation will die with them. Change doesn't always come by winning "hearts and minds".
However, as with complexity, many people these days can't be doing with "long waits". Thus, we live in a time where knee-jerk reactions and crass, ill-conceived quick fixes abound. Why should gaming be any different from politics? All I can really say to the ardent campaigner or blogger with a strong social conscience, is it helps to cultivate some patience. Actually, you’ll need a lot. Bucket loads.
Be measured and fair: If for example, you as a gamer want to lobby the games industry with regard to the depiction of women in games. There is a requirement for you to engage with those who are either directly a part of the problem or those who seem to be indifferent to it. It's all about winning the middle ground and generating a head of steam. This process needs to be handled with subtlety and tact. Although passion is inspiring and anger can be power (or so The Clash said), step too far over the line and your perceived militancy (whether it is real or not) will work against you. It scares people and it may even drive those you need on-board to the other "side" of the debate. So, pick your battles, be firm, measured but always remain civil.
Another thing to be considered is the use of knowledge. Some gamers (and bloggers) are not as smart as others. Some folk are smart but driven by their emotions. It can therefore be easy sometimes for the intelligent or knowledgeable party to run rings around the other. Be careful in how you "wear" your intelligence. There's being clever and then there's wanting to be seen as being clever. Crushing a person publicly through Vulcan like logic does not necessarily mean that they will immediately recant their views and embrace yours. Quite the opposite. You may have made matters worse. Just watch them dig their heels in. You can be smart and make your point without being condescending or smug. However, that can be a difficult path to tread. Like it or loathe it, dealing with people in these situations requires a degree of diplomacy.
I sure we can all think of other points to add to the list. There's also an element of finding an approach that is right for you. Then of course there is always the option to simply not blog about some aspects of gaming or to stray in to certain areas of debate. However, I don’t think remaining “neutral” is a permanent option. Sooner or later you’ll get dragged in through tortuous logic as “opting to not have an opinion is tacit approval of status quo”. That being said, as a blogger, podcaster or streamer you are not obliged to discuss thorny issues if you don’t want to. That is your (and Bobby Brown’s) prerogative and you are free to create content in the manner that makes you happy. I am merely suggesting that if you feel the need to do express a view that may court debate, then you should not be deterred by the facts that it is hard to engage with some groups and that change takes time and work.
As I get older I do find that my passions have tempered over time. I do not find the need to go on that many demonstrations, nor to hold an "absolute" opinion on everything under the sun. I do tend to focus on more immediate issues that affect myself and my family (like the closure of my local A&E) rather than wider international matters. But even in my most sceptical of moments, I cannot truly advocate a total withdrawal of interaction on social issues. Because that means handing the floor over to the idiot brigade and therein lies madness. Plus, if we all did that then blogging would be a lot less interesting. Oh, and don’t forget that an argument is a connected series of statements intended to establish a proposition. It’s an intellectual process. Contradiction is just the automatic gainsaying of any statement the other person makes.
What’s My Age Again?
As I’ve mentioned in previous posts, I am a child of the seventies. I was born in late 1967 so my most formative years were from about 1973 onwards. I really don’t remember a great deal of things prior to the age of five. Does anyone? Now the thing about the seventies is that in many ways it was a transitional decade. It had one foot in firmly planted within the post war socio-economic and cultural norms. The other was set in the new era of societal change that came about during the Sixties. Hence, I was raised with a mixture of both old school and modern values, ethics and ideologies. I believe these have provided me with a broad spectrum of “soft skills” (a term I abhor but it serves a purpose in this instance) that have been beneficial.
As I’ve mentioned in previous posts, I am a child of the seventies. I was born in late 1967 so my most formative years were from about 1973 onwards. I really don’t remember a great deal of things prior to the age of five. Does anyone? Now the thing about the seventies is that in many ways it was a transitional decade. It had one foot in firmly planted within the post war socio-economic and cultural norms. The other was set in the new era of societal change that came about during the Sixties. Hence, I was raised with a mixture of both old school and modern values, ethics and ideologies. I believe these have provided me with a broad spectrum of “soft skills” (a term I abhor but it serves a purpose in this instance) that have been beneficial.
As I approach the sober age of fifty, I have reflected a great deal upon my own world view and that of my fellow countrymen. In this instance, I’m using the catchall term world view to bundle together thorny issues such as politics, international diplomacy, crime and punishment. Also, let’s throw in prevailing public morals, social etiquette and manners. The reason I’ve placed all these in a figurative “bag” because it then makes it easier to broadly explore them. And the reason I wish to do this is because I feel there has been a major cultural shift in all of these and that the UK no longer has a prevailing consensus regarding many of these points.
The last few years have demonstrated that the UK is a divided country; politically, economically and socially. There are a broad spectrum of opinions and views abroad in the land and a lot of anger too. The latter is often unfocused, and in certain quarters is based upon perceptions and feelings rather than tangible facts. Frequently, I will read things via social media or traditional newsprint and find myself confronted with ideas, concepts and feelings that are utterly alien to my way of thinking. Now I’m more than capable of accepting the notion that other people may well hold differing views to me. I’m sufficiently old fashioned to even go as far as to believe fervently in their right to do so. However, what I struggle with at present is the binary nature of so many ardently held views. There is no scope for debate, accommodation or compromise, which are the underpinnings, for better or for worse, of any functioning democracy. You are either for or against. Part of the solution or part of the problem. Enlightened or a traitor. And don’t go thinking you can dodge this intellectual cul-de-sac by sitting on the fence. Not having an opinion is just as much of a crime as having a differing view.
I care for my parents, both of whom are in their late eighties. I live in an affluent, white middle-class, London suburb with a high proportion of elderly residents. By that I mean people who have retired and draw their pension. Therefore, every day at shops, clinics and bus stops, I am directly and indirectly exposed to the world views of this socio-economic group. A generation that grew up when the UK still had an empire and was a world power. A time when the country had a more clearly defined class system and set of consensual morals and prevailing social norms. Religion and faith were strong influences upon society. Multiculturalism was an abstract principle and anything other than heterosexuality was “wrong”. Jobs for life existed, along with final salary pensions and affordable housing. IE Homes that could be bought on a single income because they only cost four or five times your annual salary. This is also the generation that had a cultural predisposition towards deference to authority, tradition and maintaining the status quo.
Because of these factors and possibly many others, this stratum of society tends to have somewhat fixed views and are often discombobulated by the pace of modern life and much of the social change that has happened of late. There is a tendency to look back at the past romantically rather than objectively. Views and opinions from such quarters are often shaped by feelings rather than critical thinking. Now it is not my intent to demonise this particular generation, nor undermine their achievements. I merely seek to highlight that their prevailing world view has been shaped by the politics and culture of the post war years and that it is not necessarily a stance that makes them well equipped to deal with the ongoing global changes that well all now face. One can cogently argue that Brexit and other recent political events are driven by a resistance to globalisation and social advancement. However, such pushback doesn’t halt change. It merely postpones or temporarily redirects it.
My son and his wife are both under twenty-five. They have permanent jobs with as stable an employer you can find at present. Through fiscal prudence and good fortune, they are currently on the property ladder. In these respects, they are very similar to their grandparents and great grandparents. However, when it comes to politics and other mainstream social and economic opinions they have very different outlooks. Traditional party politics and ideologies are not favourably viewed. They’re seen as being outdated, inflexible and inward looking. Pride in one’s country is still present but is not blindly given and is tempered by historical perspective. Equality in all walks of life is embraced and seldom seen as an issue. International travel for both leisure and work, provides a different view of the world, borders and freedom of movement. National rivalries and entrenched tribalism are simply irrelevant to the young because they lack the historical baggage that their elders insist upon carrying.
Being the age that I am, there are some superficial habits, trends and affectations embraced by the young that I don’t immediately warm to. For example, internet culture and ideas of privacy can be very different. Easy access to credit is something I never had in my youth. I do worry about its proliferation and the impact it has on those born into such a world. Yet broadly speaking the young give me hope. Despite my grouchy demeanour I don’t regard them as whippersnappers. They are often compassionate and motivated. They have no interested in the bloviations of tribal politics. They expect solutions from all politicians, over and above party loyalties. They embrace equality and see beyond the confines of their own geographical borders. And most importantly, they are not yet jaded and cynical. Thus, they are not hamstrung by preconceptions that things can’t change. They dare to dream because life, or more to the point other people, haven’t yet shot them down in flames.
So, as I approach half a century and the world around me becomes increasingly binary, I look at the older generation and their current world view and reluctantly conclude that I cannot condone it. We need to look forward and not backwards. The past can never be restored and nostalgia seldom accurately reflects what actually transpired. Therefore, it is with the young that I believe that I have more in common. Because the world we are shaping now, they will have to endure long after we’ve gone. To ignore their wishes, hopes and aspirations is at the very least selfish and at worst a malevolent act of betrayal. Sadly, I don’t think this is a broadly accepted view at present. The under twenty-fives are simply seen as another subset of the electorate to be courted, rather than as potentially the most important sector of society. History sadly has a habit of repeating itself. Cicero wrote ““Times are bad. Children no longer obey their parents, and everyone is writing a book". That was over two thousand years ago. Can our divided country move forward with any sort of unity or are we destined to pull in different directions until time simply eliminates certain world views?
NB: Due to the nature of this post I couldn't think of any specific images that were relevant. So I decided to use some fun ones just to break up the text.
Thoughts on the 2017 UK General Election
Politics is a controversial and emotive subject. It’s also something that a lot of bloggers are very wary of writing about sadly, because it’s seldom debated with any wisdom or civility. You’ll find my thoughts on the poor state of UK politics in this previous post, so I don’t need to reiterate them here. On this occasion, I would like to venture a few opinions on the General Election that was held in the UK this week, the interesting results and the potential fallout. I’m not here to champion any party, ideology or dogma, as I’m a floating voter without any major affiliations. I just merely want to express what I have observed and some of my hopes for the future.
Politics is a controversial and emotive subject. It’s also something that a lot of bloggers are very wary of writing about sadly, because it’s seldom debated with any wisdom or civility. You’ll find my thoughts on the poor state of UK politics in this previous post, so I don’t need to reiterate them here. On this occasion, I would like to venture a few opinions on the General Election that was held in the UK this week, the interesting results and the potential fallout. I’m not here to champion any party, ideology or dogma, as I’m a floating voter without any major affiliations. I just merely want to express what I have observed and some of my hopes for the future.
First off, the election has cost the UK tax payer approximately £142million. Despite what the Prime Minister said regarding establishing a mandate from the electorate regarding Brexit, there was no pressing need to call this election due to the fix-term parliament act that was introduced in 2010 by the coalition government. Theresa May prior to June 8th had a working majority of 330 Conservative MPs, which although not substantial, broadly allowed her to push her party’s agenda through the House of Commons. The UK electorate were far from spoiling for another vote, as election fatigue and political exhaustion are very prevalent of late. Brenda from Bristol pretty much summed up a common sentiment when her vox pop with the BBC went viral in April. Theresa May was more interested in quashing dissent in here own party as she had been challenged by back benchers in recent months. The election was simply called out of hubris and party-political gain and had nothing to do with gaining mandates. The country is divided over Brexit so there is zero chance of getting any sort of majority consensus on the matter.
The Conservative election campaign was ill conceived and poorly run, opting for populist, lightweight TV appearances, rather than public debates and discourse. The Prime Ministers absence from any meaningful discussion with her political opponents just came across as arrogant and just plain rude. The latter is something the UK public still broadly abhors. The repetition of vacuous soundbites and meaningless buzz phrases has finally worn thin and is now being perceived as an insult to the electorate. Also, some of the Tory manifesto, seemed to strike at the very party faithful that usually unquestionably supports their party. The so-called “Dementia Tax” was a staggeringly short-sighted idea that bit the very hand that feeds the Conservative party. The shameless pursuit of UKIP voters over the traditional political middle ground was also a costly error.
Now I’m not saying that the other political parties ran perfect campaigns. Far from it. There were mistakes and faux pas from all quarters. However, the Labour party focused very much on mobilising grass roots campaigners and getting out on the streets and knocking on doors. Jeremy Corbyn was also very much front and centre in the run up to the election. His non-confrontational style and unsophisticated passion for his beliefs, actually seem to chime with those he meets. Furthermore, the continual barrage of petty and spiteful calumny from the UK tabloid press seems to have been rejected by a large share of UK voters. People are fed up being told what to think by a handful of newspaper editors with their own agenda. These papers have effectively made Jeremy Corbyn in to an underdog. We don’t like bullies in this country and it’s funny how the public will turn and champion a person or cause if they feel that spite and malice are involved against them.
The overall turnout for Thursday vote was 68.7%, the highest since 1997. Much has been made about the youth vote and I am very glad to see the young engaged and getting involved with politics. Democracy is something we live and breathe every day, not something that we briefly enthuse over for a few weeks. There is a very clear difference in mindset and political outlook between the old and the young in this country and although I have a lot of love and respect for the baby boomer generation, too many of its political and cultural imperatives are obsolete, born of a by gone era that will never return. Brexit has clearly highlighted this. In numerous comments sections of various news websites, I’ve seen regular statements about the young’s alleged lack of “wordly experience”. It’s a trite, ad hominem argument that doesn’t wash. Wisdom does not come with age by default. Plus, there is no universal life experience to be had. History shows us that the young have built nations. Their views deserve no less consideration than those of their elders.
Whatever your personal loyalties and views, I think it is fair to say that UK politics just got a lot more interesting in the last forty-eight hours. The electorate have been taken for granted for too long and many are fed up with the status quo. Perhaps we’ve moved on from simple protest voting and are now considering tangible and practical change. Look what happens when we do. Whether you wanted Brexit or not, it’s a reality that needs to be addressed. If it is the most challenging issue this country has faced since World War II then perhaps it should be tackled jointly by all parties. Perhaps it is also time to firmly reject the tabloid press and their shameless interference in UK politics. May be politicians need to cultivate some courage and actually engage with the average voter. If they’re not prepared to do so then show them the door. I sincerely hope that voters of all persuasion are finally going to demand more from the political classes. The tail does not wag the dog and on Thursday the electorate reminded the Westminster of exactly that.