The UK has voted for Brexit. To leave the EU.
In a campaign powered by disillusionment with the political, business & journalistic elite, UK voters rejected warnings of impending doom and decided to leave the biggest trading bloc on earth.
We are left with a minister for Brexit, Mr David Davis, MP for Haltemprice and Howden who appears totally out of his depth.
He has said the UK might establish trading relationships which amount to a free trade area ten times the size of the EU. Seemingly unaware that the EU makes up more than 10% of the world economy, meaning this would require our free trade area to extend beyond planet earth.
He also seems to lack basic awareness of what a trading bloc is. Having implied the UK might negotiate separate deals with different EU member states. This is particularly strange, as one of the criticisms of UK membership of the EU was that it prevented us from negotiating separate deals with non EU member states.
No matter, the rank incompetence of Mr Davis hardly registers when compared to the wilfully destructive act of appointing Mr Boris Johnson as Foreign Secretary. At first sight a totally bizarre move, for while Mr Johnson is undoubtedly intelligent richly talented, he is no diplomat. It's a bit like Barcelona playing Lionel Messi in goal. Ridiculous. Even professional diplomats like the US state department spokesman could hardly keep a straight face at the news.
Then there is Liam Fox. Disgraced former Cabinet minister, with a unique approach to charity (meaning he seems to think it is something that flows inwards, rather than outwards). Again, so far out of his depth it hardly bears comment.
Much has been made of how the Trump phenomenon in the US mirrors the UK Brexit vote. And it does.
Yet there is another parallel, so far unremarked. Trump may be the scourge of the Republican party establishment, but he is also the inevitable result of the politics they have been pursuing since the time of Reagan. Persuading blue collar ageing white males to vote against their economic interests for reasons of 'identity'. Stoking up fear on immigration, and terrorism. Thriving on barely concealed 'othering' of vast segments of the population. In truth Reagan may embody much of what led to Trump, but it can also be argued this sort of theing began with Barry Goldwater, or Richard Nixon's 'Southern Strategy'.
Likewise in the UK, the Conservative party establishment has spend a generation or more demonising the EU. Along with various other groups, including migrants.
Then they got bitten by the beast they created.
It has been amusing to watch Tories, only too eager to benefit from smears on their left wing opponents in the right wing press howling in outrage under the same treatment.
And then you realise, it is the future of our country these people play with.
You might well ask how a new prime minister managed to appoint so poorly. The answer is clear. If your desire is to cling to power in Number 10 Downing Street, as opposed to make sure the country is as well represented as it can be, these are superb appointments. In her first outing at Prime Minister's Questions Theresa May accused Jeremy Corbyn of putting personal ambition before the good of his party. This is an accusation that does not stick. Many of Mr Corbyn's detractors claim the opposite, he is simply not ambitious enough for a would be Prime Minister.
Mrs May's accusation is Trump like projection. She is the one driven not by principle or some great goal, but pure, unbridled personal ambition. Cameron believed in nothing but his God given right to rule. May believes whe has worked hard enough to 'earn' her time in Number 10. That she deserves it.
To be clear, the EU was and is a flawed organisation. The case for remaining was no slam dunk. But we did not have any sort of debate on the merits of membership versus leaving. We had a rabble rousing fest.
Our forbears fought and died for privileges we now call 'rights'. Democracy foremost among them. Neither the populace nor the elite are worthy inheritors.
Tuesday 2 August 2016
Wednesday 4 May 2016
Trump the nominee
So he has done it. Or at least got half way there.
Mr Trump has all but won the Republican nomination to run for the Whitehouse.
Much as I, personally, like Bernie Sanders, Mrs Clinton will be his opponent, barring some sort of miracle or natural disaster.
Whatever the American establishment may think, a country can survive being lead by an individual that it is difficult to take seriously. Just think about Italy and Silvio Berlusconi.
That doesn't mean he will be President.
I don't much like Mrs Clinton, but I would think him a much worse choice than her.
The conventional wisdom is he cannot win. He will be slaughtered in a general election.
After all, Mr Trump has insulted not only Muslims and immigrants, but also Mexicans and women.
Women alone make up more than half of the electorate. His tally must be at least 60% of voters insulted.
Surely he can't win?
Thing is, only people abnormally interested in politics have really been paying attention.
Mr Trump has strong appeal amongst poorer white people. People who would have had solid union jobs in past generations. There is no doubt in my mind he will be able to portray himself very differently indeed when it comes to the general election.
The transformation will be shameless. Mrs Clinton may find it difficult to cope with that. To take him seriously.
And Mrs Clinton herself is rather unpopular. Very unpopular with republicans. Could be she is just the person to motivate republicans to get up and out and vote for Trump.
I am aware that people who know far more about US politics than I do give him no chance. But those people also gave him no chance at the primaries.
Mr Trump will be able to portray himself as the insurgent against the Clinton establishment. And however Mrs Clinton chooses to play it, there will be a whole raft of people saying vote Clinton just because she is a woman. That could backfire. It wouldn't sound very good coming from a man.
Janet Yellen was given the Federal Reserve job when an outsider should really have been picked. Christine Lagarde became head of the IMF when Europe should really have backed away.
Were I inclined to conspiracy theories I would believe that elites hand leadership roles to women as a last resort to stop power dissipating further.
Mrs Clinton comes across as calculated. Devoid of principles, I have heard her Democratic party described as a brokerage for interest groups. That's an unkind way of putting their point that demography is on their side.
If I were to pick a candidate to neutralise Mr Trump's appeal, Bernie Sanders would be a much better bet than Hilary Clinton.
For years, we on the left have been told we must accept establishment candidates, because a true leftist has no chance of winning. How ironic it would be were Mrs Clinton to lose precisely because she was so establishment.
And what a shame if the first serious female candidate were to lose because she was too establishment.
Mr Trump has all but won the Republican nomination to run for the Whitehouse.
Much as I, personally, like Bernie Sanders, Mrs Clinton will be his opponent, barring some sort of miracle or natural disaster.
Whatever the American establishment may think, a country can survive being lead by an individual that it is difficult to take seriously. Just think about Italy and Silvio Berlusconi.
That doesn't mean he will be President.
I don't much like Mrs Clinton, but I would think him a much worse choice than her.
The conventional wisdom is he cannot win. He will be slaughtered in a general election.
After all, Mr Trump has insulted not only Muslims and immigrants, but also Mexicans and women.
Women alone make up more than half of the electorate. His tally must be at least 60% of voters insulted.
Surely he can't win?
Thing is, only people abnormally interested in politics have really been paying attention.
Mr Trump has strong appeal amongst poorer white people. People who would have had solid union jobs in past generations. There is no doubt in my mind he will be able to portray himself very differently indeed when it comes to the general election.
The transformation will be shameless. Mrs Clinton may find it difficult to cope with that. To take him seriously.
And Mrs Clinton herself is rather unpopular. Very unpopular with republicans. Could be she is just the person to motivate republicans to get up and out and vote for Trump.
I am aware that people who know far more about US politics than I do give him no chance. But those people also gave him no chance at the primaries.
Mr Trump will be able to portray himself as the insurgent against the Clinton establishment. And however Mrs Clinton chooses to play it, there will be a whole raft of people saying vote Clinton just because she is a woman. That could backfire. It wouldn't sound very good coming from a man.
Janet Yellen was given the Federal Reserve job when an outsider should really have been picked. Christine Lagarde became head of the IMF when Europe should really have backed away.
Were I inclined to conspiracy theories I would believe that elites hand leadership roles to women as a last resort to stop power dissipating further.
Mrs Clinton comes across as calculated. Devoid of principles, I have heard her Democratic party described as a brokerage for interest groups. That's an unkind way of putting their point that demography is on their side.
If I were to pick a candidate to neutralise Mr Trump's appeal, Bernie Sanders would be a much better bet than Hilary Clinton.
For years, we on the left have been told we must accept establishment candidates, because a true leftist has no chance of winning. How ironic it would be were Mrs Clinton to lose precisely because she was so establishment.
And what a shame if the first serious female candidate were to lose because she was too establishment.
Monday 4 April 2016
The Donald. And Women
Reports of Mr Trump's political demise have been much exaggerated. Particularly at the beginning of his campaign, comments directed at various women were pretty unsavoury. But nothing seemed to really have much of an impact.
He took a leaf from Karl Rove's book and disrespected a genuine US war hero. John McCain.
He picked a fight with the pope.
He insulted a Fox News Anchor (Megyn Kelly), and boycotted their debate.
If a candidate can insult war heroes. Disrespect religious leaders and walk all over Fox News, how can they also convincingly lead the race for the Republican nomination?
Whatever the reasons for Trump's success, I would suggest that anyone who who is familiar with traditional blue collar/working class communities anywhere in the Western World is somewhat less surprised than the political/journalistic elite.
Not surprised at all, in fact.
This is a demographic whose interests the traditional parties of the left have triangulated to extinction. Protest and identity are what remain.
Strange how triangulation disenfranchises people at the bottom more than those at the top.
Yet Mr Trump now seems to have pushed a little too far. After having a deeply ambiguous stance on abortion, from being very pro-choice to staunchly against, he managed to touch something of a raw nerve. Mr Trump advocated criminal sanction against women who had an abortion.
At last Mr Trump has shown that while his bombast and populism can demonstrate real appeal, he doesn't really understand the people he purports to represent. He is just another member of the elite. He thought that the touchstone right wing issue of abortion was a stick with which to beat women. A mistake he holds in common with many feminists.
While women, particularly poor women, might be amongst those who most suffer when access to abortion is restricted, that is not the objective of the policy.
There are also many women, often married women, who are coerced into abortion. Mr Trumps voter's are only too happy to blame the doctors who perform abortions. They are also a little too ready to deny the women that seek abortion agency. They are viewed as victims, not perpetrators.
People who are liable to vote for Mr Trump don't like abortion because they don't like the people who do like it. Because they associate it with the breakdown of family and community that has afflicted them. And because they have a cultural affinity, they share an identity with, those who oppose abortion on moral/religious grounds.
Mr Trump revealed something of himself, he really is a misogynist. His polling numbers amongst women who identify as Republicans are extremely poor.
His traditional male, working class/blue collar voters may not like feminism, but they absolutely hate wife beaters. Or men who abuse women in any way at all.
Chivalry is a form of sexism. I would contend misogyny is a very different beast. Many people who describe themselves as feminists may disagree. Mr Trump also cannot see the difference.
He took a leaf from Karl Rove's book and disrespected a genuine US war hero. John McCain.
He picked a fight with the pope.
He insulted a Fox News Anchor (Megyn Kelly), and boycotted their debate.
If a candidate can insult war heroes. Disrespect religious leaders and walk all over Fox News, how can they also convincingly lead the race for the Republican nomination?
Whatever the reasons for Trump's success, I would suggest that anyone who who is familiar with traditional blue collar/working class communities anywhere in the Western World is somewhat less surprised than the political/journalistic elite.
Not surprised at all, in fact.
This is a demographic whose interests the traditional parties of the left have triangulated to extinction. Protest and identity are what remain.
Strange how triangulation disenfranchises people at the bottom more than those at the top.
Yet Mr Trump now seems to have pushed a little too far. After having a deeply ambiguous stance on abortion, from being very pro-choice to staunchly against, he managed to touch something of a raw nerve. Mr Trump advocated criminal sanction against women who had an abortion.
At last Mr Trump has shown that while his bombast and populism can demonstrate real appeal, he doesn't really understand the people he purports to represent. He is just another member of the elite. He thought that the touchstone right wing issue of abortion was a stick with which to beat women. A mistake he holds in common with many feminists.
While women, particularly poor women, might be amongst those who most suffer when access to abortion is restricted, that is not the objective of the policy.
There are also many women, often married women, who are coerced into abortion. Mr Trumps voter's are only too happy to blame the doctors who perform abortions. They are also a little too ready to deny the women that seek abortion agency. They are viewed as victims, not perpetrators.
People who are liable to vote for Mr Trump don't like abortion because they don't like the people who do like it. Because they associate it with the breakdown of family and community that has afflicted them. And because they have a cultural affinity, they share an identity with, those who oppose abortion on moral/religious grounds.
Mr Trump revealed something of himself, he really is a misogynist. His polling numbers amongst women who identify as Republicans are extremely poor.
His traditional male, working class/blue collar voters may not like feminism, but they absolutely hate wife beaters. Or men who abuse women in any way at all.
Chivalry is a form of sexism. I would contend misogyny is a very different beast. Many people who describe themselves as feminists may disagree. Mr Trump also cannot see the difference.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)