The New Prime Minister of the United Kingdom (Again)

View fullsize

Conservative Party has been in government in the UK since 2010. During that time there have been three Prime Ministers. Today we moved onto the fourth. After Boris Johnson resigned on 7th July, the nation has had to endure a tedious two month process in which the Conservative Party elects a new leader. That person then becomes the PM by default. Many readers unfamiliar with the UK political system may be surprised that a change of leader has not led to a General Election. That is because the Conservative Party still holds a parliamentary majority of 71 elected Members of Parliament. Hence it is still constitutionally quite able to govern, despite Boris Johnson being forced from office. Therefore party members vote for a new party leader who gets the top job by default. Remember that in the UK, the Prime Minister is not the head of state and does not have the executive powers of a President.

This afternoon the results were formally announced, although polling and market research has strongly indicated that the former Foreign Secretary Liz Truss was more than likely to win. That has now been confirmed. Liz Truss received 81,326 votes (57%) and Rishi Sunak received 60,399 (43%) on a turnout of 141,725 (82.6%). 172,437 Conservative Party members were eligible to vote. If you want to drill down deeper into the numbers Truss received 47% of eligible Tory members. Although she has won the election, it is not a decisive victory. Previous Tory leaders won by greater margins (Boris Johnson 66% and Theresa May 60%). Nor does she enjoy unanimous support from her own MPs, as only 113 saw fit to vote for her as leader (Rishi Sunak earned 137 votes), prior to the ballot being put to the party membership. According to YouGov, only 12% of Britons expect Truss to be a good or great leader, while 52% expect her to be poor or terrible.

View fullsize

To say that Liz Truss has some major political and social problems to tackle in the first month of her leadership is an understatement. Those of a political bent will be aware of her rise through the political ranks of the Conservative Party. The wider public are not so familiar with her apart from what they’ve seen in recent weeks. What they have seen is someone campaigning, not to the nation, but to the party faithful. Hence a lot of what Liz Truss has said has been showboating to the home crowd and politically tone deaf to the wider public. If you use Google to research the new Prime Minister the first thing you’ll find are all the gaffs she’s made in previous years that have now all become memes. If you set aside politics and judge her on her oratorical skills, charisma and overall appeal, she comes up wanting. Those who cry “give her a chance” are spuriously appealing to the alleged sense of fair play of the UK electorate. A quality the government of the last 12 years sorely lacks. It is current Tory policy to change any rule that stands in its way.

Tomorrow the new Prime Minister will announce her new cabinet and it will no doubt be a dismal collection of the intellectually bankrupt and the hopelessly out of their depth. I very much doubt if any of the major political challenges will be addressed in the coming parliamentary session. Real help will not come regarding spiralling energy prices, the Northern Ireland protocol will continue to be insoluble for a pro Brexit government and the ongoing skills and labour shortage, combined with ongoing lack of funding will lead to more public institutions collapsing. Inflation, low wages and rising crime could all contribute to a volatile political climate in 2023. So far, rather than seeking new ideas, Liz Truss has indicated an ideological retreat into Thatcherism, advocating policies and dogma that are no longer relevant in the current political climate. 

View fullsize

If you take the time to find and read the serious political pundits, not the client journalists found in the popular UK press, you’ll find a lot of speculation about how the Conservative and Unionist Party is heading for an electoral disaster in 2024 and potentially its own extinction. I sadly feel obliged to remind people that it is “the doom of men that they forget”. Logic and clear evidence no longer shift the political scales like they used to. At best I think a voting pact between all parties that aren’t the Conservatives, may prevail. Perhaps the next government will then be a coalition against them. However, the election is a long way off. Myself and many other politically homeless voters’ biggest concern is the human collateral damage that will be incurred while we wait. Sadly, there is no immediate light at the end of the tunnel and that it also appears to be inordinately long.

Partygate

View fullsize

I try to keep my thoughts on political matters to a minimum here at Contains Moderate Peril, mainly because UK politics and the current state of discourse associated with it has become an absolute shit show in recent years. Brexit broke traditional politics and has made matters far more tribal and partisan. The two main parties have declined from having clear ideologies, identities and manifestos, to becoming either a lobby group for the specific demographic group that supports them, or a conflicted, divided and schizoid shadow of its former self. I’ll let you work out which is which. Politics is no longer about governing a nation for the benefit of all its citizens. Now you simply pick a side and join the ongoing culture war against everyone and everything else. This rotten system produces rotten leaders. Hence, when Alexander Boris de Pfeffel Johnson became Prime Minister in December 2019, it was clear that the nation was taking a major risk on such a man. His failings as a politician and a person are a matter of public record for anyone who has the eyes to see them.

Over the last 2 years, Johnson has overseen a litany of political failures. Sadly, the only people with the power to remove him from office are his own MPs. The Conservative party has a long and established history of regicide. They will circle the wagons and defend their leader without question in a crisis, until it becomes clear that the aforementioned leader is an electoral liability and they could lose their own seats. Then the knives are unsheathed, as Margaret Thatcher, John Major, William Hague, Iain Duncan Smith and Michael Howard all found out. However, Johnson is proving to be the most slippery of eels. The fact that there is no clear successor is an invaluable get out of jail card for the PM. The UK is also in the midst of a major cost of living crisis, there’s a war in Europe and the government is about to embark upon a trade dispute with the EU. All of which are sound reasons why no one possibly wants the job at present. However, there’s one scandal that just doesn’t want to go away, like a wayward stool in an avocado coloured, seventies toilet. Partygate.

For those who live outside of the UK who may not be fully up to speed with this issue, I’ll try my best to summarise. If you wish for more detail, then do watch this video from last month by BBC journalist Ros Atkins. From March to December 2020, the UK was subject to some very stringent COVID-19 restrictions. In the run up to Christmas, there were concerns about a resurgence of the virus, so the rules governing social distancing, gatherings and general interaction were tightened. Simply put, people could not meet friends and families, socialising was out of the question and the idea of traditional Christmas celebrations were out of the question. People could not visit sick and dying relatives in hospitals. Funerals were heavily restricted. UK citizens made major personal sacrifices for the greater public good. Unlike the Prime Minister, his staff and various other Cabinet Ministers who broke their own rules as they partied and fraternised. Johnson is far from a complicated individual. He likes to be perceived as a “good guy” and “fun”. Hence, he brought a “play hard” culture with him when he took office. He sadly neglected the “work hard” part.

Now if you are a hardened cynic or feel disposed towards being politically obtuse, you may ask “is this really such a big deal. It’s just a party”. To which I would reply, it wasn’t one there were over a dozen and at least 8 have been subject to a Police investigation resulting in 126 fines, including the Prime Minister himself. But the parties are in many respects a misdirection. To quote Bruce Lee “it is like a finger pointing away to the moon. Don't concentrate on the finger or you will miss all that heavenly glory”. The biggest issue stemming from so-called Partygate is the Prime Minister denying any malfeasance. On multiple occasions, Johnson stated categorically in the House of Commons that there were no parties and all COVID-19 related regulations were followed. Yet he was fined for attending his own birthday party. Something he has justified by claiming he didn’t know it was a party. Let us take a moment to reflect upon this state of affairs. Johnson has denied any wrongdoing time and time again. Yet he is now the only ever serving UK Prime Minister to receive a fine for breaking the law. Laws that he oversaw through Parliament.

View fullsize

Today, after last week’s announcement by the Metropolitan Police that no further criminal action would be taken against the Prime Minister, several photographs have reached ITV News showing Johnson attending what any sane person would classify as a party. The photo shows at least 7 guests, the PM and were taken by an official photographer. 9 people in a room drinking and clearly socialising, with 6 open bottles of alcohol in view. 7 if they also drank the hand sanitiser. Naturally like all modern digital photos, it contains data pertaining to where and when it was taken. Allegedly that was on November 13th 2020. On 8th December 2020, Labour MP Catherine West asked the Prime Minister in the Commons if a party had taken place in Downing Street on 13th November. Johnson replied “No - but I am sure that whatever happened, the guidance was followed and the rules were followed at all times”. Was this a lie and a clear example of the PM misleading Parliament? Something that has always been considered a resigning offence.

The scandal that is Partygate has been rumbling on since December 2021. The continual drip, drip of information, photos and tip offs grew to the point where it was dominating the political agenda by the end of January this year. Hence Johnson appointed senior civil servant Sue Gray, Second Permanent Secretary in the Cabinet Office, to investigate the matter. Her report has already been delayed once, when in February the Metropolitan Police retrospectively decided to investigate the alleged lockdown infractions. However, her report is due to be published this week and will certainly ensure that the story once again dominates the headlines. Already, several important questions have emerged, prior to its publication. Why did Ms Gray meet with the PM to discuss the report last week? Although Johnson is Ms Gray’s boss, is it appropriate for these parties to meet without the minutes of that meeting being fully disclosed? And why have the Metropolitan Police fined people who attended the party in the picture published today but have not sanctioned the PM for a second time?

View fullsize

A politician's relationship with the truth is often a strained one. However, the role of Prime Minister requires that basic standards are adhered to. For want of another phrase you have to be “sound”, in the Yes Minister and Yes Prime Minister sense of the word. The UK is still a major player on the international stage although that soft power is fast evaporating. A Prime Minister has to be considered trustworthy by their international allies as well as their own electorate. They have to uphold the rule of law and their word must be considered bond. A proven liar cannot do such things and is a calamity for both domestic and international politics. A democracy in which the truth is openly scorned and deemed an impediment is a broken democracy. Sadly, this is where the UK currently stands. If Johnson remains in office then the only remaining route is down. However, the Gray Report may be a scandal too far. There are two By-elections coming up and if the Conservatives lose these seats there may be repercussions for the PM from his own party. I suspect that the PM is in an extremely uncomfortable position at present, both politically and personally. Has good fortune finally deserted him? I do hope so.

What are You Doing and Where are You Going?

View fullsize

The title for this post is a quote from The Hobbit by J.R.R. Tolkien. I’ve used it as a verbal cue to try and give readers an overview of the point I’m striving to convey. Because I want to talk about modern life in western civilization, specifically its complexity and increasing uncertainty. If you’re extremely wealthy you can mitigate these two points but I’m working on the premise that most of the people who read Contains Moderate Peril are not. The blogging community, of which I am a participant, is a diverse group but from what I’ve observed it’s not populated by millionaires. In fact most of the people I know, both online and in person, are just holding down a job, trying to keep a roof over their head and pay the bills. Often they’re doing the job they do in default of anything else and they’re at the very least ambivalent towards it. The pandemic has also brought home how fragile so-called “normality” is. Modern politics are also volatile and life in general just doesn’t seem as certain as it was twenty years ago. 

We all approach life and deal with its respective slings and arrows in our own way. I am of an age where I was culturally indoctrinated to have a plan. They were very popular in the seventies and eighties. Everyone seemed to have one. Paul Simon, Leonid Brezhnev,  Baldrick to name but a few. As a child, the plan that my parents had for me was pretty much the standard one from that era. Go to school and get an education and good qualifications. Find a suitable career. If you’re not sure about a career, then get a good intermediary job. Find a suitable partner and get married. Buy a home, have children and try to improve your lot in life. It was pretty much the white, middle class equivalent of the Xenomorph’s life cycle from Alien. By and large I broadly tried to follow this strategy but I found that reality constantly got in the way and tried to obstruct both me and everyone else who was trying to navigate life’s choppy waters.

So here I am at the age of 54. Life has changed for both my family and me a lot in the last eight years in ways that I never really imagined. This is documented in other posts so I won’t cover old ground here. Returning to the title of this piece, I find myself at a time in my life where I am considering “what am I doing and where and I going?”, so to speak. There are many reasons why we all get philosophically introspective at times. Society expects us to have an orderly trajectory to our lives, passing certain milestones along the way. However, many of these expectations are unrealistic and unattainable, so we then devote an excess of our time and energy examining our perceived failures. It is hardly a recipe for personal happiness and contentment. The information age has also opened our eyes to the reality of our relationship with the government. The various social contracts that are supposed to exist between citizens and state are all broken. Working hard does not necessarily pay off, neither does “doing the right thing”.

View fullsize

It is therefore not unusual to wish for a fairer and stable world. A world where opportunities exist for all, a job pays sufficient to keep a roof over your head and there is equality before the law. Sadly, that is not the case. Here in the UK the political system is broken and taken advantage of. It’s binary nature and tribal culture often means people vote for what they believe is the least worst of two “evils”. Hence people end up directly and indirectly voting at times against their own interests. At present we have a politically and intellectually weak government who are greedy, petty and dangerous. We are isolated internationally during the midst of the biggest geopolitical problem since World War II. The immediate future for the UK is not good politically, economically or socially. It is more upsetting knowing that some of these problems we inflicted upon ourselves.

So returning to the original question of “what are you doing and where are you going?” I have a major decision ahead of me this year. My caring commitments will be coming to an end in April and I have to determine whether I shall be returning to the job market, or whether my personal finances will allow me to officially retire. I suspect that the latter may not be possible and the prospect of the modern work environment doesn’t fill me with joy. My long term plan is to move out of London and attempt to keep the world’s problems at arms length. I just want to live out the remainder of my days in as much peace and quiet as possible. However, that seems more and more like an aspiration rather than a definitive plan, especially if I am reliant upon a job. It seems like no one can escape uncertainty these days. Being free from worry seems to be becoming a prerogative exclusive to the rich. It would be nice to end this post on a positive note but I cannot think of one.

Old Bexley and Sidcup By-election Part 3

View fullsize

The Conservative Party successfully held onto their “safe seat” of Old Bexley and Sidcup in yesterday’s closely watched by-election. However their overall majority was reduced by more than half amid a very low voter turnout. Conservative councillor Louie French becomes the country’s newest MP after winning 11,189 votes, more than 50 per cent of those cast, in the seat previously held by the former cabinet minister James Brokenshire. Mr Brokenshire died in October from lung cancer aged 53. The closest challenger was Labour’s Daniel Francis, who secured 6,711 as the Tory majority fell from nearly 19,000 to 4,478, the equivalent of a vote share swing of 10 per cent to Labour. Turnout in the constituency was just 34%, down from the almost 70% who voted in the 2019 general election.

The results subsequently saw positive statements made by both the Conservatives and Labour. Mr French stated that such a victory for a sitting government was “almost unheard of”. Ellie Reeves MP, Labour's political lead for the 2021 Old Bexley and Sidcup by-election, remarked “There’s been a 10% swing over to Labour this evening”. Reform UK, formerly the Brexit Party, came third with 6.6% of the vote, with the party's leader and candidate Richard Tice describing it as a "massive result". Speaking after the results were announced, Mr Tice claimed “The reduction in the Conservatives’ majority in Old Bexley and Sidcup is a rejection of Boris Johnson personally because the Prime Minister is now viewed as a liability, not an asset in Tory heartlands”. The Green Party and Liberal Democrats both lost their deposits as they polled under 5% of the votes.

View fullsize

Old Bexley and Sidcup by-election 2021 results:

• Louie French (Con) 11,189 (51.48%, -13.06%)

• Daniel Francis (Lab) 6,711 (30.88%, +7.40%)

• Richard Tice (Reform) 1,432 (6.59%)

• Jonathan Rooks (Green) 830 (3.82%, +0.62%)

• Simone Reynolds (Lib Dem) 647 (2.98%, -5.31%)

• Elaine Cheeseman (Eng Dem) 271 (1.25%)

• John Poynton (UKIP) 184 (0.85%)

• Richard Hewison (Rejoin) 151 (0.69%)

• David Kurten (Heritage) 116 (0.53%)

• Carol Valinejad (CPA) 108 (0.50%)

• Mad Mike Young (Loony) 94 (0.43%)

Although the retention of the constituency is a relief for the Conservative Party, the reduction in majority and the dismal voter turnout cannot be ignored. It is extremely disheartening to see two thirds of the electorate deciding not to bother to vote. COVID-19 and poor weather are convenient excuses but both those factors did not deter voters two years ago in the General Election of 12th December 2019. Brexit was a pressing political issue at the time but the demographics of a constituency such as Old Bexley and Sidcup means that they usually make an effort to vote. Hence such voter apathy is food for thought. Doorstep canvassing by all parties discovered a growing sense of disillusionment with the lack of political direction of the government and the inadequacy of the Prime Minister himself. Yet that despondency did not translate into votes for alternative parties.

As a floating voter who has no strong political attachment to either of the two main parties, I have reached a point where none of the choices available on the ballot paper seem appropriate or desirable. I did vote in this election but it had zero impact, due to the “winner takes all” approach that is entrenched in the UK’s political system. Unless you live in a marginal seat, voting against a majority incumbent is effectively redundant. Therefore, with a vote that feels meaningless and a paucity of parties to choose from, I fully understand why people turn their backs on politics. Especially the under 30 year olds. All the canvassing that I saw taking place seemed to be undertaken by the over 40s and pitched at a similar age demographic and above. All too often, UK politics just seems to be a form of lobbying for specific socioeconomic groups. Sadly, I do not see the situation improving anytime soon.

View fullsize

As for Louie French, it will be interesting to follow his voting record in parliament in the months to come to see where he fits within the spectrum of modern Conservatism. At present, as a new MP he is naturally focused upon the needs of his constituents. In his victory speech Mr French stated he will “work tirelessly to repay the trust you put in me”. But I am more intrigued to learn what his position is on several major forthcoming pieces of legislation, such as the UK Online Safety Bill and the new Policing Bill with its potential restrictions regarding the right to protest. I think his voting intentions along with the way he conducts his MPs finances will provide a measure of the man. I also suspect that despite the current drop in the overall majority for this MP, this may well increase in two year’s time when the next General Election is held.

Old Bexley and Sidcup By-election Part 2

View fullsize

Political events in the constituency of Old Bexley and Sidcup have moved forward in the last few weeks, following on from the death of incumbent MP James Brokenshire on 8th of October. Although no formal announcement has yet been made regarding the date of the forthcoming by-election, the major political parties have started announcing the names of their respective candidates. There were initial concerns among some constituents that this safe Conservative Party seat may have been used as a means of parachuting in a candidate favoured by central office, rather than one determined by the local Conservative Association. Fortunately, that has not been the case. The UK Government currently enjoys a parliamentary majority of 79 seats and is therefore not in any urgent need of fast pathing further political allies.

View fullsize

At present three candidates have been confirmed as standing for election. Louie French who is standing for The Conservative Party. Mr French has been a Bexley councillor for the last eight years and was Deputy Leader of Bexley Council from 2018 to 2021. He is a resident of the Borough and has a background in the financial services industry, working in the City of London. The late James Brokenshire was both a friend and mentor to Louie, therefore from a party political perspective, he is a logical choice to stand as The Conservative Party candidate. His existing familiarity with the borough and its constituents offers practical continuity. Considering the voting habits of constituents and the historical track record of by-elections held in Old Bexley and Sidcup, unless something radical occurs it is safe to consider that Louie French is the favourite candidate to win the seat.

View fullsize

Daniel Francis, a Bexley councillor and former leader of Bexley’s Labour group on the council, has been selected as Labour’s parliamentary candidate for the upcoming Old by-election. Daniel Francis represents Belvedere Ward on Bexley Council and grew up locally. He is married with two primary school aged children, one of whom has cerebral palsy and he campaigns on accessibility issues. Mr Francis served as leader of Bexley Labour group from 2017 to 2021 and is the shadow cabinet member for environment, transport and leisure. He was first elected to the council in 2000. In the 2019 election, Labour polled 23.5% of the vote. Since the constituency of Old Bexley and Sidcup was created in 1983 the electorate has only elected Conservative Members of Parliament. 

View fullsize

The third candidate to be announced is Richard Tice, the leader of the party Reform UK. Formerly known as the Brexit Party, Reform UK is now presenting itself as a broader political entity with policies encompassing wider and more traditional issues. The party lost its 29 MEPs when the UK left the EU on 31 January 2020. At present it has three councillors nationally. Reform UK has been seeking parliamentary seats since 2019 but has not been successful so far. Mr Tice is a British businessman and CEO of the property investment firm. It will be interesting to see whether the presence of Richard Tice as both a candidate and the leader of his party will gain any traction with constituents and whether Reform UK can transition successfully from a single issue party. Furthermore, will his participation in the by-election increase media attention?

Old Bexley and Sidcup By-election Part 1

View fullsize

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.

View fullsize

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

View fullsize

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.

View fullsize

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

View fullsize

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”.

View fullsize

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

View fullsize

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.

View fullsize

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.

View fullsize

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.

View fullsize

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.

View fullsize

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

View fullsize

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.

View fullsize

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

View fullsize

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.

View fullsize

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

View fullsize

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.

View fullsize

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

View fullsize

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.

View fullsize

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.

View fullsize

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

View fullsize

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.

View fullsize

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.

View fullsize

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

View fullsize

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.

View fullsize

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.

View fullsize

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.

View fullsize

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

View fullsize

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”.

View fullsize

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.

View fullsize

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

View fullsize

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.

View fullsize

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”.

View fullsize

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

View fullsize

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.

View fullsize

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.

View fullsize

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

View fullsize

"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.

View fullsize

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.

View fullsize

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.

View fullsize

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.

View fullsize

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

View fullsize

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.

View fullsize

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.

View fullsize

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”.