May Versus Corbyn: The TV Debate

May vs Corbyn: The TV «Debate»

Clarity is all. It wasn't quite a debate because the two weren't face to face but I thought it an interesting exercise anyway. I thought neither did particularly well but nor did they do particularly badly. Judging by its reactions, the audience was quite well balanced in its sympathies, even including a small but obvious UKIP claque.

The clearest point that came through to me was when Paxman questioned May on her view of the economic impact of Brexit, which May had stated before the referendum as likely to be very damaging. May, very pointedly I thought under close questioning from Paxman, made no attempt to retract that opinion. She merely repeated that she was going to make a success of Brexit (and that «strong and stable government» would help, even if it doesn't affect the strength of the EU hand in negotiations).

So, what could success look like. Presumably it means minimising the economic damage. What else can it mean? With trading agreements with the EU and some 50+ other countries certain to be generally less advantageous (see previous postings), the economic damage could be very considerable indeed. Add the cost of Brexit and….……...So how can damage be minimised? I can't see any way other than a quick trade agreement with the EU, which must therefore be very much on their terms. That was what impressed me most in the debate and I don't think it came though clearly, perhaps because both contestants were on the same side regarding Brexit. Nonetheless Brexit will go ahead since both major political parties support what one commentator described as «a unique national act of deliberate self-harm». The decision of an electorate admittedly lied to, misinformed and widely ignorant of the consequences must be «respected».

And clarity is perhaps what is most lacking. The government has made several efforts to avoid parliamentary scrutiny of negotiations and most of the British press is unlikely to publish any bad news in that regard. May insists she needs lack of clarity so as not to reveal her negotiating hand but the EU has insisted that all negotiations must be open and transparent; so the EU itself will be an invaluable source of information over the coming years. Indeed, the EU has stated that it believes the British electorate is still ignorant of the implications of Brexit, as it most obviously is. Why would people vote to be worse off?

Two things trouble me most. One is the seemingly far too easy general acceptance of essentially empty slogans. To the «making Britain great» and «taking control» can now be added «strong and stable government» and the comfortably optimistic escape clause that «nobody yet knows how things will turn out». Nobody yet knows whether the world will end tomorrow but one can examine the evidence, think (above all, THINK) and come to some form of reasonably probable conclusion. I hate that so few people seem to question what this populist garbage and blind unsubstantiated hope really means. The other troubling item is the aggressive stance of extreme right-wing, essentially UKIP, supporters on every public platform. It smacks too much of brown shirts. I can't remember when the neo-Nazi element in the British public was as prominent as it is now.