The General Election And The Future

The General Election And The Future

The general election result left me with feelings of sadness, frustration and anger which I have to try to set aside in writing this. I felt sadness at the result, frustration that the right-wing bias in UK media had not been overcome by independent and other sources and anger that the UK is, in my view, mortgaging its future and, most specifically, that of its young people. Those are my feelings. But a new government regime inevtiably poses a number of questions and here are my thoughts on some of them. I shall also attempt a Nostradamus act; it’s close to the time of year for one of those.

Will the UK stay as currently consitituted? The Scottish Parliament wants independence but has been denied a referendum on the subject. How will the Scots react to that? I don’t forsee violence , although that may result, and wonder what passive resistance can achieve. Neither of the political axes in northern Ireland likes Johnson’s current proposal for a solution to the border problem, Stormont now has a Sinn Fein majority and amalgamation withe rest of Ireland (which would solve the border problem) is an option. Johnson can prohibit that but, if he does, the outcome is certain to be violent. English nationalism helped win Johnson the election but other nations have their nationalists too. I wouldn’t like to guess the outcome but there will certainly be tension and conflict there.

Brexit on the 31st of January will present the UK with numerous administrative challenges. The EU has said, several times, that a trade agreement between it and the UK cannot be completed in the 11 months currently prescribed, No 10 disagrees. Will Johnson blame any failure on the EU and go for the no-deal Brexit that he has formerly seemed to want? It seems quite probable.

There will be some 50+ further trade agreements needed to replace those the UK now has through the EU and a further 700+ treaties to be renegotiated. Trade agreements trypically take 3-10 years to be completed and in many cases the UK will necessarily be negotiating not with individual countries but with established trade blocks. Most smaller countries ally themselves with others to provide combined financial mucle in trade negotiations and the UK has chosen not to do this. It outmuscles most individual countries but possibly not most trade blocks. And trade blocks require agreement by all in the block, not just individual countries, which partly partly expalins the time involved. This situation will not be resolved speedily, whatever Johnson claims, and the interim is anybody’s guess. Johnson has trumpeted a trade agreement with the USA but it would have to increase trade between the two countries fivefold to replace the trade we currently do with the EU (and to whose advantage, who has the most financial muscle?)..

Britain has depended for centuries on the effectiveness of its trade, still does, and does 40% of it with the EU. WTO trade rules will be applied if Trump doesn’t succeed in destroying the WTO before then, as he is trying to do. The WTO rules have been much discussed. What has escaped attention is WTO’s rôle as a negotiation arbiter to avoid trade wars so we may well see more of those. In a trade war, the country or trade block with the most financial muscle invariably wins.

Immigration was an issue at the heart of Brexit and the general election result. The UK needs some degree of immigration; that is an undisputed fact. The idea of selecting just those immigrants that are needed is seductive but illusory. It presupposes a queue of desirable immigrants waiting to enter the UK for which there is no evidence. Xenophobia and racism also played some rôle in Brexit and race-related crimes have escalated in the UK since the referendum. Potential immigrants who wish to leave their countries may therefore find The UK a less desirable option (than the EU, for instance) and leave the UK with serious manpower deficiencies. I think we will see these in healthcare and possibly science-related activities but I can’t guess in what other sectors.

The NHS was a major issue in the election and Johnson has said he will make it a priority. That means he will give it his attention but little else I think that private health insurance schemes are sure to play a larger rôle and wonder at the cost and coverage of these. I forsee a health system much closer to that in the USA 5 (where the mean standard of healthcare is much lower; the USA is ranked 20th by the World Health Organisation) than health systems in the EU.

The wealth gap between the richest and poorest in the UK is wide and has been getting wider for years. There is no evidence from Johnson’s political past and stated opiniuons that he considers this a priority, rather the reverse, and its continued existence implies political instability. The UK has experienced zero growth in productivity over the last 10 years (OECD figures) and a large cheap labour force discourages investment in machinery and modern means to boost productivity. The signs are all for a free market economy in which, ironically, nothing is free. That means, among other things, only very basic.public services, which are a means to share wealth. The same is true of the EU development fund, used to ameliorate conditions in deprived areas of Europe, including those in the UK. I cannot see those initiatives being replaced in anything like the same amount. That would run counter to a free trade economy. A free trade economy typically relies on cheap labour and the life expectancy of people is increasing. Cheap labour has no hope of saving enough money to cover the expenses of retirement and old age and I forsee an increased number of destitute old people in the UK, unable through no fault of their own, to provide for their old age. (as there are in the USA).

Finally, I worry about the possibility of independent assessments and the rôle of the media. Johnson has not exactly welcomed open debate and scrutiny up to now (even discounting hiding in a fridge) and No 10’s attack on the BBC TV and radio stations and Channel 4 looks ominous to me. The proposed curtailment of courts’ scrutiny of government actions upsets the long British tradition of the roles for government and the judiciary and would make the government less accountable.. Will, for instance, we be allowed to know the basis for government statistics? Will the detail of trade agreements be published? The predominant right-wing press won’t be interested in any of this but independent journalists and commentators will be and so should every democratically minded citizen. If government accountability lmeans anything it depends crucially on the information made available. I fear that the possibility for independent assessments and critique is being curtailed and and may be more so and that is a serious threat to any democracy.

Johnson, with his majority, has a great deal of power. How will he use it? For the good of the country as a whole, as Corbyn claimed to want to do, or primarily for the already rich and powerful? I’ve made my own guesses on that but you have to make your own.

A final couple of questions. Even such a prominent Brexit camapaigner as Ress-Mogg has estimated that the benefits of Brexit will take at least 20 years, and possibly 50, to become apparent. If British people wake up in five years’ time and find that EU citizens are experiencing a much greater quality of life than those in the UK, what happens then? What measures would be needed to keep UK citizens happy?

Government Incentives

Government Incentives

Two ways to govern a country are to do what you think is best for the country or two plunder it to make you and your associates rich. If you choose the latter, à la south America, you obviously need passpaorts or rights of residence from/in other countries. UK national debt since 2007 has risen from 68% of GDP to 85% of GDP, money borrowed by the government while public services such as the police, fire brigade and NHS have all suffered cuts in budget and services have degraded. So who got the money and for what? Look at candidates for the general election in this light and draw your own conclusions.

Standards Of Information

Standards Of Information

In a previous post I said that I think that the British Standards Institution should create a standard for information integrity to which media might sign up or not, as they wished, with the obvious connotations. I feel that even more strongly now.

Institutions are not just bricks, mortar and committees but can be abstract as, for instance, in the British reputed insistence on fair play in sport. That, at one time, was an accepted British characteristic and, as such, an abstract institution. As an aside, a French IT colleague once said to me that the English breakfast was not really a meal but an instituiion. Something simuilar, in my youth, was true of The Times newspaper; it rigourously separated news reporting from opnion so that you knew which was which in any article you were reading and could make up your mind accordingly. Again we have an abstract institution, in this example on information integrity. And, in times past, the BBC was viewed by millions throughout the world as a medium through which they could learn the truth when they could not rely on their national media. That may still be true of foreign news coverage but…...

It’s a personal view, but I think that all these previously respected abstract institutions have more recently failed to live up to their billing, generally quite demonstrably so. The void that needs to be filled is one of integrity. There are practical difficulties as I know from personal experience in chairing an IT standards committee at BSI in 1996. Standards typically take around 2 years to formulate, for practical not bureaurocratic reasons, but can be fast-tracked in around 9 months (as my own committee did). Any standard implies at least and may specifically state tests that have to be passed to meet the standard and some very simple tests on reasonable attempts to verify facts are possible. Indeed, the assumed professuonal code for journalists implies most of the tests. I think we need such a standard on the integrity of published information as soon as possible. Without it, the population at large is at the mercy of very clever manipulators and the considerable sums needed to employ them. If you disagree, are you happy to be manipulated or what would you suggest ?

Birthday And Dark Money

My Birthday

My birthday in Scotland was great. I’d booked to fly by Ryanair for economic reasons and also because that was the most convenient flight, although the flight was to Edinburgh rather tha my eventual destination of Glasgow. L had the usual caveats one has with Ryanair but, in the event, all went well both coming and going. I spent the afternoon happily and interestingly after my early arrival with friends in Edinburgh and then continued to Glasgow and my family in time to see my grand-daughter, my daughter and son-in-law in the early evening. Mission accomplished!

I was taken out by Nat and Andy to lunch on my birthday, the following Monday, to a tapas restaurant which was excellent and spent the rest of the 10 days with my family doing nothing much of consequence other than visiting the Kelvingrove museum/art gallery and the house for art lovers of MacKenzie. Both were good experiences but the best experiences were with my family. I also did some shopping (my daughter characterised it as intensive) to get items hard or expensive to find in France and presents for my French friends here. I’m pleased to say that all the presents were well received, plus one to come, a kind of French Burns evening which we will do with the haggis I brought back. All good, photos included.

 

Back to reality in France has proved easy. Daniel and Evelyne picled me up from Marseilles airport and I was home in under two hours with all my merchandise. It took me 2-3 days to get myself together but then life resumed as normal. I had arrived in Marseilles somewhat to my surprise in the middle of a rain storm as in the six weeks prior to my departure we had had only 5cm of rain in 6 weeks. What the hell, the rain was welcome.

Now, having got myself together, I’m back into the morass of documentation demanded by the French for the right to stay and for citizenship. I’m also, it seems, into a general election because I still have the right to vote in UK elections, not that in my case that will serve much purpose When I was in the UK my constituency was Reading east, which was swingable; I now find myself, for reasons unknown, in Wokingham which has something like a 20,000 Tory majority. Nonetheless I will try to reduce that by at least one vote.

I’ve no idea what the outcome of the election will be but hope that it will be for the good of the UK, which is most certainly not Johnson in my opinion. My hopes rest on one statistic that I’ve seen, that if 40 percent of Remainers vote tactically then Johnson doesn’t win. All the media messages to Remainers are to forget party loyalty and vote tactically so I have to hope they do that correctly. Fingers crossed.

Dark Money

I’m increasingly preoccupied by the directive given to the Watergate investigative journalists to «follow the money». Dark money is money that arrives somewhere from no currently identifiable source. We know that it played a part and was used illegally (and unprosecuted) in the Leave campaign and that Boris Johnson is sitting on and refusing to publish a report that would at least shed some light on the matter.

We also know that it arrived in northern Ireland and that northern Ireland has different electoral rules to the rest of the UK. That may surprise some people but the source of money used in democratic electoral campaigns has to be declared in all of the UK apart from northern Ireland. The obvious question here is why that situation persists and the only obvious answer is because it suits some power-seeking group to have it that way.

The EU directive due to come into force next year aimed at reducing tax avoidance will, incidentally, curtail the movement of dark money, including money being laundered. Officially, countries in the developed economies are united in trying to prevent money laundering so why are anomalies like northern Ireland allowed to continue? As suggested above, it must suit some power-seeking group; it also, incidentally, suits the funding of the IRA. Which opens up the question of security and terrorism and what security agencies know about the movement of dark money and what governments allow them to say and do about it. Now enlightenment there could be really interesting, such as what happens when dark money is useful to the government.

Brave New World?

Brave New World

I’m worried, very worried. If Johnson gets his no-deal Brexit and the following genereal election, look at the power he will have.

He can suspend parliament, that we know. Look at the Investigatory Powers Act (2017) which gives the governement power to evesdrop on any indiividual’s conversation (just for national security of course????). Then think of the Leveson report on Press responsibility, with all major recommendations unimplemented. Ever heard of Big Brother, Brave New World, but from the right rather rthan the left?

If It’s Not Reported It Didn’t Happen

When I was still at school I was amazed to learn from a teacher that the only newspaper recently admonished by the Press Council (I think that is what it was then called, the Press regulatory body) was The Times, at the time the supposed bastion of good journalism, for not reporting the Sharpeville massacre in South Africa. Everybody knew about the massacre except, presumably, those who relied only on The Times fot their news (and TV was far from universal then). The Times was reprimanded for not reporting what was obviously news whilst some debs marriage or flower show was. Does anyone care to look for coverage of the demonstrations against pro-rogation of Parliament in such «responsible» newspapers as The Telegraph, The Express, etc? Obviously, if it wasn’t reported it didn’t happen. And a free press is essential to democracy? And a respnsible press…..? And a toothless regulatory body? Ah well…...

Health Warning

Don’t Talk To Strangers

I remember a time when paedophilia was in the headlines and the warning to children «don’t talk to strangers» was widely broadcast. The warning was a bit heavy-handed: as an aging man I felt it inhibited me in any potentially mutually happy and innocuous encounter with a passing child. However, the caution may well have been effective in many cases and, if so, was worth much more than any slight inhibition or inconvenience on my or anybody else’s part.

I’m concerned with a different issue now, one that would come with a warning along the lines of «beware what you believe, what you think you know, becuase you are being manipulated». In this case the danger is not just possible, it is certain. It’s obvious because product advertising is all around us and that is exactly what product advertising seeks to do. However, everyone by now should be conscious of that and the worst outcome is probably that you buy something you don’t really want or need or, more seriously, really can’t afford. Apply that to your view of the world though, your view of other people, your country, the whole planet even, and the question becomes very much more serious.

Let’s be clear; attempts, often very subtle, subliminal and sophisticated, are now being made all the time to manipulate you in these much wider aspects. So how do you warn a population at large that that is happening in a way that they will appreciate, understand and take to heart?

There is an easy but ineffectual answer: the educational system. The answer is ineffectual because most current educational systems fail most people to some extent most of the time. It might be effective if everyone on the planet had a PhD but that is never going to be the case however low governments make standards in order to show superficially better statistics.

I can’t think of an answer at the moment but I have a flight of fancy. Suppose that, just as every cigarette packet (in Europe) now has to carry a health warning, every newspaper and news bulletin had to carry the warning that «while every effort has been made to ensure that the factual content of what you read/see is true, it may not be». And suppose that any divergence from that, in any medium, should be actionable in a court of law.

OK, it’s fanciful and heavy-handed but it addresses the really big question: how can the manipulators on national and global questions be subjected to some control?

Pandora's Box

Two Very Important Questions: Pandora’s Box

If Johnson succeeds in by-passing Parliament and getting a no-deal Brexit, and if Corbyn wins the next general election and wants to pass extreme socialist legislation unlikely to get through Parliament, why shouldn’t he use the same mechanism? Rationally, what’s the objection?

Secondly, if Parliament can be by-passed in this way, how effective is Parliament as the bastion of British democracy? Read Orwell before sending answers on a postcard.

Conspiracy Theory

Everyone loves a conspiracy theory so why not? When we think of solidarity and collective protection we typically think of unions and cooperatives, the less privileged trying to protect themselves from more powerful individual people or organisations. But suppose some of those more powerful individuals and organisations decide to themselves form a collective? Individually they don’t need to because they are rich and powerful and can do more or less what they want. But suppose they have higher ambitions; to control a large part of the world in their favour? What is to stop them if they so choose? They would need to control the media but already mostly do. Most people read only one newspaper or watch only one news channel so the main media need be the only targets. Their only problem is the Internet. It has been designed so that it cannot easily be controlled but it holds limitless information to be used and that can be obtained at a price. And who can best afford that price? So at least if they cannot control it they can make good use of it to further their purposes. Who or what can counter this?

Answers on a postcard again (after having read your Orwell).