The UK government, and David Cameron in particular, have hit on an idea that would help reduce welfare and also be popular with the public. The idea to cap welfare benefits per family at no more than the national average income (around £25,000) seems suddenly to make great common sense to the government and a lot of people.
Except that the House of Lords loathe the idea and have blocked it. And suddenly government are asking what right they upper house have to block the democratically-elected parliament from carrying-out its programme.
Now might be a good time to step back and look at the underlying issues behind the "cap", why it would even be necessary for a family to need £25,000 in government subsidies, and why there is an outcry over "benefit cheats".
First things first: how are an unemployed family able to be given a government subsidy worth the average national income of a working person?
The simple answer is because that sum of money applies mostly to large unemployed families in the London area: more than half of that "subsidy" goes on rent; much of the rest on bills; leaving a pretty modest amount if you have two parents and five children. Don't forget, that's seven people living in one of the most expensive cities in the world. If they lived in, say, Middlesbrough, where rent is a fraction the price in London, then naturally they would get a lower subsidy.
The government, in its enthusiam to grab a headline (no change there, then), forgets to mention that the benefits a family receive are means-tested; it depends on the cost of living of the place in the UK you live. So the idea of a national "cap" is not only wrong-headed, it's also absurd. It means that unemployed familes with several children that live in London (who anyway would face a tiny number of flats big enough to house them), would be forced to move out of London entirely. In other words, forced clearances of large families from the capital.
But that's only the tip of the iceberg. What the issue of the "benefit cap" really highlights is the shocking cost of living in the UK, especially in London. That's the real scandal.
Yes, the real scandal is that due to the insanely high cost of rent in places like London and the South East, in order to prevent masses large unemployed familes from having to live on the street, the government has to fork out a subsidy worth a working person's average national income. That's no fault of the unemployed family; that's the fault of the shameless and unregulated landlords, who the government completely fail to control.
That in itself is an appalling indictment of the state of the insanely-inflated property market in the UK, in London in particular. Let's remind ourselves that the price of rent nationally is still going up; utility bills are going up; and the cost of everyday living is still going up. Meanwhile, wages remain stagnant. The result: people in the UK are getting deeper and deeper into real and virtual poverty.
In this kind of economy, many young people find it impossible to save money to buy a house. Meanwhile, almost zero interest rates give no incentive to save what little money they have in any case. Banks are reluctant to risk giving people with no savings a loan to make any possible investments. And year on year, costs keep going up while wages remain flat, meaning that annually the average person may well be five per cent (or more) poorer than the previous year. This is a slow-motion downward spiral to poverty on a national scale.
Well, thank god we have a welfare state. But the outcry against "benefit cheats" is also largely missing the point. Let's use a hypothetical example.
A worker who lives in the south-east has a job that makes £20,000. After deductions for tax and national insurance, that takes away upto 15% of his income at least. Then there's the rent, which hacks off another 40% of his income (if he's lucky) . Then there are bills, which takes off another 10%, leaving him with only 35% of his salary left. Oh, and if he has a car, there's insurance, road tax and fuel (say another 10% of his annual salary at least). So, in reality, what he has to survive on per year (for food and enterainment) may, in theory be around £5,000 per year. Divide that into fifty-two, and you have under £100 per week - to pay for everything else.
However, if you are unemployed, you qualify for JSA (around £70 per week), and the council helps to pay for your rent. This is obvious; unless the government expects people to become homeless soon after becoming unemployed. There are other things, like being able to qualify for free college education in many cases, in order to give an incentive for you to re-train and have a chance of getting a better job. All well and good, as you would hope for in a civilised country.
So this poses the problem: that many people who earn less than the average national salary would feel justified in being envious of the unemployed, who have much less to "worry about" - such as paying the rent and bills. Clearly there are many cases of people defrauding the government out of welfare, but it's not the majority by any means; and in any case, it's difficult to imagine the situation being done in a different way that would not destroy the moral fabric of our "civilised" society.
No, the main reason for this insane state of affairs is the scandalous (and to my mind, economically inexplicable) cost of rent and housing in the UK, as well as the added factors of increasing cost of living. The latter, I understand, is partly down to global factors somewhat out of the government's hands, but the price of property is something that the government could easily regulate, if it ever had the guts. Or at least find the core causes of the problem, and deal with it.
In the UK, then, the insane cost of property is one of the real factors that explain the call for the "benefit cap" and the envy that working people feel towards the unemployed.
So far, few people have made this link known to the government, sadly.
Friday, January 27, 2012
Thursday, January 26, 2012
How the UK became an anachronism
The UK (or to give it its full title, "The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland") is in trouble.
As I recently wrote, and as it's often in the news, Scotland is planning to decide on its constitutional marriage arrangements with its southern neighbour. Either divorce (independence) a marriage of convenience (devo-max), or to retain the current awkward arrangements.
If Scotland did choose independence, the "UK" by definition, would no longer exist - because there would no longer be a "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland"; just a Kingdom of England, Wales and Northern Ireland. It's Scotland that gives Britain the name "Great".
It seems extraordinary (ignorant as well as arrogant) that Westminster politicians have not realised what "The UK" is: a legal union of two states, England (with Wales and Northern Ireland), and Scotland. Westminster seems to think that it carry on as before if Scotland leaves the union, with Scotland as a "successor state", as the EU also appears to believe. But by that logic, there would be two successor states; England and Scotland, not Scotland and the "RUK". Westminster's logic of a legally-superior "RUK" is a fantasy land where Westminster can have its cake and eat it.
Westminster and the EU's logic is based on a false understanding of the special form of historic union between England and Scotland. Scotland would not be a "successor" state. England does not "own" Scotland, in the way that other states have "broken away" from their larger, former overlords. The example of South Sudan breaking away from Sudan is not appropriate; the nearest contemporary comparison would be the "Velvet divorce" of Czechoslovakia, but even that is not totally accurate, as their state was an artificial creation after the First World War, it was not a legal union of two states. This is what Westminster fails to remember, and the EU for that matter, too.
Since "The UK" joined the EU, surely all legal documents have applied equally to Scotland as well as England, as in any political union. But equally, Scotland leaving the union should not be the same as Scotland leaving the EU: as Scotland joined the EU in the same treaty as England, but in its own legal right as one half of "The UK". Everyone outside of Scotland seems for have forgotten that Scotland has a separate legal system. When Scotland joined with England in 1707 it deferred its parliament to Westminster, but retained independent legal apparatus. This is why I agree with Alex Salmond's explanation why Scotland should not have to "re-join" the EU as a "successor state". Either both Scotland and England are "successor states" to a defunct "UK", or neither. There could be no such thing as a "RUK" in legal terms, as there are only two legal "parts" to the union - England and Scotland. If one pulls out, it's all over: you have two brand new entities. The nearest legal comparison to such a situation would be the break-up of the Soviet Union, or the that of the former Yugoslavia. But the EU didn't have to deal with any of those countries being already member-states. And even those were unions of several or more states, not just two, like the UK. The ignorance of EU politicians on the unique legal nature of "the UK" is as surprising as it is insulting.
Catalonia's independence movement bears many similarities to Scotland's, and in more ways than one. For Spain itself is a "legal union", at least historically. For Spain before Franco was a Kingdom of two crowns: Castille (centred on Madrid) and Aragon (cented on Barcelona). So Catalans' interest in Scottish independence is also based on the historic similarities in the relationship between the union of England and Scotland, and the union of Castille and Aragon (now called Catalonia). The fear of Catalans copying the Scots is the reason why Madrid is so hostile towards Scottish independence, and why they are trying to make things awkward for Scotland's relationship with the EU.
That all said, the most likely outcome for Scotland is "devo-max", also called Home Rule, where Scotland remains part of the UK for appearance's sake, but only foreign policy and military arrangements come from London.
But even that option is worth talking about, and people would be wrong to downplay its significance. Because Home Rule for Scotland, which is almost certain to be the most likely outcome in 2014, means the end of the UK as we know it.
And what is this "UK" anyway? According to polls, more English people favour Scottish independence than the Scots themselves; it seems the British public as a whole are in favour of financial independence for its constituent parts (i.e. they raise their own taxes, rather than a lump sum decided in London). Even some Tory MPs favour this idea, as they see the financial sense of financial devolution.
By that definition, the "UK" as a concept no longer has the support of the majority of British people. The UK could soon turn into a big house party where all the guests agree to bring their own drinks. Forget the idea of "collective responsibility".
With the UK's status quo as good as dead by the end of 2014, the most likely arrangement would be some form of quasi-federal status of the different parts of the UK; after Scotland votes for Home Rule, no doubt the voices from Wales will become louder. Infact, the Welsh have already made noises on that issue, so expect Cardiff take start causing trouble in tandem with Edinburgh. At the current rate of frantic political debate, the Welsh assembly may well ask for a referendum on "devo-max" itself before very long.
And then there's England itself, by far the largest part of the UK. One reason the Welsh are not happy about Scottish independence is that it would make England seem even more dominant politically; the Welsh don't want to be left alone with the insufferable English and an intractable Ulster problem.
England itself has regional issues; cost of living disparities that cause much Northern resentment at a distant-seeming, aloof London elite, are just one example. So even the cry for regional devolution with England may well become impossible to ignore within a few years.
So, where does that leave "the UK"?
By 2015, as things stand, David Cameron in all likelyhood will be Prime Minister of an international power with much reduced central authority. His constitutional power north of the border, with a Home Rule Scotland, would be negligible. If Wales soon demands Home Rule within the UK, then the same would be said of Wales. Northern Ireland's parliament may well also ask for similar powers, leaving Cameron "Prime Minister of the UK", but in practice, effectively just Prime Minister of England, but responsible for the defence and foreign policy of all parts of this so-called "UK".
This will make Cameron, and future UK Prime Ministers, more like an "official" head of government, if not in reality on the ground. The UK will effectively be more federalised, and less centrally-powerful in some ways, than the EU is now.
There's a beautiful irony to that fate for "Euro-cynic" Cameron.
So within four years, the UK will, barring a miracle, become another type of unique constititional entity in the world. Already the UK was renowned in the world as being the only joint monarchy of two consensual states (and confusing foreigners endlessly about what "Great Britain" and "The UK" was, and why the country has four different national sporting teams).
And we'll make it even more confusing after 2014, whereby "The UK" will have a national government that doesn't even properly rule within its own borders, making "The UK" as a nation-state less powerful than the smaller nation-states within it.
There is a wonderful irony here. That the UK, that most conservative of countries, that cherished its establishment and its institutions only fifteen years ago, has been so transformed in itself that the country's own people seem to be indifferent to the country's constitutional existence.
What happened to the "British"? The Scots, Welsh and English have rediscovered their sense of national identity, in spite of the common cultural ties. The other irony here is that there are probably more people from ethnic minorities who would call themselves "British" (albeit with a hyphen) than the "natives".
In this way, it adds to my idea that Britain as a socio-cultural concept is as distinct from Europe as is Scandinavia; everyone knows what "Scandinavians" are, their culture and peculiarities, even though, as a whole, they are several different nations. The UK exists as a default option for those people of the British Isles who don't feel quite up to the idea of going our own ways.
As Alex Salmond said, if Scotland went it alone, England would lose a surly lodger and gain a good neighbour. That's also what the Scandinavians did a hundred years ago; in spite of the friendly jokes that Scandinavians have between themselves (their version of the "Englishman, Scotsman and Irishman" jokes), they get on well as seperate nations.
In that sense, borders hardly matter at all if the cultural ties are still strong, as they are between the UK and Ireland. It looks like the UK will live on for a while yet, but any new British "marriage of convenience" will be no more than that: a pact between financially independent nations to pretend, for the sake of convenience, to be a single country, with a symbolic head of state, and a symbolic head of government.
And that seems a very "British" way of dealing with something. Funny.
As I recently wrote, and as it's often in the news, Scotland is planning to decide on its constitutional marriage arrangements with its southern neighbour. Either divorce (independence) a marriage of convenience (devo-max), or to retain the current awkward arrangements.
If Scotland did choose independence, the "UK" by definition, would no longer exist - because there would no longer be a "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland"; just a Kingdom of England, Wales and Northern Ireland. It's Scotland that gives Britain the name "Great".
It seems extraordinary (ignorant as well as arrogant) that Westminster politicians have not realised what "The UK" is: a legal union of two states, England (with Wales and Northern Ireland), and Scotland. Westminster seems to think that it carry on as before if Scotland leaves the union, with Scotland as a "successor state", as the EU also appears to believe. But by that logic, there would be two successor states; England and Scotland, not Scotland and the "RUK". Westminster's logic of a legally-superior "RUK" is a fantasy land where Westminster can have its cake and eat it.
Westminster and the EU's logic is based on a false understanding of the special form of historic union between England and Scotland. Scotland would not be a "successor" state. England does not "own" Scotland, in the way that other states have "broken away" from their larger, former overlords. The example of South Sudan breaking away from Sudan is not appropriate; the nearest contemporary comparison would be the "Velvet divorce" of Czechoslovakia, but even that is not totally accurate, as their state was an artificial creation after the First World War, it was not a legal union of two states. This is what Westminster fails to remember, and the EU for that matter, too.
Since "The UK" joined the EU, surely all legal documents have applied equally to Scotland as well as England, as in any political union. But equally, Scotland leaving the union should not be the same as Scotland leaving the EU: as Scotland joined the EU in the same treaty as England, but in its own legal right as one half of "The UK". Everyone outside of Scotland seems for have forgotten that Scotland has a separate legal system. When Scotland joined with England in 1707 it deferred its parliament to Westminster, but retained independent legal apparatus. This is why I agree with Alex Salmond's explanation why Scotland should not have to "re-join" the EU as a "successor state". Either both Scotland and England are "successor states" to a defunct "UK", or neither. There could be no such thing as a "RUK" in legal terms, as there are only two legal "parts" to the union - England and Scotland. If one pulls out, it's all over: you have two brand new entities. The nearest legal comparison to such a situation would be the break-up of the Soviet Union, or the that of the former Yugoslavia. But the EU didn't have to deal with any of those countries being already member-states. And even those were unions of several or more states, not just two, like the UK. The ignorance of EU politicians on the unique legal nature of "the UK" is as surprising as it is insulting.
Catalonia's independence movement bears many similarities to Scotland's, and in more ways than one. For Spain itself is a "legal union", at least historically. For Spain before Franco was a Kingdom of two crowns: Castille (centred on Madrid) and Aragon (cented on Barcelona). So Catalans' interest in Scottish independence is also based on the historic similarities in the relationship between the union of England and Scotland, and the union of Castille and Aragon (now called Catalonia). The fear of Catalans copying the Scots is the reason why Madrid is so hostile towards Scottish independence, and why they are trying to make things awkward for Scotland's relationship with the EU.
That all said, the most likely outcome for Scotland is "devo-max", also called Home Rule, where Scotland remains part of the UK for appearance's sake, but only foreign policy and military arrangements come from London.
But even that option is worth talking about, and people would be wrong to downplay its significance. Because Home Rule for Scotland, which is almost certain to be the most likely outcome in 2014, means the end of the UK as we know it.
And what is this "UK" anyway? According to polls, more English people favour Scottish independence than the Scots themselves; it seems the British public as a whole are in favour of financial independence for its constituent parts (i.e. they raise their own taxes, rather than a lump sum decided in London). Even some Tory MPs favour this idea, as they see the financial sense of financial devolution.
By that definition, the "UK" as a concept no longer has the support of the majority of British people. The UK could soon turn into a big house party where all the guests agree to bring their own drinks. Forget the idea of "collective responsibility".
With the UK's status quo as good as dead by the end of 2014, the most likely arrangement would be some form of quasi-federal status of the different parts of the UK; after Scotland votes for Home Rule, no doubt the voices from Wales will become louder. Infact, the Welsh have already made noises on that issue, so expect Cardiff take start causing trouble in tandem with Edinburgh. At the current rate of frantic political debate, the Welsh assembly may well ask for a referendum on "devo-max" itself before very long.
And then there's England itself, by far the largest part of the UK. One reason the Welsh are not happy about Scottish independence is that it would make England seem even more dominant politically; the Welsh don't want to be left alone with the insufferable English and an intractable Ulster problem.
England itself has regional issues; cost of living disparities that cause much Northern resentment at a distant-seeming, aloof London elite, are just one example. So even the cry for regional devolution with England may well become impossible to ignore within a few years.
So, where does that leave "the UK"?
By 2015, as things stand, David Cameron in all likelyhood will be Prime Minister of an international power with much reduced central authority. His constitutional power north of the border, with a Home Rule Scotland, would be negligible. If Wales soon demands Home Rule within the UK, then the same would be said of Wales. Northern Ireland's parliament may well also ask for similar powers, leaving Cameron "Prime Minister of the UK", but in practice, effectively just Prime Minister of England, but responsible for the defence and foreign policy of all parts of this so-called "UK".
This will make Cameron, and future UK Prime Ministers, more like an "official" head of government, if not in reality on the ground. The UK will effectively be more federalised, and less centrally-powerful in some ways, than the EU is now.
There's a beautiful irony to that fate for "Euro-cynic" Cameron.
So within four years, the UK will, barring a miracle, become another type of unique constititional entity in the world. Already the UK was renowned in the world as being the only joint monarchy of two consensual states (and confusing foreigners endlessly about what "Great Britain" and "The UK" was, and why the country has four different national sporting teams).
And we'll make it even more confusing after 2014, whereby "The UK" will have a national government that doesn't even properly rule within its own borders, making "The UK" as a nation-state less powerful than the smaller nation-states within it.
There is a wonderful irony here. That the UK, that most conservative of countries, that cherished its establishment and its institutions only fifteen years ago, has been so transformed in itself that the country's own people seem to be indifferent to the country's constitutional existence.
What happened to the "British"? The Scots, Welsh and English have rediscovered their sense of national identity, in spite of the common cultural ties. The other irony here is that there are probably more people from ethnic minorities who would call themselves "British" (albeit with a hyphen) than the "natives".
In this way, it adds to my idea that Britain as a socio-cultural concept is as distinct from Europe as is Scandinavia; everyone knows what "Scandinavians" are, their culture and peculiarities, even though, as a whole, they are several different nations. The UK exists as a default option for those people of the British Isles who don't feel quite up to the idea of going our own ways.
As Alex Salmond said, if Scotland went it alone, England would lose a surly lodger and gain a good neighbour. That's also what the Scandinavians did a hundred years ago; in spite of the friendly jokes that Scandinavians have between themselves (their version of the "Englishman, Scotsman and Irishman" jokes), they get on well as seperate nations.
In that sense, borders hardly matter at all if the cultural ties are still strong, as they are between the UK and Ireland. It looks like the UK will live on for a while yet, but any new British "marriage of convenience" will be no more than that: a pact between financially independent nations to pretend, for the sake of convenience, to be a single country, with a symbolic head of state, and a symbolic head of government.
And that seems a very "British" way of dealing with something. Funny.
Tuesday, January 24, 2012
Newt Gingrich as leader of the free world? God help us. Literally.
As I wrote a tongue-in-cheek article about a fictitious Presidential election between Obama and Gingrich last month, now it seems there's a real chance that I might get my wish.
In almost every way conceivable, Gingrich is the definitive "anti-Obama". Whereas Obama was hailed as a contemporary political messiah four years ago, by comparison Gingrich seems to be doing a great performance as the Anti-Christ, representing the forces of darkness.
Apart from the many ways in which the Republican party that Gingrich hopes to represent stands for all that is evil in human nature (as I wrote in a previous blog, "The Devil Votes Republican"), there are the many human flaws contained in Gingrich's own personality that makes him rationally seem as the least suitable person for the job.
That's the problem, though: rationalism. Obama gives every impression of containing quite a lot of it; a lot more rationalism than many of his peers, Democrat as well as Republican. One reason why he has failed to get through a lot of his programme is due to his misreading of the Republicans as being "rational" people he could do a deal with. Jimmy Carter had the same problem; Carter was intellectual and deep-thinking, but was out-manoeuvred by the more practically-minded Reagan.
Obama has the danger of falling into the same trap; except that Gingrich is a different sort of person than Reagan was. And rational people (such as much of the mainstream media) are wondering why Gingrich is as popular as he is.
Before I explain that one, it's only fair that we compare Obama's and Gingrich's personalities and personal life.
First, personal life.
Obama is a happily married man, with two children, and a moderate Christian (though more likely agnostic). Gingrich is a twice-divorced man, who cheated on his first wife while she was in the hospital with cancer, his mistress became his second wife, gained another mistress, and married her after his second wife refused to accept an "open marriage". Also, he's reportedly changed his religion; twice.
Then go figure which of them is meant to be representing the party of "family values" (which the Republicans claim to be).
Then we have the personalities.
Obama's problem with persona is that for all his apparent intelligence, rationalism, eloquence, thoughtfulness and good intentions, he still comes across to many ordinary Americans as aloof and weak-willed. Meanwhile, the Republicans portray him as a radical, trying to turn the values of the Founding Fathers on their head.
Then there's Gingrich. He comes across as arrogant, self-serving, hypocritical and reckless. And those are some of the better attributes. Using his "academic" background as a historian, he sees himself as intellectually superior to Obama - going so far as to challenge him to a number of debates, in the style of Lincoln. He has used his connections during years of service in the senate and as Speaker to feather his own nest; meanwhile, he tried to impeach President Clinton over his extra-marital misconduct at the same time as when Gingrich was cheating on his own wife. As Speaker he forced the closure of the government in a petty dispute with President Clinton (as the Republicans also tried to do with Obama last year); eventually, even his own party got sick of his dirty tricks, and dumped him from the role of Speaker. Since that time, he has been doing what he could to advance his own financial and political interests using almost any means possible.
In other words, Newt Gingrich is a political phenomenon; albeit, the polar opposite to the ideal candidate.
At first, no-one took his chances seriously when his campaign team started in the spring of 2011; by the summer, many of his own campaign team had quit in disgust at his personality and political style. The fact that he managed to re-invent his campaign after such a blow is a sign of Gingrich's determination and forbearance; he made a virtue of his lack of money and financial backing. He comes across as being anti-elitist; a man of the people (even though he is comfortably a millionaire). In other words, he is an archetypal demagogue.
That is one of Gingrich's various political talents, which makes him dangerous against any rational politician such as Obama: Gingrich has no shame, and has shown that he is very capable at making disingenuous and savage attacks against his opponents, even those in the same party. And yet, he also has had the political experience and expediency to know when to come across as moderate on issues (such as immigration towards the Hispanic population, to win their support in Florida), and also conciliatory and sympathetic to rivals (during his South Carolina victory speech).
Lastly, there are his policies, or at least, public statements of intent (which can change depending on who he's talking to at any one time). In as much as he has a domestic policy, it has been to undo all of Obama's work as quickly as possible (before Obama's even had chance to land in Chicago after leaving the White House, so Gingrich claimed), and make sure that taxes are kept as low as possible. No wonder, then, he has grabbed the support of the Ayn Rand-inspired philosophy of the Tea Party. As an apparent social conservative, he has won the support of the Evangelicals (though where he really stands on social issues, only he knows). He has claimed he supports all the major platform policies of his Republican rivals, thereby rendering them toothless; meanwhile, his major rival, Mitt Romney, has been effectively labelled an elitist and out-of-touch with the lives of average Americans. Gingrich, on the other hand, not having any major financial backers, shows himself off as being one of the people; furthermore, he has the cunning to know how to talk in a way the average American can relate to - marking him different to the likes of Romney and, naturally, Obama.
A word about Gingrich's statements on foreign policy, for that's where the fun really starts. He has stated that as Secretary of State he would have John Bolton; the infamous Ambassador to the UN, who didn't believe in the institution of the UN. Rather like having an Environment Secretary who doesn't believe in the environment (although George W Bush also managed to have one of those, too). So that would make life interesting from Day One.
Then, Gingrich has said so many controversial statements on the Palestinian situation that it makes me wonder if he isn't a sleeper agent for the Israeli ultra-right; for instance, that he would move the US embassy in Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem (supporting the Israeli view that it is their undivided capital, shared with no-one).
And then there are Gingrich's various pronouncements on Iran, which make for entertaining reading - entertaining in Tehran, that is, as it would bring about the Islamic regime's wish for a
Holy War with the infidel.
So that's more than enough to chew over, while we see if the Republicans do choose Gingrich as their candidate; and there is a lot of reason to think they will, as I've pointed out. Because Gingrich, while having many unpleasant characteristics, is a cunning political operator, moreso than his rivals. And that cunning might just be enough for him to achieve the unthinkable in November. The arena politics of America are suited to a unscrupulous gladiator like Gingrich; that explains how he has made himself a financial success, as well as re-inventing himself as the saviour of his party.
While the sane part of me guesses that most independent voters in the USA are as alarmed and repulsed by Gingrich as the Democrats are, politics is a fast-changing game.
The polls show that Gingrich would have almost no chance of beating Obama in November, if elected. Let's hope so. I like my "good-versus-evil" narrative just fine as it is.
Though the dark side of my personality wonders just how much "fun" it would be to have a person like Newt Gingrich as President of the United States. Like Dick Cheney, but with a sense of humour?
In almost every way conceivable, Gingrich is the definitive "anti-Obama". Whereas Obama was hailed as a contemporary political messiah four years ago, by comparison Gingrich seems to be doing a great performance as the Anti-Christ, representing the forces of darkness.
Apart from the many ways in which the Republican party that Gingrich hopes to represent stands for all that is evil in human nature (as I wrote in a previous blog, "The Devil Votes Republican"), there are the many human flaws contained in Gingrich's own personality that makes him rationally seem as the least suitable person for the job.
That's the problem, though: rationalism. Obama gives every impression of containing quite a lot of it; a lot more rationalism than many of his peers, Democrat as well as Republican. One reason why he has failed to get through a lot of his programme is due to his misreading of the Republicans as being "rational" people he could do a deal with. Jimmy Carter had the same problem; Carter was intellectual and deep-thinking, but was out-manoeuvred by the more practically-minded Reagan.
Obama has the danger of falling into the same trap; except that Gingrich is a different sort of person than Reagan was. And rational people (such as much of the mainstream media) are wondering why Gingrich is as popular as he is.
Before I explain that one, it's only fair that we compare Obama's and Gingrich's personalities and personal life.
First, personal life.
Obama is a happily married man, with two children, and a moderate Christian (though more likely agnostic). Gingrich is a twice-divorced man, who cheated on his first wife while she was in the hospital with cancer, his mistress became his second wife, gained another mistress, and married her after his second wife refused to accept an "open marriage". Also, he's reportedly changed his religion; twice.
Then go figure which of them is meant to be representing the party of "family values" (which the Republicans claim to be).
Then we have the personalities.
Obama's problem with persona is that for all his apparent intelligence, rationalism, eloquence, thoughtfulness and good intentions, he still comes across to many ordinary Americans as aloof and weak-willed. Meanwhile, the Republicans portray him as a radical, trying to turn the values of the Founding Fathers on their head.
Then there's Gingrich. He comes across as arrogant, self-serving, hypocritical and reckless. And those are some of the better attributes. Using his "academic" background as a historian, he sees himself as intellectually superior to Obama - going so far as to challenge him to a number of debates, in the style of Lincoln. He has used his connections during years of service in the senate and as Speaker to feather his own nest; meanwhile, he tried to impeach President Clinton over his extra-marital misconduct at the same time as when Gingrich was cheating on his own wife. As Speaker he forced the closure of the government in a petty dispute with President Clinton (as the Republicans also tried to do with Obama last year); eventually, even his own party got sick of his dirty tricks, and dumped him from the role of Speaker. Since that time, he has been doing what he could to advance his own financial and political interests using almost any means possible.
In other words, Newt Gingrich is a political phenomenon; albeit, the polar opposite to the ideal candidate.
At first, no-one took his chances seriously when his campaign team started in the spring of 2011; by the summer, many of his own campaign team had quit in disgust at his personality and political style. The fact that he managed to re-invent his campaign after such a blow is a sign of Gingrich's determination and forbearance; he made a virtue of his lack of money and financial backing. He comes across as being anti-elitist; a man of the people (even though he is comfortably a millionaire). In other words, he is an archetypal demagogue.
That is one of Gingrich's various political talents, which makes him dangerous against any rational politician such as Obama: Gingrich has no shame, and has shown that he is very capable at making disingenuous and savage attacks against his opponents, even those in the same party. And yet, he also has had the political experience and expediency to know when to come across as moderate on issues (such as immigration towards the Hispanic population, to win their support in Florida), and also conciliatory and sympathetic to rivals (during his South Carolina victory speech).
Lastly, there are his policies, or at least, public statements of intent (which can change depending on who he's talking to at any one time). In as much as he has a domestic policy, it has been to undo all of Obama's work as quickly as possible (before Obama's even had chance to land in Chicago after leaving the White House, so Gingrich claimed), and make sure that taxes are kept as low as possible. No wonder, then, he has grabbed the support of the Ayn Rand-inspired philosophy of the Tea Party. As an apparent social conservative, he has won the support of the Evangelicals (though where he really stands on social issues, only he knows). He has claimed he supports all the major platform policies of his Republican rivals, thereby rendering them toothless; meanwhile, his major rival, Mitt Romney, has been effectively labelled an elitist and out-of-touch with the lives of average Americans. Gingrich, on the other hand, not having any major financial backers, shows himself off as being one of the people; furthermore, he has the cunning to know how to talk in a way the average American can relate to - marking him different to the likes of Romney and, naturally, Obama.
A word about Gingrich's statements on foreign policy, for that's where the fun really starts. He has stated that as Secretary of State he would have John Bolton; the infamous Ambassador to the UN, who didn't believe in the institution of the UN. Rather like having an Environment Secretary who doesn't believe in the environment (although George W Bush also managed to have one of those, too). So that would make life interesting from Day One.
Then, Gingrich has said so many controversial statements on the Palestinian situation that it makes me wonder if he isn't a sleeper agent for the Israeli ultra-right; for instance, that he would move the US embassy in Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem (supporting the Israeli view that it is their undivided capital, shared with no-one).
And then there are Gingrich's various pronouncements on Iran, which make for entertaining reading - entertaining in Tehran, that is, as it would bring about the Islamic regime's wish for a
Holy War with the infidel.
So that's more than enough to chew over, while we see if the Republicans do choose Gingrich as their candidate; and there is a lot of reason to think they will, as I've pointed out. Because Gingrich, while having many unpleasant characteristics, is a cunning political operator, moreso than his rivals. And that cunning might just be enough for him to achieve the unthinkable in November. The arena politics of America are suited to a unscrupulous gladiator like Gingrich; that explains how he has made himself a financial success, as well as re-inventing himself as the saviour of his party.
While the sane part of me guesses that most independent voters in the USA are as alarmed and repulsed by Gingrich as the Democrats are, politics is a fast-changing game.
The polls show that Gingrich would have almost no chance of beating Obama in November, if elected. Let's hope so. I like my "good-versus-evil" narrative just fine as it is.
Though the dark side of my personality wonders just how much "fun" it would be to have a person like Newt Gingrich as President of the United States. Like Dick Cheney, but with a sense of humour?
Saturday, January 21, 2012
Wednesday, January 11, 2012
Tuesday, January 10, 2012
English liberals should also be worried about Scottish independence
It always pays to get other perspectives in an argument. When there were the riots back in August, some of the best coverage was from the "Daily Telegraph"; I may not have agreed with many of their opinions, but it was useful to know things from the other side of the coin.
With the Scottish referendum issue now in the news, it's easy to think that all politics centres around Westminster; that's certainly true when compared to the rest of England. I guess that most English people are pretty oblivious to Scottish concerns; that's understandable, when Scotland feels so inconsequential to the overall fate of the UK.
That may be so, but it also pays for British politicians in Westminster to actually pay attention to what Scottish people actually think, rather than just repeating the same mantra day in, day out, that England and Scotland have a "unique history together", and all that.
David Cameron and the rest of Westminster would do well to occasionally read "The Scotsman" newspaper, Scotland's version of "The Times". That way they might better understand what Scots actually think about London rule, and where the Scots see themselves. I recently read "The Scotsman" myself, and it's a real eye-opener.
For this reason, here's a plausible scenario that could lead to Scottish independence by default.
The UK government has declared that any referendum on independence should be only a "in-or-out" decision and of a time of London's choosing; they say that Salmond is using the referendum issue for his own political purposes, and is nothing more than a trickster; furthermore, from a legal point of view, only Westminster has the right to grant legally-binding referendums, so Salmond's unilateral referendum would be challenged in the Supreme Court.
Now, all this may well be true, but it cuts little ice in Scotland. Salmond points out, correctly, that the SNP had long ago said it would hold a referendum in the second half of this parliament, so they're merely sticking to the timetable they promised some years ago. And the Scottish people know this too. Furthermore, Salmond points out although the legal decision on the referendum may lie with London, this is essentially a Scottish question of sovereignty, not an English one. Scotland chose to join with England of her own free will; any right-minded person would see that they should have the right to leave of their own free will. Anything else would make England seem as an imperial power keen to cling on to one of its last remaining colonies (and give even more ammunition to Salmond).
Most Scots do not want independence; this is clear for now. However, the majority are in favour of further powers to Scotland short of independence. The UK government's decision to block any option to choose for Scots' preferred option of "Devo-max" is therefore unbelievably short-sighted. Not only that, but by denying Scots the powers they wish for, they may well, perversely, be more likely to support outright independence just out of spite.
As things stand, Salmond has declared he will plan for a referendum for 2014 anyway, regardless of Westminster's legal objections, and one with an independence and "devo-max" option. This kind of petty tit-for-tat over the legal smallprint of the referendum from Westminster only benefits Salmond; it's the UK government who look petty, not the SNP.
So the most likely result as things stand is an "illegal" unilateral referendum by the Scottish government in 2014 that with either result in a demand for outright independence, or something not far short of it.
Then the legal battle would commence between the UK and Scottish government in the Supreme Court, which would add only more to the rancour between Edinburgh and London, leaving the two parallel governments god knows where. And again, this would only benefit Salmond.
Alternatively, in the likely 2014 vote, Salmond may well have already easily persuaded Scots that the only way to prevent this kind of long and absurd legal battle in the Supreme Court is to vote for outright independence, therefore giving him the moral authority to demand talks with the UK government and be done with it. And this scenario is not exactly unlikely, as I said before: given the option of fighting a ridiculous legal battle for more Scottish sovereignty within the UK over a seemingly more straightforward independence, many Scots may well prefer the latter. Many sane people would, given the options.
So, let's say that it's now the summer of 2016; one year after a UK general election, and six months since Scottish independence.
Within the rest of the UK, the immediate political beneficiaries would be the Conservatives, as they have traditionally had a firm majority of the English seats over Labour. In fact, A UK without Scotland may well lock Labour from power almost permanently, as they usually could rely on their dominance in Scotland to offset any lack of support in England. In that sense, Labour have been a more "British" party than the Conservatives; since the Second World War, the Conservatives have lost more and more support outside of England, leaving them an almost entirely English party.
So the legacy that a vote for Scottish independence would create is also to bring out effectively the death-knell to the Labour party; it's support would be broken up across different countries, and Scotland's independence would only add further to calls for Welsh independence, Labour's other stronghold.
And where would that leave the English left-wing? Stuck in a country dominated by Tories, with England as a one-party-dominant state. The best thing for English liberals to do in this circumstance would be to emigrate to Scotland. Any Conservative Prime Minister would in this political climate be under even more pressure to show more "bulldog spirit" to Europe, with people more likely to vote "yes" on exiting the EU. And then we'd be in very interesting territory.
What's more, everything I've just talked about is not a flight of fancy; as I've explained, this is a very real possibility, as things stand. Just don't say I didn't warn you.
With the Scottish referendum issue now in the news, it's easy to think that all politics centres around Westminster; that's certainly true when compared to the rest of England. I guess that most English people are pretty oblivious to Scottish concerns; that's understandable, when Scotland feels so inconsequential to the overall fate of the UK.
That may be so, but it also pays for British politicians in Westminster to actually pay attention to what Scottish people actually think, rather than just repeating the same mantra day in, day out, that England and Scotland have a "unique history together", and all that.
David Cameron and the rest of Westminster would do well to occasionally read "The Scotsman" newspaper, Scotland's version of "The Times". That way they might better understand what Scots actually think about London rule, and where the Scots see themselves. I recently read "The Scotsman" myself, and it's a real eye-opener.
For this reason, here's a plausible scenario that could lead to Scottish independence by default.
The UK government has declared that any referendum on independence should be only a "in-or-out" decision and of a time of London's choosing; they say that Salmond is using the referendum issue for his own political purposes, and is nothing more than a trickster; furthermore, from a legal point of view, only Westminster has the right to grant legally-binding referendums, so Salmond's unilateral referendum would be challenged in the Supreme Court.
Now, all this may well be true, but it cuts little ice in Scotland. Salmond points out, correctly, that the SNP had long ago said it would hold a referendum in the second half of this parliament, so they're merely sticking to the timetable they promised some years ago. And the Scottish people know this too. Furthermore, Salmond points out although the legal decision on the referendum may lie with London, this is essentially a Scottish question of sovereignty, not an English one. Scotland chose to join with England of her own free will; any right-minded person would see that they should have the right to leave of their own free will. Anything else would make England seem as an imperial power keen to cling on to one of its last remaining colonies (and give even more ammunition to Salmond).
Most Scots do not want independence; this is clear for now. However, the majority are in favour of further powers to Scotland short of independence. The UK government's decision to block any option to choose for Scots' preferred option of "Devo-max" is therefore unbelievably short-sighted. Not only that, but by denying Scots the powers they wish for, they may well, perversely, be more likely to support outright independence just out of spite.
As things stand, Salmond has declared he will plan for a referendum for 2014 anyway, regardless of Westminster's legal objections, and one with an independence and "devo-max" option. This kind of petty tit-for-tat over the legal smallprint of the referendum from Westminster only benefits Salmond; it's the UK government who look petty, not the SNP.
So the most likely result as things stand is an "illegal" unilateral referendum by the Scottish government in 2014 that with either result in a demand for outright independence, or something not far short of it.
Then the legal battle would commence between the UK and Scottish government in the Supreme Court, which would add only more to the rancour between Edinburgh and London, leaving the two parallel governments god knows where. And again, this would only benefit Salmond.
Alternatively, in the likely 2014 vote, Salmond may well have already easily persuaded Scots that the only way to prevent this kind of long and absurd legal battle in the Supreme Court is to vote for outright independence, therefore giving him the moral authority to demand talks with the UK government and be done with it. And this scenario is not exactly unlikely, as I said before: given the option of fighting a ridiculous legal battle for more Scottish sovereignty within the UK over a seemingly more straightforward independence, many Scots may well prefer the latter. Many sane people would, given the options.
So, let's say that it's now the summer of 2016; one year after a UK general election, and six months since Scottish independence.
Within the rest of the UK, the immediate political beneficiaries would be the Conservatives, as they have traditionally had a firm majority of the English seats over Labour. In fact, A UK without Scotland may well lock Labour from power almost permanently, as they usually could rely on their dominance in Scotland to offset any lack of support in England. In that sense, Labour have been a more "British" party than the Conservatives; since the Second World War, the Conservatives have lost more and more support outside of England, leaving them an almost entirely English party.
So the legacy that a vote for Scottish independence would create is also to bring out effectively the death-knell to the Labour party; it's support would be broken up across different countries, and Scotland's independence would only add further to calls for Welsh independence, Labour's other stronghold.
And where would that leave the English left-wing? Stuck in a country dominated by Tories, with England as a one-party-dominant state. The best thing for English liberals to do in this circumstance would be to emigrate to Scotland. Any Conservative Prime Minister would in this political climate be under even more pressure to show more "bulldog spirit" to Europe, with people more likely to vote "yes" on exiting the EU. And then we'd be in very interesting territory.
What's more, everything I've just talked about is not a flight of fancy; as I've explained, this is a very real possibility, as things stand. Just don't say I didn't warn you.
Monday, January 9, 2012
The smartest politician in the UK? Alex Salmond
The English just don't get the Scots. Probably, they never really have.
Scotland joined with England way back in 1707 (because they were bankrupt). Nationalism and independence only became a serious political issue again in the 1970s, when the then Labour government held referenda in Scotland and Wales for devolution; this flunked because not enough people bothered voting to make the vote binding.
After eighteen years in opposition, Labour made devolution one of their main ambitions when they regained power in 1997. Part of this was ideological, part of it was expedient: on one hand, Labour was in favour of regionalism and giving more powers to Scotland anyway; but on the other hand, Labour hoped that devolution would make Scotland effectively a Labour mini-state (like Wales, where they were the dominant party), and also, would silence the likes of the Scottish National Party from any talk of outright independence.
Alex Salmond became leader of the SNP twenty years ago; before that he was an economist for RBS.
Part of the problem that English politicians have with Alex Salmond is one of misperception from the very start. Salmond seems a very easy target for Westminster to poke fun at; at times arrogant and pontificating, self-serving and with an immature temperament, English parliamentarians are at a loss to explain his popularity north of the border - a sort of tartan George Galloway.
But the Scots see him differently. What might be seen as "arrogance" to the English, the Scots would as likely see as Celtic exuberance; what might be seen as "pontificating" to the English, the Scots would as likely see as being precise with the facts. After being treated by previous governents as one big oil rig, Scotland saw in Salmond a politician who was prepared to go against the grain of politics. And there was another point to this English misperception; his seemingly larger-than-life (and easily mocked) persona hid a very canny political operator.
Devolution for Scotland after 1997 was meant to be the dream solution for Labour; giving them more power locally while appearing as the champion of decentralised democracy. And they got Alex Salmond to support it.
But after a few years, something odd started to happen in Scotland: the SNP gradually gained more and more support. At the first two elections (1999 and 2003), Labour were so comfortably ahead that they were not concerned, but then in the 2007 election the unthinkable happened: the SNP actually won one more seat than Labour. This was Salmond's ironic parting gift to Tony Blair, who was due to step down as PM only weeks later: "thanks for the devolution, now goodbye and let me get on with it".
Without a majority, with the other parties in a pact to make sure that Salmond would be unable to govern without them, he did exactly what they hadn't expected: his party governed alone, as a minority administration. By standing against him, they had only made Salmond even stronger. And when in power, he consistently failed to act as the maverick lunatic they had painted him as - he sought co-operation and compromise on every issue where possible, putting the idea of independence on the back-burner, while encouraging a progressive approach to the environment. In other words, by Salmond encouraging cross-party co-operation, the other parties had tarred themselves with the same brush as Salmond. He had effectively encouraged the parties to discredit themselves by agreeing with his policies.
That was certainly how many Scots saw it. This approach proved so successful that come 2011, his party won an outright majority of its own.
And this is where the plot really starts to thicken. By now, with the UK government a Tory-led coalition, this makes Salmond's job even easier. Although the SNP's ultimate aim is independence, Salmond is as pragmatic to understand that not all Scots want independence - at least, not yet. This is why the straight "in-out" referendum he once supported has been modified to a referendum with most likely three choices: the status quo (partial powers), independence, or something called "devo-max".
The term "devo-max" needs a little explanation. This is where Scotland would have powers over all decisions except for defence and foreign policy - to be within the UK, but not infact governed by it. In other words, Scotland controls all their own important stuff at home, while London supplies the army and the boring diplomatic stuff about what happens abroad. There's another word for this arrangement: a protectorate, or dependency. On one hand, it would make Scotland a semi-detached part of the UK; on the other hand, it would allow the Scots to have their cake and eat it.
You could well imagine that Westminster MPs and the UK government would be keen to do without this kind of arrangment: like having the responsibility of baby-sitting a rebellious child but without the power to chastise it. But after having four years of popular and effective Scottish government under his belt, the credibility lies with Salmond rather than the parties of Westminster; having a UK government led by a party that has barely any representation or credibility in Scotland also does no harm.
Salmond is playing a long game. He has said that his party promised to have a referendum before the next Scottish elections; most likely in 2014. But again, the UK government is playing into his hands. Now the Tory-led government have said that the referendum should be sooner, and only an "in-out" referendum, without the "devo-max" option, the one which many Scots happen to prefer. In that way, London are acting exactly according to type, committing all the errors and clunky insensitivity that Salmond has been accusing them of all these years.
Salmond is not bothered by "devo-max"; anything that gives him/Scotland more powers is better than the status quo, and anyway the slice-by-slice taking of powers from London to Edinburgh fits in perfectly to a gradualist approach to independence.
So far, Salmond has out-witted successive UK governments; he was SNP leader until he stood down from the leadership, only to step into the role of Scotland's First Minister; effectively Prime Minister of a semi-independent Scotland. English politicians are clueless how to handle him and his approach to independence; their varied tactics continue to backfire spectacularly.
All in all, due to Salmond, Scots look set to vote for a further repatriation of powers in the next couple of years, leaving Scotland's status in the UK hanging on a virtual thread. I'm no huge believer in the Union, but if I were Scottish then I would see great sense in supporting "devo-max" - it's like independence, but without the hassle.
Scotland joined with England way back in 1707 (because they were bankrupt). Nationalism and independence only became a serious political issue again in the 1970s, when the then Labour government held referenda in Scotland and Wales for devolution; this flunked because not enough people bothered voting to make the vote binding.
After eighteen years in opposition, Labour made devolution one of their main ambitions when they regained power in 1997. Part of this was ideological, part of it was expedient: on one hand, Labour was in favour of regionalism and giving more powers to Scotland anyway; but on the other hand, Labour hoped that devolution would make Scotland effectively a Labour mini-state (like Wales, where they were the dominant party), and also, would silence the likes of the Scottish National Party from any talk of outright independence.
Alex Salmond became leader of the SNP twenty years ago; before that he was an economist for RBS.
Part of the problem that English politicians have with Alex Salmond is one of misperception from the very start. Salmond seems a very easy target for Westminster to poke fun at; at times arrogant and pontificating, self-serving and with an immature temperament, English parliamentarians are at a loss to explain his popularity north of the border - a sort of tartan George Galloway.
But the Scots see him differently. What might be seen as "arrogance" to the English, the Scots would as likely see as Celtic exuberance; what might be seen as "pontificating" to the English, the Scots would as likely see as being precise with the facts. After being treated by previous governents as one big oil rig, Scotland saw in Salmond a politician who was prepared to go against the grain of politics. And there was another point to this English misperception; his seemingly larger-than-life (and easily mocked) persona hid a very canny political operator.
Devolution for Scotland after 1997 was meant to be the dream solution for Labour; giving them more power locally while appearing as the champion of decentralised democracy. And they got Alex Salmond to support it.
But after a few years, something odd started to happen in Scotland: the SNP gradually gained more and more support. At the first two elections (1999 and 2003), Labour were so comfortably ahead that they were not concerned, but then in the 2007 election the unthinkable happened: the SNP actually won one more seat than Labour. This was Salmond's ironic parting gift to Tony Blair, who was due to step down as PM only weeks later: "thanks for the devolution, now goodbye and let me get on with it".
Without a majority, with the other parties in a pact to make sure that Salmond would be unable to govern without them, he did exactly what they hadn't expected: his party governed alone, as a minority administration. By standing against him, they had only made Salmond even stronger. And when in power, he consistently failed to act as the maverick lunatic they had painted him as - he sought co-operation and compromise on every issue where possible, putting the idea of independence on the back-burner, while encouraging a progressive approach to the environment. In other words, by Salmond encouraging cross-party co-operation, the other parties had tarred themselves with the same brush as Salmond. He had effectively encouraged the parties to discredit themselves by agreeing with his policies.
That was certainly how many Scots saw it. This approach proved so successful that come 2011, his party won an outright majority of its own.
And this is where the plot really starts to thicken. By now, with the UK government a Tory-led coalition, this makes Salmond's job even easier. Although the SNP's ultimate aim is independence, Salmond is as pragmatic to understand that not all Scots want independence - at least, not yet. This is why the straight "in-out" referendum he once supported has been modified to a referendum with most likely three choices: the status quo (partial powers), independence, or something called "devo-max".
The term "devo-max" needs a little explanation. This is where Scotland would have powers over all decisions except for defence and foreign policy - to be within the UK, but not infact governed by it. In other words, Scotland controls all their own important stuff at home, while London supplies the army and the boring diplomatic stuff about what happens abroad. There's another word for this arrangement: a protectorate, or dependency. On one hand, it would make Scotland a semi-detached part of the UK; on the other hand, it would allow the Scots to have their cake and eat it.
You could well imagine that Westminster MPs and the UK government would be keen to do without this kind of arrangment: like having the responsibility of baby-sitting a rebellious child but without the power to chastise it. But after having four years of popular and effective Scottish government under his belt, the credibility lies with Salmond rather than the parties of Westminster; having a UK government led by a party that has barely any representation or credibility in Scotland also does no harm.
Salmond is playing a long game. He has said that his party promised to have a referendum before the next Scottish elections; most likely in 2014. But again, the UK government is playing into his hands. Now the Tory-led government have said that the referendum should be sooner, and only an "in-out" referendum, without the "devo-max" option, the one which many Scots happen to prefer. In that way, London are acting exactly according to type, committing all the errors and clunky insensitivity that Salmond has been accusing them of all these years.
Salmond is not bothered by "devo-max"; anything that gives him/Scotland more powers is better than the status quo, and anyway the slice-by-slice taking of powers from London to Edinburgh fits in perfectly to a gradualist approach to independence.
So far, Salmond has out-witted successive UK governments; he was SNP leader until he stood down from the leadership, only to step into the role of Scotland's First Minister; effectively Prime Minister of a semi-independent Scotland. English politicians are clueless how to handle him and his approach to independence; their varied tactics continue to backfire spectacularly.
All in all, due to Salmond, Scots look set to vote for a further repatriation of powers in the next couple of years, leaving Scotland's status in the UK hanging on a virtual thread. I'm no huge believer in the Union, but if I were Scottish then I would see great sense in supporting "devo-max" - it's like independence, but without the hassle.
Monday, January 2, 2012
"You get the government you deserve"
We're all familiar with the phrase "you get what you pay for". Another phrase which also rings true is that people tend to get the government they deserve.
Why, for example, does David Cameron still enjoy higher personal ratings compared to other party leaders? Cameron is more popular personally than his party as a whole; with Ed Milliband, the opposite is true. For Nick Clegg and the LibDems, both are in the popularity doldrums.
This is mostly down to the psychology of British people themselves. Cameron has successfully been able to convince enough people that the mess that the government and the country is in is mostly down to people as a whole spending too much money. Whether the facts prove this, is irrelevant (the facts, from what I can see, don't support this hypothesis; the banks' bailout and government overspending combined created the problem, not the people themselves).
In other words, British people want to believe that they created the mess; that's why the government as a whole remains much more popular than would have been thought possible. Whereas in Greece the cuts have caused riots and outrage, British people's attitude is to grumble, shrug, then meekly carry on as before. Britain doesn't "do" revolution or outrage; they're too polite.
The attitude of "keep calm and carry on" has infected Britain; as a result, David Cameron's condescending attitude of "I feel your pain" goes mostly unremarked. Thatcher had a similar approach (although Cameron is no Thatcher in terms of personality); it seems people are happy to re-live the agony and the ecstasy of the Eighties. The difference, however, is that even the government admits that the "agony" of cuts and stagnation will last a lot longer than they previously said - lasting for most of the decade. Most British people, though, seem don't seem to mind; maybe they enjoy self-imposed hardship. Why that is so is another question.
Culture therefore plays a large role in the kind of government people get. The USA is another example. Why is the USA consumed with political paralysis? Why has the USA not been able to see what caused the financial crisis (a deregulated an uncontrolled banking sector), and deal with it?
This is because political orthodoxy in the USA has been ruled for the past thirty years and more by the idea that government, by definition, is bad. That's thanks to the likes of Reagan's famous quote that the nine most frightening words spoken are "I'm from the government and I'm here to help" - as he also said, the government wasn't the answer to their problems; that government WAS the problem.
But before his time (and since the Depression), government had become the main provider of services to its people, including employment. Reagan smashed that, so generations since then have grown up on the thinking that "government" is almost a curse word. This is why the Republicans have become masters of manipulation; so that all problems cannot, by definition, come from the markets or the ruthlessness of corporations, but must be the fault of government interference. This is why Obama was unable to get through more than half of his programme (with the notable exception of health care reform, though this also was watered down under pressure), and why the Republicans were able to counter-intuitively blame him for the lack of recovery after the financial crisis (even though it was their party who helped to create it).
So the paralysis inside The Beltway is the result of decades of cultural in-fighting over the role of government (or more exactly, "government" versus "anti-government"), making American voters progressively more and more disillusioned with the power of politics; this has been most symbolically displayed in the reign of Barack Obama, and the guerilla tactics of the Republican party.
No wonder, then, that in 2012 the American people feel they will be choosing between a failed leader on one side, and a charlatan on the other (whoever the Republicans choose).
The American people will only get a government that that does something for them when they start believing in government.
A similar sentiment can be said of many of the former Soviet states, such as in Central Asia, and in authoritarian states in general. The circumstances of some countries are different, and can depend on culture as well. In the Middle East, it was long assumed by many historians and theorists that authoritarian government was "natural" for Arabs as they would never understand the concept of democracy. 2011 proved that theory wrong, however: Arabs across the region have shown that if they fight for freedom, it can be achieved. "Freedom" is not a Western luxury.
The regions with the highest number of authoritarian governments include Africa and the former Soviet Union. These are also countries with some of the highest levels of corruption in the world; and that is not coincidence.
Corruption is a cultural trait. Georgia was until recent years also extremely corrupt, until the people decided they had had enough and voted in someone to do something about it; President Saakashvili, although he has lost support since then for other reasons, at least made genuine efforts to get rid of the endemic police corruption, with immediate positive results. Georgia now has much lower levels of corruption.
This contrasts with many other former Soviet states, where corruption so permeates all parts of life it is difficult for people to imagine doing things any other way. Here, corruption is a cultural norm. It has become so because people's levels of distrust in government and each other are, in some countries in particular, so neurotic that it renders any thought of changing the form of government unthinkable. And unthinkable because people's psychology of human nature is so negative that they have become resigned to their fate; a nation's people trapped in a slow sinking quicksand. That is why they have been reduced to deception and official thievery to survive.
This state of affairs is the other end of the spectrum to the optimism of Barack Obama: "Yes, we can". To people in some of the former Soviet states, or abysmally-corrupt regimes in Africa, they only think "No, we can't".
Why do they think they can't? Because their morale and sense of belief in themselves or each other is so low that they think even if they provoke change, the "change" will quickly revert to the situation as it was already, because they believe that anybody else would behave in the same, corrupt way.
If people in states like these start believing in themselves and each other, as those in the Arab world did, then they can make the positive change. If not, then they have only themselves to blame.
Why, for example, does David Cameron still enjoy higher personal ratings compared to other party leaders? Cameron is more popular personally than his party as a whole; with Ed Milliband, the opposite is true. For Nick Clegg and the LibDems, both are in the popularity doldrums.
This is mostly down to the psychology of British people themselves. Cameron has successfully been able to convince enough people that the mess that the government and the country is in is mostly down to people as a whole spending too much money. Whether the facts prove this, is irrelevant (the facts, from what I can see, don't support this hypothesis; the banks' bailout and government overspending combined created the problem, not the people themselves).
In other words, British people want to believe that they created the mess; that's why the government as a whole remains much more popular than would have been thought possible. Whereas in Greece the cuts have caused riots and outrage, British people's attitude is to grumble, shrug, then meekly carry on as before. Britain doesn't "do" revolution or outrage; they're too polite.
The attitude of "keep calm and carry on" has infected Britain; as a result, David Cameron's condescending attitude of "I feel your pain" goes mostly unremarked. Thatcher had a similar approach (although Cameron is no Thatcher in terms of personality); it seems people are happy to re-live the agony and the ecstasy of the Eighties. The difference, however, is that even the government admits that the "agony" of cuts and stagnation will last a lot longer than they previously said - lasting for most of the decade. Most British people, though, seem don't seem to mind; maybe they enjoy self-imposed hardship. Why that is so is another question.
Culture therefore plays a large role in the kind of government people get. The USA is another example. Why is the USA consumed with political paralysis? Why has the USA not been able to see what caused the financial crisis (a deregulated an uncontrolled banking sector), and deal with it?
This is because political orthodoxy in the USA has been ruled for the past thirty years and more by the idea that government, by definition, is bad. That's thanks to the likes of Reagan's famous quote that the nine most frightening words spoken are "I'm from the government and I'm here to help" - as he also said, the government wasn't the answer to their problems; that government WAS the problem.
But before his time (and since the Depression), government had become the main provider of services to its people, including employment. Reagan smashed that, so generations since then have grown up on the thinking that "government" is almost a curse word. This is why the Republicans have become masters of manipulation; so that all problems cannot, by definition, come from the markets or the ruthlessness of corporations, but must be the fault of government interference. This is why Obama was unable to get through more than half of his programme (with the notable exception of health care reform, though this also was watered down under pressure), and why the Republicans were able to counter-intuitively blame him for the lack of recovery after the financial crisis (even though it was their party who helped to create it).
So the paralysis inside The Beltway is the result of decades of cultural in-fighting over the role of government (or more exactly, "government" versus "anti-government"), making American voters progressively more and more disillusioned with the power of politics; this has been most symbolically displayed in the reign of Barack Obama, and the guerilla tactics of the Republican party.
No wonder, then, that in 2012 the American people feel they will be choosing between a failed leader on one side, and a charlatan on the other (whoever the Republicans choose).
The American people will only get a government that that does something for them when they start believing in government.
A similar sentiment can be said of many of the former Soviet states, such as in Central Asia, and in authoritarian states in general. The circumstances of some countries are different, and can depend on culture as well. In the Middle East, it was long assumed by many historians and theorists that authoritarian government was "natural" for Arabs as they would never understand the concept of democracy. 2011 proved that theory wrong, however: Arabs across the region have shown that if they fight for freedom, it can be achieved. "Freedom" is not a Western luxury.
The regions with the highest number of authoritarian governments include Africa and the former Soviet Union. These are also countries with some of the highest levels of corruption in the world; and that is not coincidence.
Corruption is a cultural trait. Georgia was until recent years also extremely corrupt, until the people decided they had had enough and voted in someone to do something about it; President Saakashvili, although he has lost support since then for other reasons, at least made genuine efforts to get rid of the endemic police corruption, with immediate positive results. Georgia now has much lower levels of corruption.
This contrasts with many other former Soviet states, where corruption so permeates all parts of life it is difficult for people to imagine doing things any other way. Here, corruption is a cultural norm. It has become so because people's levels of distrust in government and each other are, in some countries in particular, so neurotic that it renders any thought of changing the form of government unthinkable. And unthinkable because people's psychology of human nature is so negative that they have become resigned to their fate; a nation's people trapped in a slow sinking quicksand. That is why they have been reduced to deception and official thievery to survive.
This state of affairs is the other end of the spectrum to the optimism of Barack Obama: "Yes, we can". To people in some of the former Soviet states, or abysmally-corrupt regimes in Africa, they only think "No, we can't".
Why do they think they can't? Because their morale and sense of belief in themselves or each other is so low that they think even if they provoke change, the "change" will quickly revert to the situation as it was already, because they believe that anybody else would behave in the same, corrupt way.
If people in states like these start believing in themselves and each other, as those in the Arab world did, then they can make the positive change. If not, then they have only themselves to blame.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)