Boris Johnson’s recent escapades with the constitution have illustrated that populists are innovators, as well as threats to democracy, as we know it. Johnson, I suppose would argue that he is strenuously trying to deliver the Brexit the majority of Brits voted for, and was thus supporting the democratic majority. Well he has a point, I suppose, particularly in the absence of leadership. Since David Cameron handed in his badge and washed his hands of the whole matter there has been a palpable lack of leadership from any quarter.
The dilemma that faces Boris is that Parliament is determined to thwart ‘Boris the populist leader’ from delivering a Brexit that they fear will be bad for the UK and incidentally, wreck traditional political party structures. There will be no perfect deal, some are therefore for a deal and some are for leaving without a deal. It is worth saying that no one really knows what will be the actual outcome under any scenario. Some want to stay where we are, which we know is fairly comfortable, but with many issues round the corner.
The more interesting question is; Is any leader better than none? Boris maybe a bounder and an unorthodox politician, certainly an opportunist, but he does give the aura of confidence and by association leadership. By standing for the majority simple view, he is easy to understand and has a clear and popular message.
His attempt to thwart Parliament, was an attempt to exploit the Brexit election result and place him as the leader and figurehead of the Brexit majority which crosses all party lines. This idea, is extremely innovative and extremely high risk. Will he succeed? Only time will tell.
Whilst the whole country is wrapped in awe of the political shenanigans, the economy seems to treading water, but there are danger signs out there. Very low inflation and high employment, especially high or mass low paid employment, is a sure recipe for a downward lurch. What’s missing is investment, not in process, but in new innovative products. Risk, is avoided by a stagnant body politic, and corporate investment is aimed more at process innovation which will simply reduce labour demand. If the UK does find itself in a disadvantageous import export situation, there will be even more effort to reduce costs and labour content. In other words, increased efficiency has the cost of reducing labour, and the present corporate modus is to reward shareholders rather than reinvest in product innovation, which has longer term rewards.
Iconoclasts like Boris Johnson have something to teach us, unpalatable though that maybe, we have to risk much if we are to achieve a longer balanced prosperity. The unorthodox is in itself the foundation of innovation.
Facial recognition, boys in skirts, men in the ladies room, – who cares?
It seems that there is a hullaballoo about Facial Recognition and the intrusion on personal privacy.
I consider this to in the same category of ridicule as single sex school wear, a lot of ‘transgenderism’ i.e. male trans being in women’s prisons etc.., indeed the excesses of modern liberalism that are doing no end of harm to traditional and sound ethical values.
In the same why the retrospective view of history is irresponsibly abused and judged on contemporary values. For example, it is true that Cecil Rhodes was a coloniser and no doubt disrespected persons and things we would find abhorrent today. Nevertheless the man was a great venturer and explorer who changed the world of Africa. Rhodes was a racist who believed the Anglo-Saxon race was superior, but he also had great vision, was a talented entrepreneur, and a substantial philanthropist. He also did great work establishing voting franchise for all Southern Africans whatever their colour or status.
Well the balance sheet of Cecil Rhodes is certainly isn’t all good and certainly not all evil. Indeed in some respects he epitomises the spirit of Imperial Britain. Colonisation had many bad points but some good ones too, looking back we can be ashamed of European colonisation, but there are too, things to be treasured.
The Catholic Church has perhaps the widest record of corruption and cruelty from the early Popes to the Spanish Inquisition and beyond. These offences against humanity during the Spanish and South American inquisitions was cruel and heartless beyond measure, we can only assume the officers of the church at the time thought their efforts to be in support of Catholic divinity.
The Church Catholic or other has done many good things including the principle foundation of Christian democracies.
In summary, in both these examples man and institutions behaved as was fitting in their day and age. Our view now, which we hope is more enlightened, is very different, but the good that men have done lives after them, and those good consequences should not be written off because of the ignorance of the evolving human race.
Today we live in a technologically advanced society, that whilst more comfortable, has more inherent dangers. The use of technology is inescapable for good or evil, and the use of identity and facial recognition techniques seem inevitable for the prevention of evil deeds. For the life of me I cannot see how we can deny these innovations as long as relevant safe guards on privacy are in place.
Liberalism though has charged on, disregarding evolved behaviour and challenging what have to date been accepted facts. I.e. The human race is made up of males and females, and that these genders engage and prolong and improve the human race.
Of course there are those who feel and are by nature outside the essential majority and they should be respected. They have the right to self-identify their sexual persona. No arguments here. The issue becomes sensitive when the great liberal and vocal minority insist that everyone should be exposed to the options of sexual identity and behaviour. Whilst one understands the danger of suppression of behaviour as dangerous and unfair, one also recognises that educational and family influence should primarily advocate the norm of the majority.
When, under the guise of liberalism, this vocal minority shout down the opinions of parents, peace keepers, those who keep us safe, it becomes irksome and intolerant of what is the norm. Whilst suppression of things natural is wrong, so is the hectoring in support of the unorthodox.
Mass Migration and the NIMBY’s. Who knows? Who cares?
Venezuela, Mexico, Columbia, Guatemala, Nicaragua, Syria, Iran, Yemen, Eritrea, Sudan, Somalia and Nigeria. (not an exhaustive list by any means)
What do these countries have in common?
People don’t like living in these places because of war, persecution, brutality, starvation, disease and just plain old poverty.
How many people are on the road, carrying all they can to escape their collective misery? Maybe Seven Million or more.
Who cares? Not many.
What to do? No idea. Keep them out of here, that’s the common view though not loudly expressed.
Where do they want to go? To better places, – are you stupid? Where is that? Anywhere better than where they come from. No matter how hard the journey, no matter how high the risk, no matter what the cost. Families separate, mums and dads die in the attempt, children too, drowned or starved or frozen. They seek the richer countries, where there is peace, a semblance of law and order, where there is food, education for the kids, where there is shelter, healthcare, jobs and tolerance and human kindness.
Not in my backyard though, because I live at the top of the wealth ladder, I have a roof, a garden, healthcare, education, law and order, orderly neighbours. I don’t want a bunch of desperate immigrants in my street. Seven million! You must be joking. Why, can’t they look after themselves? Venezuela is meant to be one of the richest oil countries in the world, for goodness sake why can’t they solve their own problems?
I know and so do you, but do we care? We will give a coin to charity, but will we give anything more. Like a welcome to the desperate, or even a nod to those in need. hgse_toh�o�B�
I’ve been away ten days watching from a distance the shenanigans going on in the UK. It would be amusing if it were not tragic. The union is in great peril and the ‘Great’ in Great Britain is all but lost.
One of the most extraordinary profiles to arise is the paradoxically whimsy for self-government, which flies in the face of the idea of being a member state of the European Union. (Distant regulator, unelected Government vs Home Rule) Yet the Scottish Nationalist Party and Plaid Cymru both claim to want to remain in the EU.
The Welsh Assembly is conceivably the most useless instrument of government yet conceived elected as it was by the tiniest majority 20 years ago. A majority I believe of around 6000 souls out of 29% of the electorate who bothered to turn out. Since then the Assembly in Cardiff has grown like topsy and has become the world’s leading exponent of kicking the can down the road.
The Scottish Parliament is rather more full blown, but is still wary of making difficult choices about fiscal issues and consistently bang on about independence and the delights of being subservient to Brussels rather than London.
Westminster is clearly full of essentially do-gooders, who in most part are no more switched on than their constituents, once elected they believe they have a responsibility for the wealth and welfare of their constituents. Unfortunately their constituents don’t see that. MP’s are often seen as self-important bureaucrats who are essentially looking after themselves.
The political parties have shown themselves to be crumbling towers of Babel where no one understands the electorate or what drives their constituents. The constituents, or voters, are for the most part entirely ignorant of matters economic and political and who were given a referendum choice which no one understood then and no one understands now.
Our two/three party system which is entirely class based, ‘workers’ often ‘out of work, workers’ used to vote labour, and those with a few bob used to vote Tory, those who thought they knew better voted Liberal. All their supporters were self-centred, and in the most part knew nothing of geo-politics, economics or indeed about anything outside their narrow sphere. So we evolved to this shambles.
Enter Boris Johnson, egocentric clown, character and comedian. Prime Minister? Well maybe, a clown is what we’ve got and that’s what we probably deserve. Is”