Brexit and politics

Deadening death Having wasted months during which the government could have built up supplies of testing kits and PPE and could have organised tracing teams, it has instead indulged in a chaotic and reactive game of catchup. The mainstream media (MSM), with the notable exception of Channel 4 News, have been unwilling to hold the government to account. Instead, we endure the unedifying spectacle of the daily briefing, which serves only to demonstrate how woeful our journalists are. Obvious questions, particularly relating to PPE and testing are not asked, or not as brutally as needed, or when they are asked, the question is usually surrounded by less difficult questions, which of course get answered instead. My point cuts deeper than just the obvious ineptitude. The output of the MSM has become so bland that we fail to register the tragedy. The numbers of dead have become a grisly contest with other nations to see who has the best curve. By using military metaphors and other diversio...

The future after Coronavirus is dangerously in the balance. While there are opportunities for an end to populism and cynical politics, the fear remains that they become even more embedded. I want to show that the threat of such a slide is real and that we should waste no time in understanding what faces us. What will happen next? In spite of the astonishment of news outlets each time Coronavirus cases rise by a "record amount", the virus obeys simple mathematical rules. The curve is different for each country but it never fails to follow a steep up-phase followed by a down-phase. In countries where preparations have been poor, the peak number of cases overloads the health service of that country. Spain and Italy have suffered very badly. The UK and the US look set to follow. In most cases governments have been forced to impose social distancing and other measures to prevent or minimise overloads. In the US, in what could prove to be a national disaster, Trump has preferred...

With Coronavirus cases rising exponentially, the UK response seems muted and complacent. Here is my post on how we could be walking into a catastrophe. Apologies to those of a squeamish nature. Suddenly there are experts everywhere. From being the least trusted individuals in public life, thanks to being rubbished by Gove and other believers in faith over facts, the government now prefaces every statement with "on the advice of scientific experts". But there is something deeply disturbing about what they are saying. "Herd immunity" has become the latest fashionable talking point. What does it mean and what does it really mean? The idea, if taken at face value, is to take advantage of your immune system, which on being attacked will generate antibodies to resist the attack. Once the body has learned how to defend itself it should have an immunity against future attacks by the same virus. By allowing the virus to pass through the herd (population), the virus is su...

It is chilling to note that the Withdrawal Agreement Bill passed through the commons with nothing more than a whisper. Where did all the hot air suddenly go? It seems to me that this brief period of calm is an illusion. The government, more specifically Dominic Cummings, is adept at fanning the flames when it wants to and then calming them down when people should look the other way. These conjuring tricks, so obviously perpetrated, seem to be doing very well in beguiling the unquestioning masses. My view is that the tricks we are seeing are part of a roughly worked plan. It derives from a government that seeks to win by changing ideas more than it does by having coherent policies. Brexit, in these terms, is the Trojan Horse. It may have arisen haphazardly from a rightwing loathing for the EU, however misplaced, but it has become the main vehicle for bringing in the ideas needed to coerce a rightwing victory of ideas. I make this point explicitly because it makes sense of what most pro-...

Following the General Election, Labour is in disarray. While it eats itself alive, I am thinking about how it became unelectable and whether this was avoidable? If we listen to the crashes and bangs of the current row, two distinct arguments can be heard. On the one side we have the Corbynistas, who claim Brexit decided the result; and on the other we have the Remainers, who claim Corbyn decided the result. Who is right? I think we have to see behind the shouting match. Taking Corbyn first, in my view it is obvious he contributed to the defeat. He is the public face of the Labour Party. His persona is what people associate with the party. You can make the same case for Johnson and the Tories. Corbynism reached its peak after the General Election 2017. His popularity has been on the decline ever since. He entered the 2019 election with horrendous personal ratings . Multiple polls back up this assertion. Given that his popularity was undeniably poor, the question becomes more about ...

I'll be honest. I fear the worst is going to happen. I don't believe the pundits who say this is the most unpredictable election ever. I think Johnson will win a majority. He could even win big. There is only the smallest of chances that this excruciating outcome will be avoided. The sudden intervention of unknowable factors is always possible. "Events" as they called. I doubt whether this forecast , for example, is an outlier. It's proof of where we are. For my own sanity I have begun to accept the result early. Play it through my mind so I am ready. But this has left me feeling depressed. I keep asking myself the same question. How did we get here? After nine years of shocking mismanagement why are we about to reward the culprits with five more years in power? I think the reasons are even more depressing than the actuality of losing. They go beyond the obvious failings of Labour and the opposition parties. They point to something far deeper a...

Predicting the outcome of Brexit and the election is nearly impossible, according to the pundits. The electorate are volatile and our first-past-the post system amplifies small changes in voting behaviour to produce wild swings. Of course, this does not prevent endless speculation. How will the decline of the Brexit party affect the Leave vote? What will Labour's position on freedom of movement mean for the Remain vote? The answers are usually framed in terms of what whole parties are likely to do. This post takes a different view. What if we look at the human fallibilities of the main players? What outcomes do we then get? The idea was inspired by watching a TED video on "emergence". This is the phenomenon by which systems can exhibit great complexity by virtue of their constituent parts obeying only a few simple rules. A school of fish, for example.   It occurred to me that politicians, when faced with a challenge, use only a few simple rules, just like fish do...