Politics Home got me thinking this morning. It has a story on the £5 million the government is to spend on adverts attacking the idea of Scottish independence. As it noted:
A government source told the [Sunday Times] of real fears inside Number 10 over the potential disruption of a second referendum, saying: "There is a consensus in Downing Street that this is the one issue - perhaps after Brexit - that could derail Johnson's premiership."
The implication is that there are only two issues that could derail the Johnson government, and both are related to sovereignty. I confess my reaction was 'how's that for a small world view?'
So what else could derail the Johnson government? And for this purpose I will assume Brexit means Brexit, i.e. us leaving the EU and that it does not mean the hard Brexit that it seems Johnson is intent on.
Blue tape - and the massive cost of hard Brexit could derail his government.
So too could Northern Ireland.
A failure at COP26 - which I fear - would do a great deal of harm.
Not addressing climate change in general could.
Failing to deliver for the 'Red Wall' could paint it red again.
A global financial crisis - which is now just one trigger point away from happening given the scale of private debt around the world - could be pretty disastrous.
A natural disaster might - and we have one potentially looming right now.
Chlorinated chicken might just do it.
As could the sale of the NHS.
And that's just for starters.
But what's really the case is that the biggest thing that will bring the Johnson government down is the inability of those in Downing Street to appraise the risk that they might be brought down.
And it's that which will do for them.
They think what will bring them down is under their control. The known knowns and unknowns is what they worry about. It's the unknown unknowns that will get them. They almost always do.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
As an Irish passport holder with a strong interest in participation in democracy can you suggest who to vote for, or more realistically who not to vote for, in the General Election next weekend.
Lots of parties seem committed to supporting the land-intensive beef and dairy industry and meat in general and that that support should still be at the point of land-ownership.
I don’t do UK party politics
I’m not doing them in Ireland either
I have my opinions
But they’re mine
Just curious, but what’s the reason for the volte face?
For the December 2019 UK general election you shared with your audience on here that we should consider voting ABC ( anything but Conservative ). And you have a long track record of sharing your opinion.
This doesn’t sound like the real you to say this sort of thing about the GE of a country of which you are a national and for a person who is politically engaged and engaging if you don’t mind the compliment. Is there a new funding restriction going on in the last 2 months, highlighted by people like Andrew Purkis, that says you now have to keep any party political opinions to yourself?
I suspect a neoliberal plot.
I clearly have opinions based on facts
I also said I could have voted for at least five parties, depending on where I was
You must have missed that
Hang on a moment. You spent the run up to the last us election telling people which way they should vote, and indeed which way you would be voting. Why the sudden squeamishness ?
You clearly have a very selective view of what I say
I clearly have opinions based on facts
There’s nothing wrong with that. I’m not sure why you might think from my comment that people have a problem with you having opinions. What I’m concerned about is why you are declining to share them. The GE is 1 week away. You’re an Irish National and among many things you are a political commentator. I suspect something is stopping you from speaking your mind.
I also said I could have voted for at least five parties, depending on where I was
Indeed you did, and I did not miss that. You also gave your view on which party we should not vote for in the UK election.
There’s at least 6 parties in every constituency in the Republic’s 2020 GE, which I think you probably know. It’s an STV system, so plenty of options to look at, all with a chance. All I started out by saying is that it would be interesting to have your views as a republican and democracy advocate on the election of the country which you’ve chosen to define the nationality on your passport. Now I’m wondering why you won’t share them, when you don’t hold back on your views usually.
With respect, I have made my position clear and I have no idea why you are pursuing this
I am being entirely clear that I am making no more recommendation than I did in the UK general election – where ABC was about my concerns on protecting those who need it
Further requests will be time-wasting and will be deleted
With respect Richard you said
“I have my opinions, But they’re mine”
All I’m asking is that you share them which is your usual MO. You are entitled to keep them to yourself, of course, I just would like an inkling as to why as this is not usual for you.
And you said
“I am making no more recommendation than I did in the UK general election”
which was of course to vote ABC ( anything but conservative ), and for up to 5 different alternatives depending on where you lived, and all I’m asking is to give the same consideration to Ireland ( the place of your Statehood ) and to express your view up to but not beyond that as to how the Irish should vote next week.
Is there a terrorism angle to this – I know one of the parties is historically linked to this – and you’ve been verbally threatened before?
You very clearly have an overactive imagination!!!!!
Try the Green Party, at least look at their manifesto and compare it with other parties before your vote. Their agricultural policy is to move away from industrialised, over chemicalised intnensive farming to more ecologicaly sound methods that retain the fertility of the land and preserves wildlife and ensures animal rights. As Ireland is fortunately still in the EU their MEPs should be working on this and could do with some lobbying on these issues with CAP reform.
I have a suggestion on the private debt how about The long tradition of debt cancellation in Mesopotamia and Egypt from 3000 to 1000 BC. This allowed them to survive a lot longer than our few hundred years.
There is a book on this ( I’ve not read it )
https://michael-hudson.com/2020/01/equilibrium-theory-and-near-east-economics/
“derail” (that is, divert away from the intended destination) and “bring down” (that is, end) are very different things. Most PMs with a significant majority can ride out the storms until they decide to resign (eg Blair), or lose an election (eg Douglas-Home, Wilson, Heath, Brown). Much easier to lost an election with a much smaller majority!
That said, I can imagine a situation in which Johnson might find himself forced to resign – some sort of scandal, or self-inflicted wound, or more likely a party revolt (compare May, Cameron, Thatcher, Macmillan, Eden), but again that seems unlikely in a first term in office. Events, dear boy. A change at the top might be a good thing, but we’d still have Conservative government with a large majority until 2024. For good or ill, probably ill, I expect we are going to have Conservative government for at least 10 years.
There is that risk….
Thank you Richard for your post yesterday about free ports which I see has been widely shared. And for your highlighting of this anti-independence campaign. I expect this wouldn’t have appeared in any of our Sundays today. You are the best kind of hound and we are grateful how often you are both on the ball and the money. We really have an uphill struggle in Scotland which can Sisyphean, given how few news outlets are in our corner. It’s nothing short of a miracle that we have a 51 percent lead (acc to latest you gov poll) However another poll yesterday reports that almost 75 % of Scots believe Brexit was the wrong turn for Scotland – something doesn’t add up.
Recommended read re Scottish Independence.
https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2020/02/scottish-independence-is-within-our-grasp-if-we-heed-the-lesson-of-toom-tabard/
Thanks for this
I have a lot of sympathy with Craig on this
We are already descending into hilarious British Buffoon-Brexit confusion and contradiction. Following Donald Tusk’s observations about the EU “empathy” an indepenednent Scotland will discover when it applies for EU membership, the Foreign Secretary Dominic Raab was quick to adopt a position of comic bluster; Tusk’s comments could encourage “separatist tendencies” in the EU. They were “rather un-European and rather irresponsible”. Let us think bout that, for a moment.
Brexit is not a “separatist tendency”? British Brexiteers, including politicians have not encouraged “separatist tendencies” in the EU? Are we supposed to believe that Brexit was in fact a pro-EU policy? Britain left the EU because they care about it so much? I thought not. All of this is Whitehall farce, save only that Raab has no sense of humour, or timing.
Rabb went on gamely, but with poor judgement to assert that “I’m not sure European leaders, let alone here in the UK, would actually welcome that comment”. The only people that do not welcome that comment are British Unionist Brexiteers, and this fragile (yes, fragile) Government. Brexit was three days ago. What on earth has Dominic Raab to do with what EU leaders welcome? I thought Britain had left the EU so we did not have anything to do with their decisions; and Scotland joining the EU will be their decision, not Britain’s; and not Raab’s. I suggest Mr Raab sort out the mess we are now in first, and if he doesn’t like Scotland and the EU joining together – he should thought of that before conducting Brexit.
This is not even the beginning of the problems that are going to face this government. The fight has not yet begun.
The paradox that Brexiteers who are so in favour of independence and taking back control are so simultaneously imperialist is beyond their limited comprehension.
Richard,
This is only a paradox if we ignore the underlying frame of reference and thinking of at least the BREXIT leadership, now in Government, whose thinking is possibly subconsciously shared by Unionist Brexiteers.
For it’s clear to me that Johnson’s Government is carrying out Thatcher’s unstated game-plan and objective of refeudalising UK society into a new 1% Baronage (made up of “can do” businessmen, usually derided as “garagistes” by those unpersuaded by Thatcher’s “Brave New World”, who must be allowed “to manage” without let or hindrance from the 99%) and 99% serfs.
The 1% would have ALL the rights, and NONE of the obligations (including the obligation to pay tax – so Johnson’s plan to cut tax on the high-earners fits the model), while the serfs would have NONE of the rights and ALL the obligations (including that of paying for services that had been free at the point of need. So Johnson’s clear objective to hand over the NHS to be filleted by American HMO’s – laughingly standing for “Health Management Organisations” rather than PEE’s or “Profit Extrusion Engines”- also fits the model, as does his intention to bear down hard on labour and employment rights, as you set out in an earlier post.)
Now in this neo-feudalism, the old landed fee-farm system, whereby wealth and power was generated by the ownership of land, has been replaced by government revenue, profit and data streams, into which the new Barons can dip to enrich themselves at little effort of creativity or inventiveness on their part, by simply tapping in and siphoning off flows. The Train Operator Companies spring to mind, garnering as they do massive subsidies that translate into private profits – Socialised costs, supporting privatised profits, a modern equivalent of the serfs having to work their Landlord’s land.
Now, in the eyes of the 1%, the escape of any serfs, or group of serfs, from this system potentially reduces their take, so of course they’re keen to stop Scotland seceding from the Union, and want to hold onto Northern Ireland, and would certainly take a dim view of Wales attempting to leave.
However, this goes even further, for the 1% are those who view ALL taxation, and in all probability, all Government expenditure beyond that on internal order and external defence, as theft from the taxpayer – certainly a commonly held view in the United States, where attempts were made to declare Obama’s Affordable Care Act as unconstitutional, as not being directed at either internal or external defence. The 1% want to shrink the State till, I think it was Grover Norlund’s (?) ” it can be drowned in the bath!”
Johnson’s recent decision to continue austerity, with 5% cuts in the coming year, is clearly possibly another move in that direction, with the ultimate aim being that ALL revenues, profit and data stream should be privatised into the control of the 1%.
And here is the real not only irony, but tragedy, that the upper quartile of the 99% – the 75% to 99% – who cheered on the “strivers not scroungers” narrative that has driven what might fairly be called the DWP’s vendetta against the disabled, the poor, the disadvantaged and those down on their luck – have not yet sussed out that they are next in the Government’s sights, because they are “not one of us – not in the 1%”. For the “take back control” is actually the 1% taking back control from the 99%
How else can one interpret Ian Duncan Smith’s bizarre and savage proposal – which will surely become Government policy to raise the retirement age to 75, other than as an attack on the idea of the Government funding ANYTHING outside the needs of the 1%? And it’s especially bizarre, given the movement towards the idea of a Universal Basic Income and/or a Job Guarantee, and when set against the levels of pensions in EU countries, such as Germany and Denmark – all markedly higher than in the UK, often by a factor of 3 times.
Two final points: the first is the irony of a Government that still acts on the mistaken “household budget” analogy of money, and the need to “tax and spend”, because “money is short”, when in fact they know perfectly well that it is “spend and tax”, because Governments spend money into the economy and tax it back for a variety of reasons, one of which is to prevent the economy overheating. Added to which, putting such money into the economy generates wealth and economic activity, and improves Government revenues, all via the Multiplier effect.
So to say “there’s not enough money” is, with a fiat currency such as the UK’s as stupid as saying “there aren’t enough inches to go round” when you’re measuring something, as May’s Government perfectly well acknowledged when they “found” (i.e. created) £1.5bn as a bung and a bribe to the DUP, to gain its support. What “taxes” were raised to fund that? None, of course.
The second point is that Cameron’s adviser, Philip Blond, is on record as saying “The [banking] crisis is an opportunity to sweep away the rotten postwar settlement of British politics.”
This is what Thatcher aimed for, but knew would take a generation of acclimatisation and “manufacturing consent” to attain.
And let’s just consider what that “rotten postwar settlement of British politics” entailed – all at the point of need:
* access to secure health provision, via the NHS
* access to improved educational opportunities, via better schools and improved services, ultimately including new Universities.
* access to better quality housing, via council house building, and some controls on rents
* access to the law, and the exercise of rights, via Legal Aid
* access to better, and more secure, job opportunities, via an improved economy, with some protection for unemployment, illness and injury at work, via the Benefits system
and much else besides, as I’m sure you who are reading this can point out.
Only a 1% of vulture/rentier capitalists, who believe they have a RIGHT to be supported, and that all other funding constitutes a “theft from the deserving” could possibly call the post-war settlement “rotten”. Those who remember it know full well, with all the yearning of lost happiness, that those years were pretty good.
Here’s the final paragraph of Peter Hennessy’s “Never Again – Britain 1945-1951”
“Yet Britain had never – and still hasn’t – experienced a progressive phase to match 1945-51. It is largely, though not wholly, the achievement of these years – and the wartime experience, the crucial platform on which those advance were built – that 1951 Britain, certainly compared to the UK of 1931, or any previous decade, was a kinder, gentler and a far,far better place in which to be born, to grow up, to live, work, and even die. Such an epitaph cannot be placed with conviction on the plinths of any of the eras to come as Mr Attlee’s Britain gave way to Mr Churchill’s.”
The above was published in 1992, and I suspect many will still agree with the assertion in the last sentence. I most assuredly do.
Thanks Andrew
“The paradox that Brexiteers who are so in favour of independence and taking back control are so simultaneously imperialist is beyond their limited comprehension.”
Ah…. That’s because they are lying and were lying all along. Or at least being very economical with the truth. They have used the trick that Margaret Thatcher used to such good effect….when she said ‘we’ (except in the case of ‘we’ are a grandmother) she led the easily flattered to believe they were included in her embrace as being ‘people like us’, or ‘one of us’. Hardworking families, alarm clock people all that shite….., loyal flag-waving subjects of her majesty the pinnacle of hierarchical privilege.
When the arch Brexiteers cry freedom and regaining control only the most gullible think they are included in the elite to whom this control will be granted. Their aim is pillage. They have no patriotic affiliation, they are global citizens. They have freedom of movement and can follow their money round the globe. That was the first stage of globalisation: to get their money stashed somewhere safe and now they are free to follow it with multiple passports giving access to their gated retreats.
To give away any bits of the UK such as Scotland would seriously diminish the scope for looting, so obviously they don’t wish to loose that.
The prospectus was carefully worded. Carefully enough to persuade even those most vulnerable in the Northern and Midlands rust belt, that ‘they’ (whoever ‘they’ might be) were trying to do them down and defeat their ‘will’ to be free.
It really was quite pathetic to watch and embarrassing to be a party to it all. And the dance goes on. I reckon anyone who regards the aftermath of the GFC as a lost decade ain’t seen nothing yet. It will take a decade to sink into the minds of the terminally stupid 17.4 million (whom we are not allowed to call stupid) to realise they have been had again.
I wonder who they are going to be blaming for the next decade’s misery ?
The indolent management and workers who have failed to take the opportunities Brexit gave to them
Losing Gibraltar will cause some discomfort too. Another 300 year old running sore.
Or it will create a great deal of friction in trade negotiations. Or both.
Spain will have the backing of the EU 27 against an external third party. The balance there has shifted markedly as Big Ben bonged.
Andy, given how sick and tired I am of the Leave voting fools and their union flags and ‘patriotism’ , I would laugh like a drain if Brexit resulted in the UK losing control of Gibralter. Poetic justice if there ever was. Come to think of it, why should the Gibraltese be so opposed to being run by Spain rather than Britain any more? After all, they voted by an incredible 96% to stay in the EU, yet still want to be run by a country where a fanatically anti EU government now holds sway. Whereas the Spanish strongly support th EU.
Similar comments apply to Scotland.
Odd, isn’t it?
Richard, I see I’ve come up as just “Andrew” in my post about neo-feudalism and refeudalisation – I must have only half-filled the “Name ” box.
There are other posts by an “Andrew”, who may not be happy to be associated with my post (though I’m happy to he associated with theirs).
So, for the avoidance of doubt, the post about refeudalisation is mine.
Thanks.
Andrew Dickie
Thanks Andrew
There are a few of us other Andrews around, Andrew. The more the merrier 🙂 A very popular name in the 60s, 70s and 80s, but went into rapid decline in from the mid-90s. Let’s hope it comes back to popularity with Scottish independence. (Similarly Richard declined rapidly from the mid-80s. It is all Oliver, Jack, Harry, Noah, Oscar and Jacob now.)
We will soon see if, as you suggest. Johnson’s aim is to dismantle the welfare state. And indeed how that will that play in a 2024 election.
[…] knows this. The Kosovo opinion, declared by the UK government, cannot have passed it by. No wonder Whitehall thinks that this is one of the issues that has greatest potential to upset the Johnson gov…t. And for precisely that reason I think Craig Murray is right to say […]
This reminds me of one of my Brexit night tweets…I was a bit lost for my own words, for once (!) , so I borrowed some:
The way things feel:
“There are known knowns. These are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns. That is to say, there are things that we know we don’t know. But there are also unknown unknowns. There are things we don’t know we don’t know.”
Donald Rumsfeld
🙂
There are also those in the fourth part of the quartet: the unknown knowns = those things which are known, at least by someone, but which we – or should I say those in power – choose not to know, or not to ask about, or reject the knowledge. Until they come to roost…
And a major cause of the Brexit mess we’re in. What the experts weren’t allowed to tell.
True…
…and then there’s the stuff you DO know, but which is just plain wrong !! 🙂
Credit to mark Twain for that.
Let us hope that Labour gets its stuff together soon. Personally I think the leadership field is much stronger this time around and there is some chance of the new leader being reasonably popular outside their core fan base.
Whilst EU parliament generally works on a cooperative and technical basis, ours is one of making the soundbite arguments. Having a bit of mouth in parliament from the likes of Emily Thornberry and Jess Phillips (if they get to speak in future) will do no harm at all. There is plenty to throw at BoJo and his minions without trashing those who voted for Brexit.
That and ‘events’ could move public opinion fairly quickly – I hope so…
I think Dunnng Kruger comes in here – those with low levels of knowledge of a topic whose very ignorance makes them blindly confident in their opinions. The present government is littered with exemplars and with apologies to decent journalists, Johnson and Gove have spent their lives being rewarded for spouting unmitigated nonsense and flat out lies, and so are supremely confident in their own opinions.
Arguably many of their voters are equally fine specimens of ignorance – the media certainly struggle to find a smart one. The more one knows of a topic, it should be that the more one then realises what one does not know. Perhaps that’s a common fault amongst ‘remainers’ who tend to be less ideological politically speaking.
I think you may well be right
So what is to be done? One part of the answer is surely to speak and write in a way that catches the public imagination. Most people are not as ‘thick’ as they appear; many have an underlying belief system that has a much stronger pull on their thought process. Dom, BoJo, The Donald have all tapped into this.
I think there is a way to call out BoJo et el, without demeaning those who like him – it takes some well considered and cutting remarks – a bit of Oscar Wilde etc.
Ah, yes , Gove! He of the “we don’t need experts” and “You were only supposed to blow the doors off”!, and who is reckoned by most education experts to have been one of the worst Education Secretaries in living memory (no wonder he doesn’t like experts!)
“A natural disaster might – and we have one potentially looming right now.
Chlorinated chicken might just do it.”
I’m not sure how. Could you explain?
Americans eat 156 million chlorine-treated chickens a week and seem fine. Our own European food safety regulator the EFSA has said there isn’t a problem. It’s not like they use pure chlorine. They wash the chicken carcass in water with 20 ppm chlorine. You can sit in water with up to 10 ppm in a spa.
Has your research into this subject found any specific dangers which the EFSA are not aware of?
Except they are not fine and the data shows it
Richard
You’ve just made that up.
There is no data whatsoever to show that health in the US is being affected by chlorinated chicken.
I have quoted as a reference the European food safety regulator. What is the source for your ridiculous claim? You have none.
In the UK, pre-packed salads are washed in a chlorinated water solution.
You are either ignorant on this subject or deliberately lying. Which is it?
There is considerable data available that shows the number of cases of food poisoning in the USA is much higher per head of population than the UK
I am not making anything up