I admit to feeling negative: six days into a bug I have not shaken the thing as yet, and being low on physical energy is not something I enjoy, especially when I have some important teaching I really want to deliver ahead of me today.
On the other hand, viewing the world through a different lens isn't a wholly wasted opportunity: apart fom the more than usual grumpiness in my comments yesterday (apologies) being less than typically optimistic because of tiredness and a resulting feeling of inability to do anything about the mess we're in provides an opportunity to stand back a little. And we are in a mess.
Drop the immediate for a moment: we will work through Brexit, eventually. And all governments come to an end, eventually. These are temporary, even if serious issues, we must suffer.
But global warming may not be temporary.
And human inhumanity to humans they seek to differ with appears to be ever ongoing, and becoming more extreme.
At the same time awareness is appropriately growing that financial capitalism is increasingly unable to meet our needs whikst fuelling increasingly trivial wants that add little to our wellbeing, a process abetted by its its obvious incapacity to distribute the rewards for effort in any way that approaches fairness. And, as yet, almost no politician has a viable narrative to address that.
Put the three together and we face a void that makes comments about inability to work with the LibDems because they voted for the Health and Social Care Act in 2012, however ghastly that was, seem almightily petty. I agree, that was a mistake. But the time has come when a lot of people need to recognise, as my elder son often says 'shit happens', and move on to the bigger stuff. So far I don't see that ability.
I guess if anything worries me it's that. In the face of a crisis the left is moving deck chairs instead of working out how to rebuild an economy that serves the common interest. And whilst it can't see what it's got in common that's what it will continue to do, at cost to us all.
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:
What I hear here is frustration – and it understandable.
What I would add is that I do not believe that ‘nobody knows what to do’. Even Adam Curtis says this in his latest films and I disagree with it fundamentally.
I think that plenty of people know what not needs to be done (you Richard and many others have told them what they could do – there are alternatives).
Mark Carney’s interview with Jon Snow springs to mind when he just fell short of saying that the Government needs to put its hands in its pockets for example.
But the fact is that the Government do not WANT to do anything other than what they already know.
This could be for a number of reasons:
1. Dogma
2. To change is an admission of failure.
3. They know what they are doing – they have deliberately put the economy and
society into a crisis and now practise a ‘do not resuscitate’ policy.
Even though Thatcher destroyed the country in my view in the early 1980’s, this generation of Tories now feel that she did not go far enough and as management guru John Seddon points out about so many wrong headed business leaders ‘want to do the wrong thing righter’.
Instead of using death squads and concentration camps against the population like they do in South America or civil war torn Spain, the right wing neo-lib Brits practice economic violence on the population of the country – there is lot less blood – far less messy. The Tories love the power of money as a weapon – especially the power of a lack of it used to leverage what is revolutionary change – mostly around who owns what in this country.
We have to get away from this view that no one knows what to do. This government needs to be removed because they DO KNOW what they are doing. Whether by blood on the streets or at next election or both (which seems likely) – I don’t care – they have to go. That is what the British people have to do – not voting for them at the next election. That would be a start.
So lets try and get on with it and do our best.
OK boss!
Ha Ha!
Hey – I’m doing my bit with the Daily Mail reading Tory voters where I work.
There is actually more talking about this than there has ever been.
Maybe I might effect a bit of change there. Who knows? I’ll keep at it.
We have to try
I think its all three PSR. There is a concept of ‘structural violence’ coined by Johann Galtung which I came across when studying development, and which struck a chord with me. (see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Structural_violence) When the power structures and institutions of society intrinsically discriminate against groups of people, they can be said to be ‘structurally violent’. The consequences in terms of reduced quality of life or increased mortality may be on a par with actual violence. In time structural violence may well lead to actual violence as the only mechanism left to to the wider population for responding to that structural violence.
It seems to be to be a useful way of describing what we are seeing happen in the UK today. Elsewhere we’ve speculated on the prospect of actual violence. Thats a very good reason for getting as active as possible now before that violence breaks out. Again as PSR says, I think there are a core set of ideas about what to do which cut across the centre left/right of UK politics, including much of what Richard has been articulating. The challenge is to mobilise a sufficiently large group of politicians, public and maybe even business, to engage with and promote those ideas, and take head-on those vested interests and political cliques that block progress.
Interesting idea and useful
It rather depends on how convinced one is that the Lib Dems will stay on the trajectory that Tim Farron is on, or whether the orange book lot get back more power. The Lib Dems under Clegg supported the Health & Social Care act because they believed in it and want the NHS to become private / insurance based.
One half of the Lib Dems are “left” the other half decidedly are not, so partnering with them has some challenges.
If the price of getting an overall left of centre government was cooperation with the orange book liberals I’d jump at it
Wouldn’t you?
Seriously?
But if it was the Orange Book lot in charge it would not be a left of centre government- they are decidedly right wing- that’s the problem – as I understand it. If I’m wrong I’d be relieved.
If a small part of a coalition they could not be in charge…..
I think the left also needs to be more positive – the doom and gloom belongs to the right.
Oil is over, coal is so last century, solar is getting exponentially cheaper as the installed base gets exponentially bigger.
90% of new power is renewable https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/feb/09/new-energy-europe-renewable-sources-2016
Trump cannot stop the abandonment of fossil fuels.
We don’t even have to wait for this process to complete, as soon as fossil fuel growth goes negative – those old companies loose power.
Automation is also changing the landscape of work and it’s place in society in ways we have not yet begun to grasp – but there are certainly Utopian visions that seem possible.
The law of unintended consequences affects the right as much as anyone – and they have unleashed a wave of activism and engagement that I have never seen. Their bigotry and fear is exposed for all to see.
I have hope that the rise of the alt-right is a last dying gasp of an old way – and though the following years will be turbulent – we may yet see a rebirth into the light.
Thanks
I am with Sean, there are reasons to be optimistic even if the short term looks bleak.
We are entering an era of disruption where new energy sources will replace old, artificial intelligence and automation will become able to perform the work we do not want to do.
This means that the old power blocks and their support of regressive politics will not survive, the mass of humanity is on the side of progress.
Unfortunately, BigOil is now firmly embedded into renewables.
And the transition into green energy faces large obstacles, technically-speaking. Not-so-minor problems with Germany using neighbouring countries grids, via interconnectors, as stabilisers to its own unstable grid, leading to those neighbouring countries having to either upgrade their grids or refuse connection.
Similar events are also going to occur here as the renewables gain a larger penetration into the grid. Due to the very marginal reserve we now have, we are reliant on things like STOR, voluntary shutdown and provision, at extremely high cost, of old plant maintained in a “ready” condition if required.
Large battery facilities, which are going to be needed to stabilise a grid using wind/solar generation, are slow to arrive, and their capacity is not proving as good as though…
I foresee a renewables market dominated by the big players in oil, and quite soon.
Here’s one
http://evonomics.com/accounting-smoke-mirrors-makes-corporate-profits-rich-peoples-income-invisible/
The rational view of climate change and carbon comes in two flavours: the common good, survival by developing renewables, and leaving the damn’ stuff in the ground…
…And the rational view of powerful psychopaths, who need to realise the value of their ‘carbon bubble’ assets right now and bank the proceeds in land and political power.
Trump himself is a cipher – nasty n his own way, but his worst attribute is that his bluster and chaos and weak leadership provides the space for more effective men to do far greater evils than Trump ever could.
The carbon genocide may well be the worst if those evils: best not to speculate about whatever could possibly be worse, and I agree that it’s effects will be irrevocable.
Closer to home, all that is necessary for evil to triumph is that good men should be as ineffective as the Labour Party: we have no hope from that direction.
The Lib Dems may gain usable power in their own right, and take a lead; but the historic record is that they are merely facilitators and abetters of whoever offers two or three of them a Ministerial limo.
There will come a tipping point that will trigger systemic change. While it’s impossible to say precisely when and exactly what, it’s sensible to assess the probablities and prepare for possible outcomes. All the indices suggest we’re experiencing the dying throes of capitalism as an economic model, originally conceived to ‘manage’ a world that is far, far removed from the direction in which we’re all heading, albeit at different speeds.
During this extended period of change every attempt will be made to cling to the familiar both by those who hold the wealth and those who aspire toward it. But, either which way, it’s the equivalent of devising a better (more compassionate) form of slavery – which was what ‘progressive’ slave owners believed to be their moral responsibility.
Tinkering with Capitalism can only deliver an econoic framework that mitigates the excesses of the extreme version, such as no-liberalism. Reform is not a bad thing. But if the core construct is fatally flawed all one is doing is prolonging it’s death, consuming energy which could be better usd to build a better economic model that has, at its heart, the well-being of everyone and the planet. As Pilgrim mentioned, it’s attempting to do the wrong thing better. While Band-Aid has it’s place in the doctor’s medicine chest, if the bleeding fails to stop then somthing more radical is required. And that’s where we are now.
There is only one major political movement in the West that understands the Big Issues and that is the Green Party, in its many guises. While a member I’m not in any way close to the UK leadership (I believe that you, Richard, speak with Caroline Lucas). However, from what I’ve read about Jill Stein and the American party it would appear that they have a good handle on how a modern monetary systm functions and how it can be efficiently utilised to invest in a better future for future generations.
Not perfect, of course, but at least the Greens understand the issues facing humanity and are prepared to embrace radical solutions. The traditional Left and Right orientation is no longer relevant. It took a very long-time to rid ourselvs of the old form of slavery, only to replace it with a more subtle version which most slaves have accepted/tolerated as better than what preceded it. But slavery in any shape or form is wrong, no matter how compassionate th slave-owner. I believe we are moving close to a tipping point.
I am sure there will be a tipping point
The only question is when
Typo alert. Should read ‘neo-liberalism’ not ‘no-liberalism’, although not much difference between the two!
Hope you feel better soon Richard.
On, “global warming may not be temporary.” It certainly will not, but some real progress is being made. Now the momentum is so strong that I think sustainable energy will win.
Yes, North America has 300 years of coal reserves, but when solar and storage beat them on price as they will very soon (may be even now) the case to go on digging is gone.
If the US does not face up to the new future they will simply loose out and eventually the majority will choose progress rather than trying to turn the clock back.
I agree…,price will win
Oddly the Luddites still think that means carbon
Let me lighten things up a bit Guardian today:
“………even within Whitehall, where civil servants are scrambling to assemble the detailed market data needed to negotiate quotas that might cushion a hard landing. One senior official said the picture remained hazy because civil servants “haven’t done the homework yet”.
Hmm, perhaps they are unfamiliar with the wonders of Eurostat which has a collossal trade database & can be interrogated on line – want to know how many 60% chickens (there is such a thing BTW) the UK sold to Malta (or vice versa), by kg or by value or unit – it is all there, by month or by year.
Sit back, pull up the easy chair & piop-corn and watch the fun as a nation of 65 million gets shafted – by a 40 year old ideology, its adherents & assorted jobs worths. Or… as you suggest Richard we (we = everybody – tories) all pull together and agree some basiscs on how the business of the nation is conducted – that said the problem remains – how to get May-hem & her idiots out of government.
The last point is critical….
I agree we’ve got to get rid of them. The MP tells me that apparently the expenses investigations are STILL being investigated by the police.
On the EU there is an excoriating article by A C Grayling in the ‘New European’
http://www.theneweuropean.co.uk/top-stories/the_uk_is_being_stolen_4_reasons_we_are_still_angry_about_brexit_1_4887284
including:
“And now recall that the referendum was specifically intended to be
advisory and consultative only. Briefing Paper 07212 issued to members
of both Houses of Parliament on June 3 2015 in advance of debate on the
Referendum Bill says that the referendum is non-binding, advisory,
consultative. It also points out that if there were to be any suggestion
otherwise, there would need to be a supermajority requirement.
In the House of Commons, in the debate on the EU referendum Bill, the
then Minister for Europe, David Lidington, told the House that “the
legislation is about holding a vote; it makes no provision for what
follows. The referendum is advisory” (Hansard, June 16 2015). Yet in the
most barefaced manner and contrary both to the briefing and the
government statement in the House, the Brexit cabal have treated the
referendum outcome as binding and mandating, in defiance of the explicit
nature of the Referendum Act itself.”
which really calls into question the will of the people stuff..
Might you suggest where the reference to the supermajority is? I ask only because I can’t find it
Thanks
http://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/CBP-7212/CBP-7212.pdf
I agree, nor can I! Rather the reverse if anything.
Time for correspondence with the ‘New European’!
Now have a reply from AC Grayling:
“Section 6 of Briefing Paper 07212 points out that a simple majority would be insufficient for a purpose other than an advisory referendum.
A non-simple majority is a supermajority.
A non-advisory referendum is a binding one.
Therefore etc.”
He seems to be relying on:
“The Bill does not propose a threshold for the referendum. The only
referendums held in the UK where a threshold has operated were the
polls in Scotland and Wales in 1978 on the question of devolution.
Discussion of the need for some form of threshold usually arises in the
context of ensuring the legitimacy and acceptance of the outcome of a
referendum. Certain states require constitutional change to be validated
by a special majority in a referendum. This incorporates the idea that
major constitutional change is something more important than the
result of ordinary elections, and therefore should be the outcome of
something more than a simple plurality of the votes. The UK does not
have a comprehensive written constitution and so any requirement for a
threshold has to be included in the individual referendum legislation.”
It is a plausible interpretation but “usually arises” makes his case rather weak I’d say and certainly not as black and white as he painted it.
Pity.
I agree: I have to say I could not make that paper support the claim
Thanks for elaborating