Monday, May 10, 2010
Goldman Sachs - "financial terrorists"
Max Keiser claims GS quite deliberately caused last week's 1,000-point drop on the Dow, just to remind the US Government who's master.
Who is Nick Clegg?
For someone propelled into the political spotlight, Nick Clegg is an oddity. Unlike Blair, who treated attention like a sunlamp, Clegg seems oddly uncomfortable - not just with his situation, but with himself. Many photographs show his head tilted forward slightly, as though manfully resisting the urge to look down; after making key points in the pseudo-Presidential TV debates, his eyes would flick to the floor; and if you cover the top part of the face, look at the mouth - all wrong, somehow.
Like Baroness Ashton (Europe's first High Representative For Foreign Affairs), he looks like a natural loser who's won the Lottery, but is going to have it all taken away from him at some point. True, both are winners in a sense now, but the European setup that gave Clegg his first major political position as an MEP (after some years of service with the European Commission), and Ashton (I think) her last, has carefully arranged matters so that you have a big group of nonentities in a mock-Parliament, while all the real power is vested in the Council of Ministers. In short, these two are perfect stooges and the light of publicity does not flatter them.
It is, I think, significant that Clegg's postgraduate learning included a spell at the College of Europe in Bruges, an outfit whose purpose was described by postwar Euro-idealist Henri Brugmans as "to train an elite of young executives for Europe." I read that as a sort of McKinsey for pliable idiots. Other British Isles alumni include former Tory MP Nigel Forman, Neil Kinnock's sprog Stephen, LD stiff Simon Hughes, ScotNat MEP Alyn Smith (how a nationalist and a federalist? explain!), and Irish-born ex-Gen Sec of the European Commission David O'Sullivan.
Now, for a short spell, Clegg's playing with the big boys, and they're going to have his marbles and the bag they came in. Nothing will persuade any Labour or Conservative leader to agree to PR, a system that would guarantee perpetually recurring crises of governance like the present one. The Single Transferable Vote as some describe it (preference ranking within conflated groupings of constituencies) would tend to a squeeze of minor parties in favour of the largest two; tweaked versions of the Alternative Vote are obvious political fudges designed to include cosy dunroamin deadend spots for loyal, clapped-out Party hacks or political chessmen in search of a sinecure (I believe AV+ was Roy Jenkins' brainchild, if so the connection doesn't surprise).
The best that can be hoped for by LibDems is constituency-level Alternative Vote, and it's by no means certain that AV would prove greatly helpful to them. In habitually Conservative seats, many LD voters may be slightly disenchanted Tories who will return to the fold if they feel threatened by some Lib-Lab combination; in Labour seats, the same situation in reverse; and some Liberal seats could be threatened by odd tactical combinations of their enemies, questioning LD policies on e.g. nuclear disarmament, Eurointegration, immigration.
The best that can be hoped for by Nick Clegg, I think, is to do a Blair: sell out to powerful interests who will springboard him into some position less vulnerable to the people's franchise. Perhaps the reward for his long service to Europe will be a seat on the European Commission (maybe he still speaks to David O'Sullivan and friends - see above). He, and ultimately his descendants, will be accepted into that modern equivalent of the Hapsburg dynasty that is the nascent power support structure of the EU.
Or maybe he'll stand his ground, and watch his party get whittled away back down to six seats, a fate David Steel vividly remembers.
Like Baroness Ashton (Europe's first High Representative For Foreign Affairs), he looks like a natural loser who's won the Lottery, but is going to have it all taken away from him at some point. True, both are winners in a sense now, but the European setup that gave Clegg his first major political position as an MEP (after some years of service with the European Commission), and Ashton (I think) her last, has carefully arranged matters so that you have a big group of nonentities in a mock-Parliament, while all the real power is vested in the Council of Ministers. In short, these two are perfect stooges and the light of publicity does not flatter them.
It is, I think, significant that Clegg's postgraduate learning included a spell at the College of Europe in Bruges, an outfit whose purpose was described by postwar Euro-idealist Henri Brugmans as "to train an elite of young executives for Europe." I read that as a sort of McKinsey for pliable idiots. Other British Isles alumni include former Tory MP Nigel Forman, Neil Kinnock's sprog Stephen, LD stiff Simon Hughes, ScotNat MEP Alyn Smith (how a nationalist and a federalist? explain!), and Irish-born ex-Gen Sec of the European Commission David O'Sullivan.
Now, for a short spell, Clegg's playing with the big boys, and they're going to have his marbles and the bag they came in. Nothing will persuade any Labour or Conservative leader to agree to PR, a system that would guarantee perpetually recurring crises of governance like the present one. The Single Transferable Vote as some describe it (preference ranking within conflated groupings of constituencies) would tend to a squeeze of minor parties in favour of the largest two; tweaked versions of the Alternative Vote are obvious political fudges designed to include cosy dunroamin deadend spots for loyal, clapped-out Party hacks or political chessmen in search of a sinecure (I believe AV+ was Roy Jenkins' brainchild, if so the connection doesn't surprise).
The best that can be hoped for by LibDems is constituency-level Alternative Vote, and it's by no means certain that AV would prove greatly helpful to them. In habitually Conservative seats, many LD voters may be slightly disenchanted Tories who will return to the fold if they feel threatened by some Lib-Lab combination; in Labour seats, the same situation in reverse; and some Liberal seats could be threatened by odd tactical combinations of their enemies, questioning LD policies on e.g. nuclear disarmament, Eurointegration, immigration.
The best that can be hoped for by Nick Clegg, I think, is to do a Blair: sell out to powerful interests who will springboard him into some position less vulnerable to the people's franchise. Perhaps the reward for his long service to Europe will be a seat on the European Commission (maybe he still speaks to David O'Sullivan and friends - see above). He, and ultimately his descendants, will be accepted into that modern equivalent of the Hapsburg dynasty that is the nascent power support structure of the EU.
Or maybe he'll stand his ground, and watch his party get whittled away back down to six seats, a fate David Steel vividly remembers.
Sunday, May 09, 2010
It's the Tories who fear voting reform - and the LibDems who should fear it
Watching William Hague and Danny Alexander speak to the Press outside the Cabinet Office, it was obvious to me how shtum they were keeping about electoral reform.
There's a good reason, I think: a truly representative voting system would probably mean there would never again be a Conservative government.
Let's say that we had some form of nationwide Alternative Vote. The votes for the very small parties would likely pass on about equally between the Tories and Labour - maybe a little more Right than Left. The key would be how the LD votes would split, and I'd guess it would be not less than 80:20 in favour of a left of centre Labour party. Even now, that would mean an outright majority for Labour.
Just as American politics is basically a choice between two sides that from a British perspective seem right-wing, British politics under "fair voting" would be a choice between two left of centre parties, for to have any hope of power the Tories would have to share even more in "progressive" political values than they have done in many years. Indeed David Cameron's electoral sales pitch already reflects this, to some extent.
But if we go down this road, then we might be better off with a truly Presidential system, because the two candidates could be assessed not only on general policy direction but on character. We're mutating into a leader-driven system as it is, thanks in major part to the mass media, especially TV. At least a national direct election for the country's leadership would winnow out callow, jumped-up backroom boffins like Milliband - or so I'd hope.
It's much more difficult to judge what would happen if we retained the territorial constituency system but adopted the Alternative Vote. I don't have the time, the psephological database or the specialised computer programs and theoretical assumptions to study 650 constituencies and play out the permutations. But this is what Gordon Brown is rumoured to be offering the LibDems, and forming a coalition to get AV may be better than going for PR with the Tories and eventually ending up with a FrankenLeft party that swallows the LibDems whole.
If Clegg and co. come to a deal with the Conservatives without electoral reform, I think it'll be the end for Clegg; if they get PR, it could be the end of the third force in British politics. Yet Labour haven't enough to go on, even with the LibDems' support.
Perhaps the upshot will be another General Election, even sooner than the 12 - 18 months people are talking about. And that could fracture both Labour and the Conservatives, as Peter Hitchens has long suggested and wished.
We do live in interesting times.
There's a good reason, I think: a truly representative voting system would probably mean there would never again be a Conservative government.
Let's say that we had some form of nationwide Alternative Vote. The votes for the very small parties would likely pass on about equally between the Tories and Labour - maybe a little more Right than Left. The key would be how the LD votes would split, and I'd guess it would be not less than 80:20 in favour of a left of centre Labour party. Even now, that would mean an outright majority for Labour.
Just as American politics is basically a choice between two sides that from a British perspective seem right-wing, British politics under "fair voting" would be a choice between two left of centre parties, for to have any hope of power the Tories would have to share even more in "progressive" political values than they have done in many years. Indeed David Cameron's electoral sales pitch already reflects this, to some extent.
But if we go down this road, then we might be better off with a truly Presidential system, because the two candidates could be assessed not only on general policy direction but on character. We're mutating into a leader-driven system as it is, thanks in major part to the mass media, especially TV. At least a national direct election for the country's leadership would winnow out callow, jumped-up backroom boffins like Milliband - or so I'd hope.
It's much more difficult to judge what would happen if we retained the territorial constituency system but adopted the Alternative Vote. I don't have the time, the psephological database or the specialised computer programs and theoretical assumptions to study 650 constituencies and play out the permutations. But this is what Gordon Brown is rumoured to be offering the LibDems, and forming a coalition to get AV may be better than going for PR with the Tories and eventually ending up with a FrankenLeft party that swallows the LibDems whole.
If Clegg and co. come to a deal with the Conservatives without electoral reform, I think it'll be the end for Clegg; if they get PR, it could be the end of the third force in British politics. Yet Labour haven't enough to go on, even with the LibDems' support.
Perhaps the upshot will be another General Election, even sooner than the 12 - 18 months people are talking about. And that could fracture both Labour and the Conservatives, as Peter Hitchens has long suggested and wished.
We do live in interesting times.
Should we fear proportional representation?
There are vested interests opposing electoral reform. One of their subtler strategies is to propose pantomime-horse variants on the Single Transferable Vote (AV+ etc) , I suspect to muddy the waters sufficiently so that people will say change isn't worth it.
The fact is, under the present system 95.5% of the seats went to the three major parties; if seats had been allocated in proportion to votes cast, the top three would still have had 88.3%. Between them, quite enough to vote down everyone else.
Yes, some of the "wrong types" (e.g. the BNP) would have got a voice in Parliament; but actually, the fourth biggest party would have been UKIP, with 20 seats - and under a different system, UKIP might have gained switch-support from those who voted BNP because of concerns about national sovereignty and the economic and social effects of relatively uncontrolled (yet disproportionately locally concentrated) immigration; leaving the race-haters fuming in an even tinier corner. Some other minorities would have even fewer seats than they have now, and we'd have some fresh voices on the benches. Is it really necessary to uphold a flawed existing arrangement merely because it gags mouths that might offend us?
Another objection is that the LibDems would be the kingmakers, the masters of the seesaw. Not necessarily: how many of those who voted LD tactically last week, would have voted directly for Labour or Conservative if they had thought their vote would count as much as anyone else's?
PR would break the link between an MP and his/her constituency, say some. Yet it seems that so much voting is simply for the rosette, and we have just seen a General Election campaign fought on presidential terms, without our having the right to elect the President.
In 26 years, I've been doorstepped twice by Parliamentary candidates - both them in the last month, because thanks to boundary changes I'm now in a marginal constituency. Before then, I had two Labour bods in succession, each obviously taking the view that they needn't make any effort because the seat was usually bombproof under First-Past-The-Post. (I have a sneaking - perhaps totally unfair - suspicion that the boundary was altered partly to shut out Respect, who were threatening to do well in this part of Birmingham.)
I'm not a fan of the party list kind of PR, because that takes away the voters' right to reject individuals they consider unsuitable - but the Single Transferable Vote (STV) would give a voice to us voiceless people, and we might be heard from time to time among the hubbub.
I give below a list of seats actually won, and another showing how brutally simple national PR would have allocated them; what it can't show is how votes would have been cast if people knew every vote counted absolutely equally, nationwide; or how the picture would change if you could express 2nd and 3rd choices in constituency-based STV voting.
The fact is, under the present system 95.5% of the seats went to the three major parties; if seats had been allocated in proportion to votes cast, the top three would still have had 88.3%. Between them, quite enough to vote down everyone else.
Yes, some of the "wrong types" (e.g. the BNP) would have got a voice in Parliament; but actually, the fourth biggest party would have been UKIP, with 20 seats - and under a different system, UKIP might have gained switch-support from those who voted BNP because of concerns about national sovereignty and the economic and social effects of relatively uncontrolled (yet disproportionately locally concentrated) immigration; leaving the race-haters fuming in an even tinier corner. Some other minorities would have even fewer seats than they have now, and we'd have some fresh voices on the benches. Is it really necessary to uphold a flawed existing arrangement merely because it gags mouths that might offend us?
Another objection is that the LibDems would be the kingmakers, the masters of the seesaw. Not necessarily: how many of those who voted LD tactically last week, would have voted directly for Labour or Conservative if they had thought their vote would count as much as anyone else's?
PR would break the link between an MP and his/her constituency, say some. Yet it seems that so much voting is simply for the rosette, and we have just seen a General Election campaign fought on presidential terms, without our having the right to elect the President.
In 26 years, I've been doorstepped twice by Parliamentary candidates - both them in the last month, because thanks to boundary changes I'm now in a marginal constituency. Before then, I had two Labour bods in succession, each obviously taking the view that they needn't make any effort because the seat was usually bombproof under First-Past-The-Post. (I have a sneaking - perhaps totally unfair - suspicion that the boundary was altered partly to shut out Respect, who were threatening to do well in this part of Birmingham.)
I'm not a fan of the party list kind of PR, because that takes away the voters' right to reject individuals they consider unsuitable - but the Single Transferable Vote (STV) would give a voice to us voiceless people, and we might be heard from time to time among the hubbub.
I give below a list of seats actually won, and another showing how brutally simple national PR would have allocated them; what it can't show is how votes would have been cast if people knew every vote counted absolutely equally, nationwide; or how the picture would change if you could express 2nd and 3rd choices in constituency-based STV voting.
Saturday, May 08, 2010
Will Cameron support the breakup of the UK?
Scotland has 59 seats in the British Parliament, of which 41 voted Labour in this week's General Election, and only one voted Conservative.
David Cameron proposes to reduce the number of MPs by 10%, i.e. 65 out of 650.
On the GE results, giving Scotland her "independence" (within the European Empire, of course) would mean the Conservatives having 305 seats out of 591, a 9-seat majority. The DUP in Northern Ireland could add the support of another 8 seats, at a price.
Or the Conservatives could drop the Unionist part of their party's title altogether, and cut Northern Ireland and Wales "free" as well. Only 9 of the 117 constituencies in the quasi-Celtic countries voted Tory. This would leave an English-only Parliament (eagerly desired by some on the interwebs) of 533 seats, 297 of them Conservative - a 30-seat majority for the Tories, even on the latest disappointing showing. Central Office could then simply relocate to Buckingham Palace to begin a thousand-year reign.
The political temptation to assist the European fragmentarian project must be immense.
And then there is the financial side. Comparing revenue and expenditure, how much do Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales cost the British government?
David Cameron proposes to reduce the number of MPs by 10%, i.e. 65 out of 650.
On the GE results, giving Scotland her "independence" (within the European Empire, of course) would mean the Conservatives having 305 seats out of 591, a 9-seat majority. The DUP in Northern Ireland could add the support of another 8 seats, at a price.
Or the Conservatives could drop the Unionist part of their party's title altogether, and cut Northern Ireland and Wales "free" as well. Only 9 of the 117 constituencies in the quasi-Celtic countries voted Tory. This would leave an English-only Parliament (eagerly desired by some on the interwebs) of 533 seats, 297 of them Conservative - a 30-seat majority for the Tories, even on the latest disappointing showing. Central Office could then simply relocate to Buckingham Palace to begin a thousand-year reign.
The political temptation to assist the European fragmentarian project must be immense.
And then there is the financial side. Comparing revenue and expenditure, how much do Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales cost the British government?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)