The appliance of science (not) - by Richard... Friday, June 10, 2011

The appliance of science (not) - by Richard... Friday, June 10, 2011

"It's crucial that national authorities don't rush to give information on the source of infection when it's not justified by the science", said John Dalli, the EU's food safety commissioner. "That creates fears and problems for our food producers. We must be careful not to give premature conclusions".

A propos my last piece, several points emerge here. First, in naming the supposedly responsible foods (now said to be bean shoots produced in Germany), strictly, we are not talking about the "source of infection". In terms of E. coli, it is actually the vehicle of contamination.

Secondly, the "rush to give information" is a characteristic of epidemic diseases. The authorities would be crucified if they did not – by the EU commission amongst others. The issue is the flawed epidemiological system which generates false information, presented in an alarmist fashion, which creates a media-fuelled panic.

Thirdly, since when has the EU been so concerned about the promulgation of information "not justified by the science"? Do I hear Salmonella in Eggs, Listeria in Cheese, BSE, the Belgian dioxin scare ... and even climate change, to name but a few examples where claims were (and are) not justified by the science?

Instead, we have pontificating a commissioner who has only a slender grasp of science, advised by those with even less grasp – all of them with almost no understanding of the how food scares work, or how to handle crisis publicity. And these are the people in power. No wonder Spanish (and other) farmers are burying thousands of tons of good, wholesome food. 

The worst of this is that, from the experience, they will learn nothing because, even now, they do not have the first idea of what they did wrong, and lack the self-critical awareness to find out. That is the real tragedy - not only do they not learn from their mistakes, they have no capacity to learn from them. And thus, in the fullness of time, this disaster will be repeated.

COMMENT THREAD

Share

Print ready

Point, missed, completely - by Richard...

Linking in with the previous post, we now have a furious backlash to Williams's point about the coalition, to the effect that they weren't voted in to do what they are doing.

Whether you agree with Williams over his objections to what the coalition is actually doing, though, isn't the point. In observing that the coalition wasn't elected to do what it is doing is a perfectly fair and valid point. Williams is saying that the coalition does not have a mandate from the people – and indeed it does not.

I sense, though, that Williams is still locked into the old paradigm, where established political parties have clear values, set out their stalls in their manifestoes, whence people vote for them and the winner goes to work on implementing its manifesto.

Needless to say, that no longer applies, but with the coalition it has got even worse. The essence is that whichever parties manage to stitch up a parliamentary majority after an election then assume the license to rule as they think fit – no matter what anyone else, and particularly the voters, might think.

This may be democracy, Jim, but not as we know it. It is no more rule by the demosthan any more malign form of dictatorship.

Predictably, though, the ever-smooth and thickening Cameron misses the point (see response, above right), arguing about the policy line the Cleggerons have adopted – and not the important issue of the lack of democratic accountability. Like so many of his ilk, he runs away with the idea that because he and his coalition MPs are elected, he runs a democratic government.

And, as always, there lies much of the problem. We have a pretend prime-minister, supposedly in charge of a democratic government, that actually isn't, failing completely to understand the failures of the systems over which he nominally presides.  Thus does he prefer to discuss the exercise of power, but not its nature or the accountability of those who wield it.

Interestingly, it takes a leftie Archbishop to tell him the system is wrong, but probably Williams no more understands his own point than does Cameron, a question of the faith leading the blind ... to perdition.

COMMENT THREAD

Share

Print ready

The dynamics of power - by Richard...

Yesterday, we saw Blair and Williams addressing the issue of power – each with their own views of how to correct acknowledged imbalances. Today, we see Carswell and Hannan, two Uncle Tom Tories, address the same issue, with like effect – absolutely none.

The Hannan has been particularly vocal of late about what he calls "localism", but then as now achieves nothing but to display his almost total lack of understanding of the dynamics of power, and how political change is achieved.

That much is reflected in their headline, "David Cameron must hand power to the people before it's too late", which for once adequately conveys the thrust of their piece, amplified by their complaints that: "The Coalition's plan to shift decision making from state to citizen is being frustrated by Whitehall".

"Whitehall" (including the branch office of Brussels) is, of course, where the power resides – the heart of government. And it is an unalterable truth that no government - of any shape or colour - ever surrendered power voluntarily. If people want more power (and know how to use it), then they are going to have to get off their backsides and take it.

The music hall duo, Carswell & Hannan, should know this. If they do, then they must know that their proposals have absolutely no chance of success and they are playing games. If they don't, then they are simply two, stupid, idle politicians, with a different line of chat. 

Either way, these two Uncle Tom Tories have little understanding of the dynamics of power. They are not going to rock the boat and, if is left to them, they will be collecting their generous pensions without there having been the slightest change of any significance. You need to have an eye to history to see that any serious change comes from outside the circle of power, not from within.

And therein lies our problem. While there is dissatisfaction and grumbling, nothing has yet coalesced into a coherent political movement which will seriously challenge the status quo. That movement, when it comes, is going to emerge from outside the gilded circle of power, and will owe nothing to the likes of Carswell or Hannan, whose role – if anything – is to head off meaningful change.

But in one respect, the headline is right. Cameron needs to act before it is too late – not to hand down power, but to give the appearance of so doing (which is what the Dynamic Duo are proposing), and thus pre-empt the emergence of a movement that will demand a real transfer.

Cameron, though, does not have the political brain or the acumen to understand what is going on – any more than Carswell & Hannan. This means that they are making more profound change inevitable, which is what is really needed anyway. To that extent, the more they prattle, the more likely it is that something will eventually happen. For that, I suppose, we should be grateful.