UK politics: the cult of personality
Friday 14 June 2013
 Oborne's comments on Twitter (aka "blogging for morons") are absolutely priceless as he concludes that "there is no room at all, within the constraints of just 140 characters, to make complex or thoughtful arguments". With insight like that, you begin to realise quite how valuable The Daily Telegraph has become. But the main thrust of Oborne's piece is to attack Lord Ashcroft, who "uses his Twitter account to bring to a wider audience material that diminishes the Prime Minister or brings his judgment into question". Ashcroft's main input, though, is through his blog and his attendant polls, where he indulges in what is increasingly being regarded as unacceptable behaviour – political analysis of one's own "side". This is very much redolent of the discussions we are having on the forum and via e-mails, on the analytical exercise we conducted on Farage. Oborne, in a stance similar to that taken by some of our readers, demands absolute loyalty to the object of his affection, which must extend to a complete block on publishing anything critical. We saw a similar stance on Conservative Home in the days when Tiny Tim was in similar "gush mode" over The Great Leader, and any critics were banished to outer darkness, their blog links excised from the record, never again to be seen in polite company. Autonomous Mind thinks we are seeing Oborne "tilting to the cult of personality, irrespective of Cameron's ability or performance", noting that it is "impossible to miss the welling-up of cult-like adoration that Oborne feels for Cameron". And it is that reference to the "cult" that strikes a chord. In a very unhealthy way, party politics in the UK is beginning to develop a feel not dissimilar to that of North Korea where, amongst the faithful, only expressions of the most abject adoration are permitted. Sadly, though, with the cult of the leader also comes the cult of the follower. The lumpen masses, mindless and inert, demand leadership before they can begin to exert themselves. Gone is the initiative, independence and assertiveness that once made our nation great. We whinge and whine that we have no leaders, and then demand absolute fealty to our anointed ones, whom we are expected to follow over the edge of a cliff if demanded.
In this, AM remarks, Oborne thinks he is serving his readership. But what is probably the most dangerous of all is the number of people who think as Oborne does, and agree with him: The Great Leader must be revered. There are no neutrals in the cult of personality.
Richard North 14/06/2013 |
EU politics: a seat at the "top table"?
Friday 14 June 2013
 However, we just happen to know that trade is an exclusive EU competence and, as a result, we don't even get a seat at the negotiating table. We have to follow the time-honoured procedure of agreeing a "common position" between all 27 member states, which the Commission then takes to the top table. And here we are, two days before the start of the internal EU talks to determine that "common position", and France throws a strop, demanding that films and digital media be taken out of the negotiations of it will block the "common position", which it can do, and thereby prevent the talks going ahead. As a nation outside the EU, of course, we would have the power to deal directly with the EU, on our own behalf, and work to a mutually agreed agenda, without third party interference. But here we are, supposedly at the top table, and we can't even decide what goes on the real top table. This really does make a mockery of Mr Cameron's ambitions and pretensions. We find that, although he and all the other member states – bar one - would be happy to go ahead, the Commission rolls over and starts making concessions to France. It, and it alone, is threatening to block progress. The Commission says it is prepared to give member state – i.e., France - a much greater say in negotiations on film, TV, radio and Internet markets. But even then, that is not enough. An official at French Trade Minister Nicole Bricq's office in Paris says: "Our position is clear. There will not be any negotiation over culture. We want culture to be purely and simply excluded from the talks". Thus, a veto is on the cards. And here we can see just at the first hurdle, we already have trouble, The United States sells far more music, movies, radio and television programs to the European Union than it buys from the member states. Its net surplus for the sector averaged €1.5 billion a year from 2004 to 2011. Now wait for agriculture, and see what happens. Do we remember the "banana wars" and remember how long they took to resolve? For sure, the 20-year dispute was with Latin America, but there were US interests behind it, and those delayed the settlement. And now, we are to have the complete range of agricultural products thrown into the pot. Basically, a trade deal with the US always was going to be difficult – but it might just be possible between the US and the UK. But to reach an accord between the EU and the US is nigh-on impossible. Thus, because Mr Cameron wants to be at the wrong table, and mistakes it for a top table, he would condemn us to failure. The thing is, why does he think us so stupid that we won't realise this? COMMENT THREAD Richard North 14/06/2013 |
UK politics: alternative scenarios
Thursday 13 June 2013
 Such an attitude renders UKIP more like a cult than a political party, and there is a well-known tendency of failing leaders to promote mass suicide, every one of them convinced that they are following the one true way – rejecting any other voice which might offer a different viewpoint. Strangely though, from being a respected and venerable party, David Cameron too is beginning to take on the mantle of a cult leader, marking a remarkable convergence between the Tories and the UKIP wannabes, to the extent that it becomes increasingly difficult to tell them apart. As the UKIP leader seeks to talk less and less about "Europe" in order to become electable, and Mr Cameron talks more and more about "Europe" in order to become electable, they begin to merge in the mind's eye. Man becomes pig and pig becomes man. They talk the same, sound the same and look the same, even down to the incipient double chins and the corpulence that comes of eating in too many fine restaurants. But the "teenage scribbler" Forsyth doesn't quite see it that way. His intellect does not allow him to deal with more than one idea – or party – at the time. So, without looking at the interaction between UKIP and the Tories, which will define the next few years, he tries to define the next few years, using the Tory party as the pivotal point, doffing his cap occasionally to the Labour party and Mr Miliband. The result, a trite, superficial dirge, is what passes for top-flight political analysis these days, which is possibly why so many senior politicians and their aides are ill-informed and never see things coming, until they rear up and bite them where it hurts. Where Forsyth really has a problem though is that, in speculating about what might happen in the event of an EU referendum under Cameron's watch during the next Parliamentary term, he is attempting to dissect the unknowable. This leaves him to evaluate scenarios which can't even begin to look credible without factoring the wild card that is UKIP. We end up, therefore, with blather – as we so often do in the legacy media. It may be quite well-written, and marginally entertaining, but it is still blather – self-referential and introspective. The culmination of the Forsyth thesis is that he believes that it is "good news for Cameron" that Tory "unity" on Europe will probably hold until 2015 – not that you need any great brains to work that one out. There are, he says, are only a handful of his MPs who can't sign up to his "strategy" of renegotiation followed by a referendum. After that, says the scribbler's scribbler, the Tories will not be able to put off the "big choice" much longer – whether we stay in or leave. Whichever way it goes, adds Forsyth, "there'll be those who can't accept the decision. EU membership will have split the Tories just as the Corn Laws did". That, of course, is exactly the scenario that Farage is hoping for, but no one seems to want to look further than that point. But, as I posit on our forum, that is just when it starts to get interesting. The Farage scenario has his party gain some MPs at Westminster, but that would – inescapably - be against the background of a heavy defeat of the Tories, putting either Labour or a Lib-Lab coalition in office. Maybe then, the Tory party does split, fulfilling the Forsyth prophesy. The thing is, what happens then? One Tory faction, inevitably, goes over to join the Lib-Dems, strengthening the government. In the Farage scenario, the "rump" joins him, and they form a right-of-centre opposition. Once again, we have to ask the question, what then? Short of an "in-out" referendum which is unlikely with Labour or the Lib-Labs in office, we stay in the the EU. In 2020, we face another general election. Then a weak Tory rump allied with UKIP fight a Lib-Lab alliance strengthened by Tory defectors. And what are the chances of the "Tor-IP" party winning the election then? That much, though, is but one scenario. There are others. And outside the self-referential claustrophobia of the Spectator claque and the chattering classes in general, it may not be entirely surprising that there are other capable people out there doing their own analyses. This blog is by no mean the only place when the net is being cast wider, and thought are deeper. Analysis, though, can change the future. Ambitious politicians – assessing the odds in a scenario that Farage does not dare to tread, and Forsyth doesn't have the wit to – have already worked it out. The "Tory split" meme is a one-way trip to nowhere – a free pass for the Left for the next generation. Stepping aside from this for the moment, we see the French air traffic strike in progress over EU Single European Sky plans. This highlights the fact that the EU is far more than just about trade – we are talking about a scheme that aims to revolutionise air traffic control throughout Europe. The other thing, as we pointed out, is that the Commission is right in pursuing its objectives. When the United States controls the same amount of airspace, with more traffic, at almost half the cost, something really must be done. That the Commission has so far been unable to implement its plans also says something of the inadequacy of the EU construct, but it also says that, if we are to achieve what for the UK are laudable aims, we need a relationship with "Europe". To that extent, we need to redefine the language. We are not seeking to leave, Europe – we are seeking to redefine the relationship. Here, in terms of his overall objective, there is actually nothing between Cameron and our objectives. As we have observed before, where we differ is how to achieve that desirable aim. And here, it seems to me that the gap is not unbridgeable. More to the point, it could provide the starting point for a Tory renaissance. Thus, we have a different scenario where, with the help of Farage's party and the "UKIP effect", the Tories fail to win the next election, putting into place a weak Labour or Lib-Lab administration. But instead of "splits", under a new leader, the party unites behind an realistic plan to redefine our relationship with "Europe". UKIP – having done its job, melts way into oblivion. That then brings us to 2020, when a resurgent Tory party storms to victory. Within days, the UK is sending off an Article 50 notification to Brussels and we are on our way out of the EU. Some years later, maybe, we will finally get a Single European Sky, in which the UK will play a full and active part. The funny thing is that clever-dicks like Forsyth will never even see it coming. COMMENT: POLITICAL SCENARIOS: COMBINED THREAD Richard North 13/06/2013 |
Posts
