I can’t believe no-one has done this particular brexit analogy at some point in the last few years, but it just occurred to me. People, especially people advocating ‘no-deal’, seem quite fond of talking about brexit like it is a divorce. Don’t pay the divorce bill, all that nonsense. It is obvious from the way they regard these negotiations that the idea of a divorce here is one where there are just two adults splitting up, and the only issues are ‘who gets which bits of our property’ and ‘who gets how much money from who’. The negotiations are then just a zero-sum game of ‘playing hardball’, threatening to walk away etc etc so you can try and get a slightly larger share of the spoils than the other party.
It’s certainly likely that your average tory leadership candidate has more direct, thorough and/or recent experience of the various types of divorce than i do; but to me it seems as though brexit is more akin to a divorce where the main issue is ‘what the fuck are we going to do to look after our kids’. There’s just one house, that someone is going to have to move out of, and so the money that used to just about be enough to sustain a certain lifestyle for one household probably won’t stretch to doing the same for two. Think of the kids in this scenario as representing things like ‘our future shared prosperity through trade’ and ‘our ongoing ability to co-operate on the many international issues that affect us all’.
It should, I think, be obvious that in this sort of divorce, there is no such thing as ‘no-deal’. There is only the scenario where we manage to set out a framework for looking after the kids by mutual agreement, or the scenario where we have to go through a more antagonistic process to arrive at a fundamentally similar but externally imposed and policed agreement. Having wasted a lot of (already scarce) money, destroyed any mutual trust, and arrived at a probably worse solution in the process. There has to be a deal. The only question is whether it should be a ‘turn up ten minutes late to pick up the kids and you are in breach of the settlement’ kind of deal, or a more mutually agreeable ‘let’s agree to work together as best we can for the sake of the kids’ sort of deal.
As long as our government (and those who aspire to head it) continue to treat this like a celebrity quickie divorce - carving up the property, paying the bill and then just moving on to that blonde you’ve had your eye on for years - then the idea of ‘no-deal’ will continue to sound appealing. Can’t we just be done with all of this and move on? But this divorce isn’t like that, mainly because of the kids.We’re leaving the house, but we’re clearly going to have to stay in the neighbourhood. And we’re ending a particular kind of relationship, but that doesn’t mean ending all relationship. It’s commonplace in this context to hear someone implore ‘won’t somebody think of the kids?’. That would be a start, but a step further would be for people to start approaching this situation, talking about it, and talking to each other and us, like adults.
29/03/2014
On the likelihood of currency union
I imagine the average Scottish nationalist will find it surprising to see the Guardian publishing a story that might be construed as helpful to the Yesist cause, simply on the grounds that it appears to be newsworthy. Almost as if there isn't a massive unionist conspiracy involving the whole of the mainstream media. Anyway:
Independent Scotland 'may keep pound' to ensure stability
Independent Scotland 'may keep pound' to ensure stability
I say 'might be' construed because, although this is certainly a boon for the Yes campaign, it does not extend quite as far as Nicola Sturgeon would like it to. And I cannot stand the idea that she might genuinely think she has scored an actual point.
Let's take a look at that killer quote:
"There would be a highly complex set of negotiations after a yes vote, with many moving pieces. The UK wants to keep Trident nuclear weapons at Faslane and the Scottish government wants a currency union – you can see the outlines of a deal."
This is certainly music to nationalist ears - up til now the various unionist parties have stuck strictly to the hard-line position of totally dismissing the possibility of currency union. Anything that casts doubt on that script will be welcomed. So on the narrow issue at hand, the Yes camp are entitled to feel pleased.
In a wider sense, however, I am not sure this is quite such a massive coup for them. Implicit in the above quote is the idea that the UK does not want currency union - that it would not be in its interests. Of course, an independent Scotland would not be without bargaining chips, and if it wanted or needed to spend them on incentivising the rest of the UK to do a deal on currency union then that is possible. Everything is negotiable, of course.
But would the SNP be willing to pay the price, if it were the one suggested above? Salmond and co have been almost as vehement about getting rid of the nukes as they have about anything else. It is hard to see how they could sell that deal. In much the same way as it is hard to see how rUK ministers could sell any deal to cede sovereignty over the pound, unless there was something significant offered in exchange.
The position that the un-named government minister elaborates then is certainly a retreat from "Alex Salmond is promising you something that is simply impossible". But perhaps only as far as "If Alex Salmond really wants to deliver that thing he has promised you, he might be able to do so, but only if he gives up that other thing he has promised you". An acceptance of political realities, then, but hardly a ringing endorsement of the case for separation.
There are plenty of reasons to think that, if Scotland were to become independent, a currency union with the rest of the UK would be sensible. But no-one claimed that it wouldn't happen because it was a bad idea. They said that it wouldn't happen because of the political realities; because it would require the rUK to to be willing to compromise its own independence in order to facilitate Scotland's newly minted one. Those difficulties remain. The Yes campaign will no doubt feel that they have won a small rhetorical battle today, but the facts of the matter have not changed. An independent Scotland would find it extremely difficult to negotiate a currency union, and telling people to vote for independence on the grounds that it will be straightforward remains extremely disingenuous.
But would the SNP be willing to pay the price, if it were the one suggested above? Salmond and co have been almost as vehement about getting rid of the nukes as they have about anything else. It is hard to see how they could sell that deal. In much the same way as it is hard to see how rUK ministers could sell any deal to cede sovereignty over the pound, unless there was something significant offered in exchange.
The position that the un-named government minister elaborates then is certainly a retreat from "Alex Salmond is promising you something that is simply impossible". But perhaps only as far as "If Alex Salmond really wants to deliver that thing he has promised you, he might be able to do so, but only if he gives up that other thing he has promised you". An acceptance of political realities, then, but hardly a ringing endorsement of the case for separation.
There are plenty of reasons to think that, if Scotland were to become independent, a currency union with the rest of the UK would be sensible. But no-one claimed that it wouldn't happen because it was a bad idea. They said that it wouldn't happen because of the political realities; because it would require the rUK to to be willing to compromise its own independence in order to facilitate Scotland's newly minted one. Those difficulties remain. The Yes campaign will no doubt feel that they have won a small rhetorical battle today, but the facts of the matter have not changed. An independent Scotland would find it extremely difficult to negotiate a currency union, and telling people to vote for independence on the grounds that it will be straightforward remains extremely disingenuous.
12/08/2011
Another Non-Article About the Recent Riots
Like everyone else, it seems, I have noticed a conspicuous bias among those who are offering explanations for and interpretation of the recent riots. Rather than a bias about the kind of conclusions to be drawn, however, I am concerned with one about the amount of conclusions to be drawn. Isn't it at least possible that the events of the last week are not actually going to change this country forever? I can think of a few reasons why this sort of article is less common than perhaps it should be:
1) It is hard to play down the importance of the riots without sounding a bit insensitive to everyone who has lost their business, or been assaulted in the street, or been trapped in their house out of fear. To be clear, I am not saying that they are completely unimportant. Just that the might not be quite as socio-politically significant as all that.
2) The ratio of risk to reward in writing such an article is far too high. If you are wrong, you will look like a massive twat. And if you are right, no-one will really remember anyone saying anything either way anyway. So why risk it? Why indeed.
3) If there is one thing we know about professional journalists, it is that they are professional journalists. It is quite difficult to write an interesting article saying something is not very interesting, as I am currently proving. And if you do write a piece saying that the news is not very interesting, what on earth do you say or do when you have to write about it again tomorrow? Similarly, the one thing we know about people who are compelled to blog about such things in their spare time is that etc etc.
So, for all of these reasons and more, I am definitely not going to be caught saying that there might be very few lessons about society to be drawn from all of this, or even that it doesn't really tell us anything very much about anything at all. Instead I will just reminisce about the last time the government apparently "came very close to asking the army to come in", according to Jack Straw. That was in the autumn of 2001, when the country was brought to a standstill (/the brink of anarchy/its very knees) by the fuel protests. Remember them?
1) It is hard to play down the importance of the riots without sounding a bit insensitive to everyone who has lost their business, or been assaulted in the street, or been trapped in their house out of fear. To be clear, I am not saying that they are completely unimportant. Just that the might not be quite as socio-politically significant as all that.
2) The ratio of risk to reward in writing such an article is far too high. If you are wrong, you will look like a massive twat. And if you are right, no-one will really remember anyone saying anything either way anyway. So why risk it? Why indeed.
3) If there is one thing we know about professional journalists, it is that they are professional journalists. It is quite difficult to write an interesting article saying something is not very interesting, as I am currently proving. And if you do write a piece saying that the news is not very interesting, what on earth do you say or do when you have to write about it again tomorrow? Similarly, the one thing we know about people who are compelled to blog about such things in their spare time is that etc etc.
So, for all of these reasons and more, I am definitely not going to be caught saying that there might be very few lessons about society to be drawn from all of this, or even that it doesn't really tell us anything very much about anything at all. Instead I will just reminisce about the last time the government apparently "came very close to asking the army to come in", according to Jack Straw. That was in the autumn of 2001, when the country was brought to a standstill (/the brink of anarchy/its very knees) by the fuel protests. Remember them?
11/08/2011
A Small Argumentette Concerning the Causes of a Riot
I have not seen many attempts to discuss the causes of the recent (ongoing?) riots across England which haven't seemed either a bit simplistic, or a bit too partisan, one way or the other. As a precaution, therefore, I am definitely not going to say anything at all about the bigger picture, but I do want to note a wee argument in response to one particular line of thought I have seen advanced.
A couple of people I know and like have been suggesting that the paper linked to here shows that there is at least some connection between the recent rioting and the government's wildly popular program of cuts to public services. "Anyone who says the riots don’t have anything to do with the cuts should have a read of [this study]" says the man from the London Review of Books.
The paper may well show, as it claims to, that "austerity has tended to go hand in hand with politically motivated violence and social instability". Many (even most?) major riots are explicitly politically motivated, or at least follow on from demonstrations which were. That category of thing being strongly correlated with fiscal contractions etc would not be surprising. But taking this as evidence for the political motivation behind a particular riot is only plausible if you accept the premise that the incident in question belongs in the same category. To advance this correlation as evidence that the recent riots are connected to the government cuts is to beg the question.
I don't want to sound too dismissive of that sort of connection in general - I expect even the most rabid conservative loyalist would accept that the temper of the times has at least something to do with the rioting. But if they didn't, the evidence presented above wouldn't necessarily give them any reason to change their mind.
A couple of people I know and like have been suggesting that the paper linked to here shows that there is at least some connection between the recent rioting and the government's wildly popular program of cuts to public services. "Anyone who says the riots don’t have anything to do with the cuts should have a read of [this study]" says the man from the London Review of Books.
The paper may well show, as it claims to, that "austerity has tended to go hand in hand with politically motivated violence and social instability". Many (even most?) major riots are explicitly politically motivated, or at least follow on from demonstrations which were. That category of thing being strongly correlated with fiscal contractions etc would not be surprising. But taking this as evidence for the political motivation behind a particular riot is only plausible if you accept the premise that the incident in question belongs in the same category. To advance this correlation as evidence that the recent riots are connected to the government cuts is to beg the question.
I don't want to sound too dismissive of that sort of connection in general - I expect even the most rabid conservative loyalist would accept that the temper of the times has at least something to do with the rioting. But if they didn't, the evidence presented above wouldn't necessarily give them any reason to change their mind.
29/03/2011
The AHRC, The Big Society and University Funding
The Arts and Humanities Research Council have released a strongly worded denial of Sunday's Observer article, which reported that the funding body had made 'The Big Society' a research priority, and in return received a rather favourable budget settlement. Most people seem to regard this as either a ham-fisted attempt by the government to 'influence' academic research, or as a ham-fisted attempt by the AHRC to suck up to HMG. It is of course neither of these, but rather a brilliant and devious strategy to advance the Prime Minister's biggest (/main/only) idea.
Anyone looking for an example of all that is evil about the 'big state' need look no further. It can't be right that the politicians can decide what research is or is not carried out in our universities. The government know this of course. They do not want an all-powerful state interfering in every area of life. If we are to believe their rhetoric, there is almost nothing they feel so strongly about. But by wielding top-down power so heinously, HMG reinforce their own case, and turn opinion against the big state. At the cost of looking hypocritical and incompetent perhaps, but they are playing the long game here. The Conservative Party are nothing if not ideologues.
[The more cynical amongst you might suggest that this is nothing more than a slightly subtler version of the strategy tried on the National Health Service between 1979 and 1997. Look how poor the NHS is! Wouldn't it be better if we all went private like we said all along! I could not possibly comment.]
Anyway, having identified their strategy, we now face something of a dilemma in responding to it. Either we accept their logic, or we accept their interference in academia*. As one of the four remaining supporters of the 'graduate contribution' scheme for funding higher education, I am lucky enough to have a way out here: of course the state should not have anything to do with universities, that is why they should be self-funding and properly independent institutions. Those who favour state-funded higher education (whether from general taxation, or a graduate tax, or research grants) have a trickier problem. How can you guarantee the independence of academia from government when the former relies directly on the latter for 80% of its funding?
*I suppose there is a secret third option here, of calling them a bunch of bastards and saying that all that is required is for some politicians who are not bastards, or who are at least a different kind of bastard, to be in power. But as long as the tories can rely on being in government 3/5 of the time, as under the current system, this is not a satisfactory answer. Of course, we could try and change that system, but that is a story for another day.
Anyone looking for an example of all that is evil about the 'big state' need look no further. It can't be right that the politicians can decide what research is or is not carried out in our universities. The government know this of course. They do not want an all-powerful state interfering in every area of life. If we are to believe their rhetoric, there is almost nothing they feel so strongly about. But by wielding top-down power so heinously, HMG reinforce their own case, and turn opinion against the big state. At the cost of looking hypocritical and incompetent perhaps, but they are playing the long game here. The Conservative Party are nothing if not ideologues.
[The more cynical amongst you might suggest that this is nothing more than a slightly subtler version of the strategy tried on the National Health Service between 1979 and 1997. Look how poor the NHS is! Wouldn't it be better if we all went private like we said all along! I could not possibly comment.]
Anyway, having identified their strategy, we now face something of a dilemma in responding to it. Either we accept their logic, or we accept their interference in academia*. As one of the four remaining supporters of the 'graduate contribution' scheme for funding higher education, I am lucky enough to have a way out here: of course the state should not have anything to do with universities, that is why they should be self-funding and properly independent institutions. Those who favour state-funded higher education (whether from general taxation, or a graduate tax, or research grants) have a trickier problem. How can you guarantee the independence of academia from government when the former relies directly on the latter for 80% of its funding?
*I suppose there is a secret third option here, of calling them a bunch of bastards and saying that all that is required is for some politicians who are not bastards, or who are at least a different kind of bastard, to be in power. But as long as the tories can rely on being in government 3/5 of the time, as under the current system, this is not a satisfactory answer. Of course, we could try and change that system, but that is a story for another day.
13/01/2010
On the leader of the opposition not having any policies.
Having faced criticism for spelling out only two actual policies - on inheritance tax and a 'married couples tax break' - David Cameron appears to have concluded that this was still one too many:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/nickrobinson/2010/01/tory_married_ta.htmlAs we appear to have entered the early phases of a general election campaign, what had already seemed a curious lack of detail appears more and more noteworthy. Broadly, there are two possible explanations for this almost total lack of commitments: one political, one philosophical.
The former, arguably less charitable explanation goes something like this: Cameron and Co. have taken to heart the maxim that oppositions don't win elections, governments lose them. Taken to heart, and taken to its logical extreme. Why commit yourself now, when it is not the detail of your policies that matters, but the feelings of the voters towards the other lot? By these calculations, all the Conservative party has to do to win the next election is try to look broadly competent and faintly tolerable, and wait for the government to fail (which at the moment it certainly looks like doing).
This strategy is all the more attractive in the midst of a recession, for the above reason, and also because the majority of policy announcements at the moment would constitute 'bad news'. Cuts in public spending are much more palatable in the abstract than when actual services and actual jobs face the axe. Unburdened by detail, the Tories can make all the right fiscally responsible noises without actually spelling out what would go.
The second sort of explanation is that Cameron and his clique genuinely, sincerely believe in not having any policies. I know a lot of people have trouble attributing any kind of sincerity to anyone wearing a blue rosette but stay with me people. Not having any policies is in fact a fairly respectable strand of Tory thought, though rarely so expressed. A perhaps-more-persuasive formulation might be ‘while the left believes in legislation, the tory party believes in administration’.
On this account what people want from a conservative government is most emphatically not a heap of new initiatives and programs, but just to keep things running smoothly, ideally with as little fuss as possible. (It should be apparent that in this sense, among others, Margaret Thatcher was not a typical Conservative.) The task of the opposition therefore is not to lay out an alternative legislative program so much as it is to convince that they have the right sort of instincts: this philosophy obviously marries well with a belief in smaller government; and in being pragmatic rather than dogmatic, both themes which have been prominent in Cameron’s pitch to the voters.
As long as a party remains in opposition, the two stories outlined above might well be complimentary – indeed, even be indistinguishable - and it is possible that both are factors in current Conservative thinking. Should they find themselves in power, however, this convenience will evaporate, and it will quickly become apparent how sincerely motivated their strategy was:
It’s very easy to talk about not doing anything whilst in opposition, but to get into government and actually manage not to do anything is much, much harder.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)