Yet More Great PR For PR

This posting everyday lark is taking its toll on me. Last night I was having dreams about the Tory leadership campaign. That's not good. So I'll try to keep it short today.

Yesterday I watched Nigel Farage on LBC and he was yet again discussing proportional representation. I've posted on here before regarding the problem I have with that - Will The Brexit Party Be The Harbinger Of PR?

I may as well use this image again.

(The unholy alliance)

I don't mind the alternative vote method. In fact, I voted in favour of it back in the 2011 referendum. (Come to think of it, I may have to read up on all that to refresh my thoughts on the topic. My views have changed on many things since then.) However, proportional representation is a system for losers and part-timers in my opinion. Breaking the bond between individual politician and the local area they represent.

What attracts people to PR is that it's easy. Under the current system it's hard to get a single seat, and it requires a hell of a lot of effort for smaller parties to do so. Often over a period of several election cycles. With PR you just turn up and get a slice of the action. If you do well then great, you may get 20 seats. If you do badly then no worries, you'll still probably get 5 or 10.

I'm hugely pleased that the Brexit Party are doing so well at the moment. However, you can't hide the fact that PR is appealing to Farage because it would offer a quick and easy route into parliament. I'm sorry, but as much as I support the Brexit Party you still have to do the leg work locally. At the recent EU elections we had the situation where we voted in the Brexit Party's Brian Monteith, who lives in the south of France, to represent the north-east of England. The is acceptable in the name of Brexit as a protest vote, but it's obviously not ideal in the name of democratic representation going forward.

The Brexit Party has some excellent candidates, but no doubt some are just chancers riding the Brexit wave. Only time will tell how much this is or isn't the case. Though I take issue with most of our current mainstream party MPs, it's still nevertheless true that most do put the hours in. One of the few upsides of career politicians I guess.

Providing a Brexit bulwark against EU incursions into our sovereignty is essential, but it's not great if it comes at the expensive of obliterating all our local constituencies in the rush for PR. It's like putting up your arm to defend your face only to get punched in the stomach.

Sometimes it feels like British democracy and its values are under attack from all sides. The onward march of the EU. Scottish independence - which seems to define itself purely in opposition to Britain. The intractable issues in Northern Ireland. The intrusion of the courts into realms which should be the domain of the public, and now the push to PR.

I often wonder if all this will lead to the rise of some kind of English phoenix.

Let the people judge...

I mentioned libel laws yesterday. What I didn't note was that Richard Tice, the chair of the Brexit Party, had issued a letter to SNP politician Alyn Smith, demanding that he retract a statement made suggesting the Brexit Party were involved in money laundering.

I actually watched Alyn Smith make these statements live on TV during the election coverage on Sunday night/Monday morning. I was quite taken aback by how blatant they were. It piqued me so much that I ended up leaving a comment on one of his Twitter posts. I didn't address any of the claims he made regarding the Brexit Party, but I did point out the senselessness of the SNP's position on Brexit.

I'm now crossing the border to make raids on the Scottish political landscape :)

The SNP position seems bizarre to me. I totally understand the will for Scottish independence, and though I personally believe we're better together, I'm happy to support Scotland in its efforts to achieve independence if that's what the majority of Scottish people want. What I don't understand is the desire to substitute one union for another. Substituting the Pound for the Euro is not gaining independence - you can't truly be independent if you don't control your own currency.

Also, the British Union is a union that is returning powers to its constituent parts, but the EU is a union that is taking more and more powers away. So I really don't get the enthusiasm the SNP have for the EU. Believing in Scottish independence, yet loathing British independence seems like a circle that can't be squared.

Anyway, returning to the libel issue I may as well state my case. For me the problem with having libel laws is that it puts the responsibility on the person making the claim, but removes any responsibility from the person buying into it. Or to put it better. It puts all responsibility on the writer, but none on the reader. If people reading newspapers used their own judgement and only believed what was written if a logical argument and good evidence was provided we wouldn't have a problem. Our collective ignorance and gullibility is the real problem that needs addressing.

If you've read something in a newspaper, automatically believed it, and are now angry that you've been lied to. The blame in part lies with you for being so willing to believe claims without being provided with sufficient evidence, or investigating things for yourself.

If you have a friend and an enemy, and your enemy tells your friend a made up story about you and the friend then automatically believes it. Then your friend shares a big part of the blame.

After all, they're not much of a friend if they believe the worst without at least asking for evidence, or for the other side of the story.

Another problem with libel law is that it gives all media the veneer of verified status. As people reading think "it must be true, otherwise they wouldn't be able to print it". Or "if it wasn't true the person would be suing the paper!" and so on and so forth. So getting rid of libel laws would remove that veneer.

The ability to sue also depends largely on money. Most people simply can't afford to challenge a larger organisation over a false statement. On top of this a very wealthy person or organisation can use libel law, or the threat of libel, to stop smaller publishers from making claims. Someone making a true claim or a fair comment may end up getting dragged through the courts simply because they've came up against people with the money and power to pressure their detractors.

There's also the time and effort factor. If someone made a horrible statement about me I think I'd probably just ignore it. I certainly wouldn't like to spend weeks and months in court just to get people to change their opinion of me. Yet many would then see my lack of legal action as an admission of guilt. So with libel law it's almost like the innocent have to prove their innocence in the court of public opinion. With the public dissolving themselves of any responsibility.

Returning to the Richard Tice/Alyn Smith case though, I must say that even though I don't believe in the use of libel law myself, this did bring a bit of a smile to my face. Putting my principles aside it was nice to see people on the Brexit side of the argument punching back in such a deliberate way. It was a nice tonic to the Boris Johnson Brexit bus court case.

None of these developments are good for democracy though in my opinion. Let the people be the judge of all these politicians and their statements.

The Crime ..of Wasting Time

[Just as I've finished writing this news has came in that Boris Johnson is going to have to appear in court over the £350 million NHS bus claim. Quite timely considering the topic. What a huge waste of court time (as well as a terrible development for democracy in this country). The word shame once again comes to mind.]

Anecdote time. I went to school in a fairly rough-ish area, and I remember when I was around eight years old or so there was a big hubbub about children from my school making prank phone calls. This was in the days long before mobile phones, when there was a payphone on every street corner. Children would go to the payphone, call 999, which was free to call, and then get the police, fire service or ambulance service to come out for completely made-up reasons. As back then it was difficult to discover who was making these calls it meant that you only needed one or two children to find these pranks hilariously funny to have a bit of a problem.

Being deemed a serious issue I remember my entire school being called into a serious assembly. We've all been in this situation. Sat in the school hall in deadly silence, listening to the headmaster very sternly explain a serious problem or incident. No songs or hymns in this assembly, just a very serious telling off. I distinctly remember my headmaster very purposefully explaining when you should and shouldn't phone the emergency services. What was and what wasn't a serious issue worthy of their time and attention ..and why it was so deeply immoral to waste their time with prank phone calls. Time that could be used helping people with serious problems or that are in life-threatening situations.

In fact, I remember him telling a story about a child, no different to ourselves, who had been out with his friends making prank phone calls. Thinking it was all very clever and funny. Only to return home to find a family member had died because an ambulance hadn't been able to reach their home in time. Specifically because it had been preoccupied with prank calls. Teachers probably wouldn't be able to tell children such a grim story now. It'd probably be a story about a dinosaur needing a sticking plaster or something. It made an impression though.

Looking back I now realise that the story was probably completely made up, but it worked, and it impressed upon me and all the other children that day the seriousness of wasting police or ambulance time. So much so that I still remember it now.

Anyway, fast forward to 2019 and we now have large parts of the media and the political class calling for police involvement in all manner of un-serious things. Things that I as an eight year old, in part thanks to my headteacher, understood were not serious enough to waste police time with. Yet here we are now with Twitter spats being the focus of police time and money. With people being investigated and losing their jobs for things said in conversation on social media. All time, money and effort that could be being spent on rape and murder and all manner of other serious issues. Where is the headmaster or adult in the room to spell this out these days? Where is the conscience that asks "Is this a worthy use of police time and public money?".

Fortunately as a child I was too much of a coward to ever get in trouble making prank calls, however, I'm sure the children at my school that were making the calls felt a deep sense of shame having sat through that assembly. I felt the seriousness of it and I hadn't even done anything wrong. So I would've hated to have been in their shoes. No one seems to feel that shame now though. Calling the police because of a Twitter spat. Fine. Getting someone fired from their job. Fine.

Now I'm not saying that nothing serious ever occurs on social media. There are of course circumstances where serious action, sometimes police involvement is necessary. I'm not downplaying everything, but most of what we see today is truly mad, and to be frank quite embarrassing. Now I'm sure there are people reading this right now saying "..but, but, but ..racism, harassment, etc". However, the point stands. Normally in decent society we only call the police for serious situations. We understand it's a big deal to pick up the phone and do this. Increasingly though the understanding of what is and what isn't serious seems to be getting lost. The understanding that something can be morally wrong, but not necessarily legally wrong seems absent in many people.

The police and the state are not there to police our morals. They are there to protect our rights.

Free Speech and Examples

The biggest question seems to be what does "free speech" allow for? Especially in regard the issues arising from the use of social media. Where is the line drawn?

Now personally I'm something of a free speech idealist. I think pretty much anything goes, including libel (I'll perhaps do a separate post about libel sometime in the future so as to not get too bogged down here). However, I'm happy to compromise when it comes to threats of violence. It's obviously reasonable that the police should investigate someone who appears to be making serious threats of physical harm.

We can normally judge the intention of speech from its context. So we have to apply common sense. I have family members that say they want to kill me all the time, but it doesn't mean they actually want to do it. Even if they come downstairs to discover I've been making pasta and have left a huge pile of washing up for someone else to do, and they then state they want to "strangle me" in a momentary fit of rage. It still doesn't make that statement a serious threat or intention. It's often similar on social media. People will see a newspaper article and react much like they react to finding a huge pile of washing up. Mild infuriation, accompanied by expletives. Now that doesn't mean that it's wise or sensible to say such things on social media. Or indeed morally acceptable. In fact, I think it's something that should be criticised. However, it does mean that 99.99% of such instances are completely benign and simply not worthy of serious action.

To get to the point, I would argue that many of our problems arise because people confuse the words spoken with the actions that accompany them.

For example, let's take harassment. Let's say we have one person who doesn't like another person. I'll choose someone I actually admire so it's not too controversial. Jacob Rees-Mogg perhaps. Now if I don't like JRM and I sit at home every night writing essays about how much of an idiot I think he is, then that's not harassment. It would be a bit weird maybe, but it would be perfectly fine. At least in a legal sense anyway. It would simply be someone expressing their own opinion, in their own home, and not purposely intruding upon someone else's personal space or rights.

However, if I wrote essays every night calling JRM an idiot and then kept repeatedly posting them through his letter box then that would be harassment. As I'd be repeatedly getting in his personal space against his wishes, and forcing him to deal with things and do things he doesn't want to do. Likewise if I repeatedly called his phone number or badgered him on his social media page.

So, it's not the speech itself, it's the physical action of phoning someone, or posting something through their letter box, or stopping them in the street, etc, that's the issue. In fact, often it may be the case that harassment comes from people saying very nice things. For instance, an unrequited lover who repeatedly harasses the object of their desire. The fact that they're saying things like "you're beautiful, you're amazing, I love you" doesn't stop it from being harassment if the person receiving it objects to the constant intrusion.

People fail to see this distinction though, and erroneously deem the speech itself to be the problem. They then want to ban all similar speech. Someone harasses someone calling them an "idiot". They then want to ban everyone from ever calling anyone an idiot. Likewise if a man harasses a woman in a way that comments upon how attractive her appearance is, then people want to ban every man from ever stating a woman is attractive. It completely misses the point.

It's the same with social media. If you want to express an opinion about someone on your YouTube channel, even a negative opinion, that's fine. You're not forcing anyone to watch it. You're not intruding into another person's domain. In fact, if they come to your YouTube channel to watch the video they're making the physical effort to come to you. You're not going to them. Unless the video is purposely directed towards that person it's not a problem.

Again, it's similar with controversial opinions. For example, you're perfectly entitled to think that women are less intelligent than men, and you're perfectly entitled to publicly express that belief if you so want. Even if you want to go so far as stating that all women are idiots. It might not be a very nice opinion, and others may disagree or judge you for it, but it is just an opinion. It's not an infringement of someone else's rights ..and if someone stopped you from expressing it they would then be infringing upon your rights.

On the other hand, if you approached an individual woman and called her an idiot then that would be an act of aggression, and potentially a legal wrong. Again, it's not the word idiot itself, or even the fact that you think she's an idiot. It would be the fact that you had physically walked up to this woman and shouted it in her face. The physical act. Or similarly, if you had perhaps repeatedly sent direct messages to her on her social media account, calling her an idiot, when she had already asked you not to contact her. Again it's the act of sending the direct message.

This is all pretty obvious stuff when you break it down, but in the complex web of what's socially acceptable and unacceptable these days it's always worth returning to basic examples.

Finally..

Finally, on a serious note. If you're reading this and you feel that you yourself are being threatened, harassed or bullied - online or offline - especially if you're a younger person, then do speak to someone about it. And don't hesitate to take action, including getting police involvement, if necessary. The above article is written primarily to critique all the online drama and political points scoring we see in the supposedly adult world of politics and social debate. It's not designed to deter genuine people from seeking help and support.

If you're worried about something it's always better to be on the safe side, and the fact that you're genuinely worried shows that you feel it's serious. Therefore you wouldn't be taking such action lightly if you did decide to take it. Which is my main criticism of people in the above examples :)

Picking The Bones Out

Okay, so first up. Let's get this out the way, let's look at the results and compare them to my poor predictions. I'll use the results as they're given on Wikipedia.

(2019 result, courtesy of Wiki

 - click to enlarge)

This is what I predicted;

The Brexit Party - 37%

Labour - 16%

Conservative - 12%

Lib Dems - 10%

Greens - 9%

Change UK - 3%

UKIP - 3%

SNP - 2%

Other (Various) - 8%

This was the reality;

The Brexit Party - 31%

Labour - 14%

Conservative - 9%

Lib Dems - 20%

Greens - 12%

Change UK - 3%

UKIP - 3%

SNP - 4%

Other (Various) - 4% (5.6% technically, but many of the numbers for the above parties were rounded up)

I think in hindsight the first numbers represented my hopes, the second set the grey reality :)

Moving on. In an earlier post I shared this image - 

(Brexit in the Scales)

Now since the vote this has been one of the big debates. Adding up the votes on each side to give a mock referendum result. It's a very crude method, and the spin has been heavy on both sides. It was the question I was asking before the vote though, so let's have a look. I'll use the Wikipedia figures again.

Leave. Brexit Party (30.5) + UKIP (3.2) + Eng. Democrats (0.2) = 33.9%

Remain. SNP (3.5) + Green (11.8) + CHUK (3.3) + Lib Dem (19.6) = 38.2%

I should really add Plaid Cymru (1.0) as they're remain also. Which would bump remain up to 39.2%.

So looking at it from that angle you'd have to call it as a victory for remain. Of course, there are a million ways you can spin all this. You could point out that the Conservative Party are technically a leave party. You could also argue that many Green and SNP voters were no doubt voting with other issues as their priority.

Plus, of course, the Brexit Party did win quite handsomely as a single party.

However, I'd be very cautious in calling it either way, and I think it would be foolish for either side to think they're somehow in a winning position. The reality is that there's a huge chunk of voters in the middle who either don't have a strong position on Brexit, don't consider the issue a priority, or simply aren't bothered enough to vote. So any future referendum or Brexit-focused election would be a total dogfight. With both sides having to battle for every half-hearted voter and fence-sitter.

As I've mentioned on here before. As a Brexit supporter I often wonder if we've missed the boat by not getting the May deal through. It wasn't what any Brexiteer wanted, but it was out. If someone had offered me that long before the referendum I'd have bitten their hand off. Technically out is at least a base for getting properly out. It would also be a bulwark against people trying to take us further in. The true blinding fear for anyone worried about the direction of travel the EU is taking us all in.

The spin on both sides of the argument is already starting to annoy me. No doubt normal, less politically invested people, will be even more tired of it all ..and when normal, average people stop caring the pro-Brexit side has a big problem.

Now it just has to be about winning. Winning the argument. Winning where you need to win. Conceding ground and compromising when it's expedient to do so. I feel it's all getting lost in the hyperbole though.

EU Election - Initial reflection

I'm going to try to keep it short today, I'm super tired after staying up until the early hours watching all the results come in. As for my predictions my main takeaway is that I'm right about what's going on in my realm (the north of England), but wrong about everywhere else.

I think I've extrapolated my biases to the rest of the country. Both my experiential bias, which comes from my everyday experience of life, and also my Brexit bias. So I massively underestimated both the Lib Dems and the SNP vote. There's a big lesson for me here. When the results are completely in and the dust has settled I'll look at where my predictions went right and wrong in more detail.

As for how it all affects the Brexit debate in general I think it's difficult to tell. Both sides are now in spin mode. Though all I could see all night was the big chunk in the middle (the core Labour and Tory vote, perhaps the core SNP and Green vote too) that don't seem to see Brexit as the most important issue for them. Plus of course the numerous people who didn't come out to vote. Ultimately it's now a battle for those people I guess.

I'm still a little amazed that the Lib Dems got 20% of the vote. Bollocks to Brexit seemed a little bit cringe to me, but I guess it worked.

Also it looks like this vote will now push Labour to adopt a remain stance. Which means that Labour are dead in the north ..unless Brexit gets solved sometime soon that is.

I'll pick the bones in future posts.

Eurovisions of the Future

So it's Eurovision tonight, well the European election results anyway. Though both feel a little similar. There's something mesmerising about watching that scoreboard update. Seeing what so many people, from so many different nations, think about something is fascinating. Even if it's just about not-so-great music. I'm sure tonight will be similar. Passing judgement on equally unoriginal performances.

As I noted yesterday, I'm starting to feel a little apprehensive as a Brexiteer. I'm not changing any of my predictions (which I'll share below). That would be a bit cheeky. I'll have to live with them. I think what's unnerving me is that the latest polls tend to be similar to what I stated. Which can't be a good sign surely. It seems they're nearly always badly wrong these days.

Also, this morning I was thinking about the UKIP vote. Everyone, including myself, has slashed it right down in favour of the Brexit Party. Which seems sensible. However, given that polling has tended to underestimate the right-leaning vote in recent times I'm now beginning to wonder if the polling surveys are reaching the UKIP folk. Plus, the Yaxley-Lennon media enterprise does have a hell of a wide reach on social media. So, the size of the UKIP vote could be underappreciated, which would end up playing a part in the overall seat allocation.

I'll also be really interested to see how Scotland goes. I'm predicting that the SNP will have a bit of a dip. Which is the one prediction I'm making that still seems something of a straying from the herd.

So, this is what I went with;

The Brexit Party - 37%

Labour - 16%

Conservative - 12%

Lib Dems - 10%

Greens - 9%

Change UK - 3%

UKIP - 3%

SNP - 2%

Other (Various) - 8%

Looking at it again, it does seem a little bold compared to the polling. 40% for UKIP and the Brexit Party combined. Maybe that was wishful thinking on my part. Many of the polls seem to have the Lid Dems a lot higher as well. So I'm perhaps doing them a big disservice. One in ten voters seems like a decent chunk for them though. Of course, the fact that I'm giving up 8% to account for the various other parties in the United Kingdom skews things a little too in comparison to the standard polls. So I'll have to look at the overall vote share to see how well or badly I've done following the results.

Finally, I'm also really looking forward to seeing the results from across Europe. I've been following European politics much more than I normally would in the last few weeks or so and I feel like I'm finally getting a feel for things. In many ways the pro and anti-EU votes in Europe will be just as important for Britain as the pro and anti ones here.

A Europe of Nations..

Okay, so the second post today. Really I just want to make a note of the Europe of nations idea that's touted by the anti-EU or right leaning parties in Europe. Arguing for a Europe where individual countries retain their national sovereignty.

The debate between a federal Europe and a Europe of nations is a natural debate to have regarding the future of Europe, and it's legitimate to make the argument for either case. Then to let voters decide.

However, this labelling of everything on the Europe of nations side of the argument as racist, populist, illegitimate, etc, is ruining any chance of having genuine democratic debates. It's creating a situation where it becomes impossible for people to reform the EU from within. Therefore meaning that the only way for critics of the EU to succeed is to either leave the union, or completely destroy it.

Mobilised Remain Vote?

I think I might do two posts today. Exciting. I've seen people posting on Twitter stating that turnout for these EU elections looks to be higher in remain voting areas. Which should bolster the vote for the remain parties. As a leaver I'm actually starting to feel a little apprehensive. People seem a little disengaged with politics where I live. Then again people always seem disengaged round here.

Also, with May announcing her resignation, I wonder if we've missed the boat. Here we are taking part in EU elections. Elections that perhaps will just lead to more questions and speculation. Meanwhile we could've been technically out now with May's deal. With one foot out the door and a bad deal in our hand. We could've simply sat back and watched these EU elections from afar. Knowing that every vote on the continent for an anti-EU party would strengthen our negotiating position.

It'll be interesting to see which side comes on top. If any. The Brexit Party have ran a very slick and professional campaign, however they're relying on the common sort of folk to get out and vote. If turnout is higher in remain areas it could be a sign that the remainers are more mobilised overall.

One thing I'm very aware of in politics is that the more affluent tend to be more proactive. It's like with schools places. More middle class people will get very active in their efforts to make sure their child is in a good school. Studying all the local schools, getting involved in parent-teacher groups. Even moving house to get in the catchment area of a good school. However, poorer people tend to just accept what they're given. They may whinge about the local comprehensive down the street, but they'll still just send their child there.

I think this attitude is largely a consequence of money/economic freedom, but also a consequence of education. You could even perhaps say, controversially, a consequence of intelligence or natural ability on the part of the parents themselves. I can get away with saying this, being working class myself :)

Though, on the flip side, it could also be that more affluent people tend to be more self-interested. Or aggressive in getting what they want. In fact, I remember when going into secondary education my teachers wanted my parents to apply for the independent school in our area. However, to my mam, a socialist, this was just out of the question. Everyone should go to a state school. No special treatment. This was something I was over the moon about at the time as I just wanted to go to the school all my friends were going to anyway.

I think it's the same with politics. Remainers, unhappy with the current situation, will be proactive in achieving their ends. Conservative voting Brexiteers, likewise unhappy, will also be proactive in getting rid of any Tories not doing their duty. However, people in working class areas will largely just accept what they're given. If they're given an alternative option, such as the Brexit Party, they may go out and vote. If there's little hope of an alternative though they'll just accept their lot.

These are all generalisations of course, but the general trends will probably make the margin of difference all other things being equal.

Labour Which Way. Part 2.

A few days ago I said I would look at whether it would benefit Labour more if they went remain over leave. I've had a think and have came to the conclusion that I don't really know. I think it really is just a judgement call at this point.

The poll that originally got me thinking about it was this one;

(click to enlarge)

Suggesting that Labour would go up 12 points if they moved to a pro-remain position.

A general reading of the poll would suggest that they've took most those votes from the Lib Dems (down -6 in the poll) and the Greens (-4). The Lib Dem shift seems logical. The Green vote looks a little odd though. You'd think the Greens would be guaranteed at least 5% in these EU elections whatever happens.

So again, my feeling still is that Labour are losing a lot of support to the Brexit Party. The towns in the north of England are Labour's castle strongholds. A loyal core vote. If you lose territory like that on the map you really end up with a big problem. Again though, it's very hard to judge.

It's going to be fascinating to see the results of yesterday's vote.

Andrea Leadsom Leaving..

So Andrea Leadsom quit the cabinet yesterday. This feels highly symbolic. She's someone I really admire, and she's quit at the same point that I would've quit had I been in her position. She seems very balanced. I really hope she becomes the next Tory leader.

I vaguely remember her being touted for leader after Cameron left, but I think the establishment at the time (however you want to define that) felt it was a gamble too far. So the idea was stepped on. The Brexit referendum sped the British car up, bringing in Theresa May was like putting the seat belt on.

I think it's really difficult to judge whether this was a good decision or not. Looking back in hindsight it's very easy to deem it a mistake, but it's impossible to know what reality would now look like had we taken a different course. Perhaps Theresa May has been a useful buffer between the pre and post Brexit worlds. Everybody says Britain is in "chaos", but it really isn't. British democracy is in a very healthy and vibrant mood.

Theresa May has steered a middle ground. How many other people in the country can genuinely say that. I don't know when she'll leave, but assuming it's soon I think she deserves some respect and credit. She did offer a Brexit ..which people on both sides voted down.

Having Theresa May in the middle has meant that neither side has been able to push too far. Of course, being a Brexiteer I believe Brexit really must happen now. However, at the same time, I think it's all been a bit of a shock to many people on the other side of the argument. It probably feels like the French Revolution to them, though it very much isn't. So giving everyone a breather and a chance to express their grievances has probably been therapeutic for democracy as a whole.

I really think the British system, an ill-defined democracy that has evolved over centuries, is like an organism. It's digesting Brexit. No one quite knows exactly what's happening, but the organism is doing something.

Britain is bigger than the sum of its parts and ultimately it will outsmart every single individual.

Labour Which Way - Leave or Stay?

I'm trying to post daily on this blog, can you tell? It seems like a good exercise to try to force myself to post, as normally on my other blogs the turnover is quite slow. So I feel like it's a good idea to have something a bit more frequent.

Today I'll keep it short (hopefully). On here I've tended to chastise the Labour Party for not listening to the northern, pro-Brexit vote. However, over the last day or so I've seen people, mainly those from the anti-Corbyn side of the Labour Party, arguing that they could increase their vote share by going the other way - i.e. going full remain.

To be fair I should probably consider things from that side of the argument. It's easy for me, completely unaffiliated with the Labour Party, to state what's right and wrong. However, when you're in that position it's not so easy. Plus I do have two big biases. Firstly, I'm pro-Brexit. Secondly, I live in the north of England. Two things that no doubt skewer my views a little. So in future posts I'll try to weigh up which way would be the most prosperous route for Labour, electorally speaking.

My current view is that Labour have made a big mistake in not backing Brexit. Again though, living in a northern, Labour-voting town, perhaps only gives me a narrow view of the situation. The normal people I know and meet certainly aren't debating whether to go Lib Dem or Green at these European elections. Though, of course, such people do exist up here too. In fact, I've seen a few friends on Facebook liking the Green Party in the last week or so. So perhaps that's telling.

So I'll have a look at the recent polls and try to make a fairer judgement over the coming days.

Game of Thrones and Vesak

A slightly different tone today. Mainly to make note of a nice little coincidence. A personal tone I guess. It was my birthday yesterday - something I'm normally not massively bothered about. Anyway, I began it very early, sitting down to watch the final episode of Game of Thrones at 2 am in the morning, UK time. Quite a decent birthday present.

The final season of Game of Thrones has disappointed quite a few fans of the show, however, I've enjoyed it. Though I think I went into it with lower expectations. Appreciating how hard it is to end a show like this. I certainly can't envision a better way the show could've ended. Plus it'll probably look like a work of art once the endless spin-offs start appearing.

As I was settling down to watch it I noticed the moon was out. Creating quite an atmosphere. Watching the show has very much been a journey that all the fans have been on. It feels important. Certainty for a TV show. In many ways it feels like a semi-mythological retelling of human history. So the final episode was a big event for viewers, and a full moon was quite fitting.

Finally, last night - i.e. the tail end of the very same day - I put something on randomly to listen to as I was settling down for sleep. It turned out to be about Wesak (or Vesak). This is a Buddhist holiday, timed with the full moon in May, that celebrates the Buddha's birthday (and death-day). So the day had a slightly eerie, but very rounded feel about it.

One World Religions and One World Visions

I was completely unaware of Vesak. In fact, what randomly led me there was that I'd been listening to videos from the Lucis Trust YouTube page. The Lucis Trust is a nonprofit organisation, originally founded by the writer Alice Bailey, that has strong roots in the esoteric religion of Theosophy. Co-founded by the famous Madame Blavatsky. It was originally called the Lucifer Publishing Company. I'm guessing the change to Lucis was to make the association slightly less blatant.

(The logo of the Lucis Trust)

What's particularly interesting, and I guess what pricked my ears, is that it also has links to the United Nations. Which seems odd ..unless like me you already have a slightly conspiratorial worldview. So over the last week or so I've been reading stuff from the Lucis Trust website, listening to some of their videos on YouTube, but also watching some of the stuff online that's more critical of the organisation. That is, stuff that claims they're pushing a one world Luciferian agenda, which aims to overthrow Christianity and its accompanying moral values.

Having consumed all this media I'm actually sympathetic to both view points in a way. Both seem interesting, though I must admit confusing as well.

This idea that Lucifer, the light-bringer, is actually a force for good is quite fascinating. It's an exact inversion of the Christian tradition. The New Age view seems to be that humanity is on a journey to become one with God. The Christian view point then arguing that these people are trying to elevate man above God. To become gods themselves. That these New-Agers and Luciferians believe the God of the bible to be a bad god, who has imprisoned humanity. With Lucifer or Satan then being a positive force in their mind, helping man to escape.

The Lord of Light from Game of Thrones springs to mind.

Again, with the Garden of Eden story. In Christian tradition the snake is evil and eating the fruit was a bad idea. In the opposing view point the snake bringing knowledge is a positive act. Something which elevates humanity.

Perhaps both these views are two necessary sides of the same coin? Parts of the same human story. Or perhaps it's all just nonsense. I really can't tell.

Globalism viewed through this lens looks very odd though. Running parallel to the nationalist versus globalist debate there also seems to be this Christian versus New Age dichotomy. The fact that groups like the Lucis Trust have links to organisations like the UN does make it look like more than just politics at times. That perhaps some of the people driving these political changes have deeper beliefs and a grander vision.

The fact that the European Parliament building in Strasbourg is built in imitation of the Tower of Babel perhaps makes more sense through this lens.

(Left: The Tower of Babel - Pieter Bruegel the Elder

Right: The Strasbourg Parliament)

In the biblical story humanity builds a tower to reach God. However, God destroys the tower and scatters the people. Which leads to humans being separated by their mutually indecipherable languages. A European union, or perhaps a wider global union has obvious parallels.

So who is right and who is wrong? Who is good and who is evil? I'm really not sure. If you're going to piss off God though, at least do it democratically :)

We've All Been Milk-shaked Really

So, today Nigel Farage got the milkshake treatment. I've also just watched EUkeep candidate Carl Benjamin interview a young lady who was in quite an emotional state over the whole immigration/racism issue. I felt quite sorry for her. She really appeared to believe that every potential Brexit Party or UKIP voter was in the grip of a racist frenzy. The media really has a lot to answer for.

For democracy to function properly people need to be able to speak and debate, but it's impossible when the label of racist is thrown around so liberally. I remember being at a party/barbecue type thing in the run-up to the EU referendum in 2016. The topic came up and I, being too honest to pretend to support remain, stated that I was voting leave. A friend in my social circle from the Czech Republic was there. A really lovely guy. I remember feeling truly awful making the case against the EU in front of him. He was too polite to even join in the argument. I remember wanting him to join in so I could explain my reasoning to him, but instead I had to just go on the defensive against mainstream media parroting remainers. Though, of course, no one had coined the term remainer back then.

It was similar on Facebook. Posting stuff on there knowing full well that Polish friends would be reading. You knew it looked as though you didn't want them in your country. Though that's not what you meant at all. It was awkward. Even if you stated unequivocally that's not what you meant, you still knew it was going to feel like that from their point of view. I can totally understand why many leavers kept their faith hidden in the run-up to the referendum.

That's partly why the condescension and accusations of racism from the "liberal" media are so stinging. Not only did most people know what they were voting for, but many had difficult conversations like that in the run-up to the referendum. In spite of the social repercussions, because they believed it was the right thing to do. Offending people, sometimes friends, was bad, but the madness of the EU project was deemed worse.

Now, in the three years since the referendum, we've had to deal with the same thing only in cinema-scope. When we all just wanted to get on with our lives.

Aussie Polling Wrong Too

So I actually watched some of the coverage of the Australian election results yesterday. It was quite interesting. I feel like I've went from complete ignorance to beginner level. I actually know some names of Australian politicians now. Though to be fair I was already vaguely aware of Tony Abbott - who lost his seat.

What interested me the most was that the polling predictions were wrong yet again. A victory for the Labor Party (who I think are like our Labour Party minus the "u") was expected, but the incumbent Liberal-National coalition won it. The bookmaker Sportsbet even paid out early on a Labor Party victory, costing them 1.3 million Australian dollars. So quite a big blunder.

(Costly ..great advertising though)

This expensive mistake comes as the latest in a long line of calls the pollsters have gotten wrong. Trump and Brexit being the two biggies of course.

My personal feeling is that the polls are wrong because of the way they're being conducted. However, I saw many people online yesterday putting it down to a different factor. They state that because of the politically correct atmosphere that's current in the world right now, voters are unwilling to share their true feelings with pollsters for fear of being judged right-wing, racist, uneducated, etc. Leading to an underestimation of the right-leaning vote. Which then emerges when people go to vote in private.

This seems like quite a logical evaluation, so it's swayed my thinking a little. I'm still more of the opinion that it's down to the polling itself though. (It could of course be a combination of the two).

I'm not sure how Australian polling is carried out, but most UK polling is now done online.

People freely sign up with online polling organisations, and then get paid 50p or a £1 (sometimes more) for every survey they complete. The invitations to complete the surveys are generally sent out to them by email. With maybe one or two invitations coming each week or so, depending on the circumstances.

In my view this immediately introduces a number of biases into the surveying.

Firstly, it's only polling people who are online. Now sure, most people are connected to the Internet these days. However, there are still a lot of people out there that either aren't connected, or that do have access but don't take advantage of it. We all have family members, particularly older family members, that don't like using technology. That barely know how to open a laptop even. All these people are omitted from these surveys.

Given that these people tend to be older, and are less connected to the wider world, they probably also tend to be more conservative in nature. It means that a whole demographic is missing. Sure, pollsters will say .."but we make sure to have people from all age groups represented in our polls!". However, it stands to reason that a 70 year man who is online, au fait with technology, and young at heart so to speak. Will tend to have a different outlook on life to a 70 year old man sat watching TV all day. A bit of a generalisation, but still..

Secondly, of all the people active online these surveys are only polling the people that have chosen to sign up with a polling company. Introducing yet another bias. Not everyone has the time or patience to sit around doing surveys. Many people won't have even considered the possibility.

Also the time spent doing it is offset by the monetary gain that comes from it. I know from doing these surveys myself. The sort of people that do them are usually people that are looking for ways to make a little bit of extra money. For example, when I used to do these surveys it was because I was a student, or in part time work (or wasting time making zero money blogging). A cheque in the post for £50 every now and then was something I was very pleased to get. I deemed it worth the hours it took to boringly fill out questionnaires on various things I had little interest in.

Of course most people with a proper job or a busy life aren't going to see it the same way. Again, it stands to reason that people willing to give up half an hour of their week to make 50p represent a particular demographic. Everyone not interested in making 50p this way - i.e. people who are relatively well off, people who don't need the money, people who just can't be arsed, etc - aren't likely to be represented in these polls.

Then thirdly, the people looking to make extra money this way will no doubt sign up with multiple polling organisations to maximise their money-making potential. I was signed up with three of the bigger polling companies myself. So consequently all these different polling organisations will likely be polling the same people again and again.

I really don't know how they can get around these biases without changing their methods.

Australian Dumbocracy

So Australia are going to the polls today. I have no idea what's going on over there, or what will happen. Hopefully I might be able to get something of an overview as the day progresses. However, one thing I do know is that Australians are forced to vote, as they have compulsory voting.

Now this just seems wrong to me. Firstly, I'm not too comfortable with the idea of forcing people to do anything. Surely people should have a right to choose what they do and don't do. We normally call this freedom.

Secondly it seems like a great way of getting a terrible outcome. If someone has no interest or passion for politics, and you force them to vote. Surely they'll be voting for superficial reasons, rather than due to a genuine belief or a considered opinion. Also, it stands to reason that these people will be the most easily swayed by advertising and "slick" campaigning.

It's like if you're voting to decide who the top Premier League footballer is. Do you want a poll of a thousand people who genuinely watch football, or a poll of two thousand people, half of whom have never seen a game?

That extra thousand will have to vote based on purely superficial reasons. They'll be voting for the best looking player, or the player with the coolest sounding name. Or perhaps a player they've seen in an advert or on a TV show.

Maybe even just completely randomly. It would totally skew the good judgement of the thousand genuine football fans.

Also, I think I read somewhere that the fine for not voting is the equivalent to about £11. Now to most wealthier Australians this isn't really that much money. So perhaps it encourages (or forces) poorer, less educated people to vote more so than wealthier ones. It's like Greek democracy in reverse 😅

Poorer people tend to vote more towards the left as well. Can I use the term cultural Marxism ..or is that banned now these days? xD

Finally, in the UK, there are lots of people, many I know in real life, who have zero interest in politics. They barely know who Theresa May is. I despair a little when talking to people like this, and try to encourage them to get involved. However, at the end of the day, who am I to tell these people what to do? Perhaps they have the right idea after all. Maybe they're happier staying well away from the whole charade and focusing on their own life.

The Labour Split

Last night I watched This Week on the BBC. There was yet another attack on Jeremy Corbyn from within the Labour Party itself. Or rather from a politician who had recently left the Labour Party, on behalf of that anti-Corbyn faction within it. Urging the party to ditch Jeremy.

Now this caused me to fire off a few tweets.

(That 5% is a total guess, don't hold me to it)

I shouldn't really use Twitter, as on reflection it always just looks as though I'm firing off insults at people (I'm not quite as bad as most people on there, but still, it's all a bit unnecessarily rude and shouty). I think it's the immediacy and shortness of that form of communication that lends itself to confrontation. In many ways it's a great way of debating really, but it makes us all look like dicks. I'm surprised no one has came up with an imitation app just for politics called Parliament to be honest. Maybe they have? I'm too bored to look.

Anyway, to get to the point, the purpose of my tweet was to simply ask what section of the UK demographic a Corbyn-less Labour Party would be aiming to attract.

They ditch Corbyn - losing many of the young student voters and traditional socialists on the left.

They then move even further to the left on Brexit (and consequently immigration), alienating many people to right.

What demographic of voter can they hope to gain from such a move in direction?

It looks like pretty much the Liberal Democrat vote to me.

How many standard voters in the country want a party that's more to the right of Labour as it currently stands, yet with essentially open door immigration? I can't really imagine it's that many people. Plus people really hate Blairism !! As I said in a previous post, many traditional Labour voters in the north of England were envious of Scottish voters for having the SNP as an option during the pre-Corbyn years. Precisely because of the type of socialism the SNP were offering in comparison to Labour.

Personally, I don't think the Labour Party as it currently is under Corbyn has any chance of winning a general election. It is way too far to the left. However, there is a significant chunk of the population (let's say about 25% - but I'm totally guessing really) that hold the traditional socialist values Corbyn stands for. That actually want what Corbyn seems to be offering economically.

Those people are entitled to have a party that represents their views.

Currently, the Labour Party is ideologically split between Corbynites - i.e. that very traditional version of socialism, and New Labourites. People, who in my opinion (as I noted in the tweet) still think it's 1997.

The party really needs to spilt formally, and both sides need to accept that each represents a much smaller chunk of the UK population than they think they do.

If Labour do ditch Corbyn, then that Corbyn faction of voters will, in the short term move to other parties, and in the medium term actually set up their own parties. As is fashionable in politics currently. We'll end up with a true socialist party.

The Blairite, or I guess globalist side of the Labour Party will then be free to go after their target audience. Pro-EU voters, who are a bit to the left of the Conservatives on economics. Or the Lib Dems as we normally call them.

Will the Brexit Party be the Harbinger of PR?

I'm a fan of the Brexit Party and will be voting that way in the upcoming EU elections next week. Ideally I'd prefer it if the EU could be reformed so that it became more of a forum for sovereign nations, rather than a solid single entity. However, that doesn't seem at all likely. If anything the arguments on the pro-EU side for further integration are getting ever louder. So given the choice between British sovereignty and a European super-state it's Brexit all the way for me.

Consequently I'm a big fan of Nigel Farage at the moment. The one problem I have with him though is that he seems to be a big fan of proportional representation. So with the Brexit Party riding so high currently I wonder if at some point down the line. Let's say if Brexit isn't delivered by Labour/Tory, and the Brexit Party stand candidates at the next general election. That perhaps PR could become part of a wider manifesto.

(Is this likely?)

PR is attractive to smaller parties for obvious reason. It offers an easier way into power - or at least partial power. It's also something that is attractive to many people that are sick of the two main parties, as again it offers greater hope that they can be pushed aside. So there's always the possibility that there could be a coalition of the disenfranchised, from both sides of the political divide, that pushes for a move to PR. That disenfranchised chunk of the vote is getting bigger and bigger by the day it seems.

So that's a minor, though distant fear I have.

So why do I have such a problem with proportional representation..

My problem is that it devalues the individual and gives parties and organisations too much power. So though smaller parties get a boost from PR, independent candidates (and more single-minded individuals that are members of parties) take a significant hit.

In an ideal democracy we would represent ourselves in person, however as it's simply not practical for everyone to do this we vote for someone else to represent us on our behalf - representational democracy. I've wrote about this elsewhere (see An Island - An Example).

As we're voting for a person, and investing our power in a person, we can have more confidence that we know who and what we're voting for. For example, if I vote for a member of the Labour Party (not that I would do that at the moment xD ) and I feel confident that he/she is a good, honest person. I can feel confident that they'll do the right thing in parliament or in government even if the Labour Party itself gets hijacked by people with views different to those which I was voting in support of. Likewise, if I believe the person I voted for is doing a bad job I know exactly who is responsible and to not vote for that person going forward.

So by having an individual person, representing my individual area, there is direct accountability to me the voter. Which cannot be fudged or ignored by the party. It also empowers the individual politician as it means that as long as he acts in the interests of the people he represents the people will continue to vote for him. So even if the party throws him out for not following the party line they can't kick him out of his seat if he has a strong bond with his constituents. So his relationship to his local area gives him real leverage.

Also with PR it means that small constituencies must be broken down to make way for larger regional or national blocks. For instance, a single seat can't be split between three or four people. So PR can't work under a system where one constituency has just one representative. PR therefore means the annihilation of small constituencies. Breaking the bond between representative and local area.

This is again why it's a terrible system for independent candidates. For example, it's perfectly possible for a single person to win a seat in their local area with a lot of hard work. Let's say in Middlesbrough, where I live. An individual can campaign locally in Middlesbrough, get to know the local people, get involved in local issues, and become well known enough to attract votes - i.e. it's easy for someone to become famous in a small community.

However, if we moved to a PR system similar to the one we're using for the upcoming EU elections, where we vote for people to represent the entire north-east, then this becomes nigh on impossible. A normal person can become well known in Middlesbrough through hard work, but they can't become well known in Middlesbrough, Newcastle, Sunderland, Hartlepool and so on and so forth. All at the same time and to win enough votes to get elected across that region. Only someone with a lot of money, or someone who is already very famous can do this. So such a system favours a party or organisation over an individual. As only a party or group could cover such a large area adequately.

In these upcoming EU elections I may find myself voting for people who have never stepped foot in Middlesbrough. That's not great representation. So I'll be voting for a party in the hope that the people under that party banner do a decent job. As I have no real link to them.

Parties generally stand for a certain set of values and ideas. However, these can change over time. It also may be the case that different people within a party have different views. For instance, take the chasm of difference between Tony Blair and Jeremy Corbyn. So ideallly we should always vote for the individual rather than the party.

Another good example concerns Nigel Farage himself. UKIP is now a very different party to that which it was under his leadership. It has the same name on the tin, and supposedly the same or similar values, but it is in fact very different. People trust Farage because they are familiar with him and know enough about him to have confidence that he will do what he says he will. This is incredibly important. Having knowledge about the person we're voting for is very useful when judging how much faith we should put in them.

Any group or party can stick a few slogans or promises on a piece of paper, but a reputation of good personal action and behaviour takes time to acquire. We can judge a person on their actions, but a party is more malleable and hard to pin down.

A final problem with PR is that there are so many different versions of it. Some which invest power largely in the party, others which, to be fair, put more emphasis on the individuals standing. The Wikipedia page on PR is quite a read (!). So again, we'd be replacing a simple system of personal representation with more fudge and confusion.

The PR principle of every party being equally represented in a parliament is attractive in an idealistic sense, but in reality it empowers parties and the money and groups behind parties. Not the individual voter or the voted for. I hope enough people in the Brexit Party realise this if they do begin to acquire real influence.

EU Poll Predictions - Edited

I think I'll have to update my poll predictions. It feels a little bit like cheating changing them, but having watched things over the last week or so my views have shifted a little.

This is what I had;

The Brexit Party - 32%

Labour - 16%

Conservative - 13%

Greens - 9%

Lib Dems - 8%

UKIP - 6%

Change UK - 4%

SNP - 2%

Other (Various) - 10%

However, 6% for UKIP seems a little optimistic now given how much they've nosedived. It's almost like they've disappeared from the debate. So I'll give two-thirds of their vote to Nigel.

I've also noticed that the general polls seem to have dropped Change UK to below 5% now. More in line with what I  was thinking. So I think I'll bring them even lower. I'll go with 3%. The Lib Dems can get an extra mark.

So for now I'll state;

The Brexit Party - 36%

Labour - 16%

Conservative - 13%

Greens - 9%

Lib Dems - 9%

Change UK - 3%

UKIP - 2%

SNP - 2%

Other (Various) - 10%

I'm tempted to take both Labour and Conservatives even lower. Some polls are suggesting that the Conservatives could end up in single figures. I'll stick with what I've got though.

Also, I've given a standard 10% to cover all the other parties across the UK. A copy and paste from the results of 2014, according to Wikipedia.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_European_Parliament_election_in_the_United_Kingdom

However, 2.5% of that went to the BNP and a minor eurosceptic party called Independence from Europe. So perhaps I should give that, or a chunk of it at least, to the major pro-Brexit parties. In fact, I will. Let's give one percent to each. Actually come to think of it, I'll also knock a percentage point off the Tory vote and give it to the Lib Dems. So scratch that last list xD

The more I think about it the more it seems that there's little reason for Conservative voters to support their party at this election, and if even the normal polls are showing a drop the actuality must be pretty bad indeed.

The Brexit Party - 37%

Labour - 16%

Conservative - 12%

Lib Dems - 10%

Greens - 9%

Change UK - 3%

UKIP - 3%

SNP - 2%

Other (Various) - 8%

Hopefully that's it and I won't have to change things again before the election comes round. Then again though a week seems a long time in politics these days :)

Globalism vs Globalism

The Brexit debate, like the Trump election and the various other current populist manifestations, is generally viewed as nationalism versus globalism. Obviously there's some truth to this. However, I can't help but feel it's not so much nationalism versus globalism, but more a battle over two types of globalism. One a clearly envisioned top-down globalism. The other a more foggy and less defined bottom-up version.

A good recent example that springs to mind is the constant labelling of the YouTuber PewDiePie as a "nationalist" by the mainstream media. This is a Swedish guy, living in Brighton, England. With an Italian girlfriend. An obsession with Japanese culture, and a truly global audience. Who makes media content for a global audience. A very odd type of nationalist if indeed he is one. Which I don't think he is.

The truth is the media don't like him not because he's a nationalist, but because he's the wrong type of globalist. (Plus, to be fair, he has said a few mildly controversial things).

He's a self-made globalist. Who isn't as easily managed as the people within the corporate top-down structures. Sometimes he says things he's not supposed to say. Or doesn't quite follow the narrative the more organised leaders of globalism have in mind. He's freer. A loose cannon in their eyes.

(YouTube creator PewDiePie)

Anyhow, this top-down/bottom-up battle has got me thinking about freedom of movement. As in open borders. This is the one major attraction of the EU (and the other globalist plans and projects). At least in an idealistic sense anyway. This idea that we're all one people, that we can all freely go and live wherever we want. It's a noble vision. It's optimistic.

Now if, on the other hand, you find yourself on the opposite side of the argument you look at best pessimistic. Saying "sorry, we're full now, you can't come in!" looks a bit selfish. Even racist or bigoted in the eyes of many people. However, it really does depend on the context, and you could even argue that it's bigoted to judge and label people as racist simply for having a view on immigration different to your own.

If you have a nice house and a nice job and everything is going well for you it's very easy to be optimistic. Things seem to be heading in the right direction. In contrast, if you live in a tiny council flat with three kids, there's damp on the walls, one of your kids has asthma and you've been on a housing waiting list for 18 months. All the time knowing full well that more immigration means more waiting, and more hardship for you and your family, it's not quite so easy to be enthusiastic.

I often think of it like hosting a party. At 8:00 pm there may be 30 people in your home. There's a very cordial atmosphere and everything's running smoothly. By 9:00 pm there are 40 people. The drinks are flowing and everyone's having a great time. When 10:00 pm comes around there are 50 people - you start to worry if you have enough room for everyone. If you have enough food and drink. What if things get out of hand? How is everyone getting home? ..and so on and so forth.

By 11:00 pm there are now 60 people and you decide it's time to stop letting anymore people in. You feel a little bad turning people away, but you know it's the sensible thing to do. Your friend, who's drunk and in an ebullient mood at this point, then tells you to stop being mean and to let these nice people in - they only want to have a good time, they've came all this way. However, it's easy for your friend to say that. It's not their house. They're not the ones that are responsible for all the people inside. They won't be cleaning up the mess. They won't be facing the consequences of things getting out of hand.

Your friend is pretty much the liberal elites right now, calling everyone in Europe and North America horrible racists simply because they're concerned things are getting out of hand and want to put the brakes on.

Still though, the idea of open borders is a great ideal. So it's understandable why the more heady and idealistic are so reluctant to abandon the idea.

So, is there a bottom-up way of having open borders?

I would say yes.

There's no reason why countries can't have open border arrangements with each other, as long as the underlying sovereignty is still respected. This essentially means entering agreements with the proviso that such agreements can be ended by either party if they feel it's not in their interest to continue the relationship. Much like entering a marriage, but with the right to divorce at some point in the future. A fixed period of time, say 10 or 20 years would be perfect. Then if things were going well it could simply be renewed for another 10 or 20.

A bit like leasing a property. An agreement that has a fixed time period, at the end of which it can be renewed or ended depending on the wishes of the parties involved. The beauty with such fixed time agreements is that it places responsibility on both sides of the arrangement. The landlord has to behave well otherwise the tenant will up sticks and leave. The tenant has to respect the property, otherwise the landlord can decide not to renew the tenancy. Obviously, in real life things aren't always as simple. However, it's much preferable to being tied into a bad situation in perpetuity with no leverage.

Whether two countries should have an open border agreement or not should be dependant upon three questions.

a) Is it mutually beneficial?

b) Is there a reasonable amount of economic parity?

c) Is there mutual respect between both countries?

That it's mutually beneficent is desirable for obvious reason. It's only fair that it should be in both party's interests to have an open border. Likewise economic parity, and parity in living standards, is desirable as it means that there won't be excessive movements of people or wealth. Limiting potential chaos, conflict and upheaval. A certain amount of legal parity and synchronisation is also obviously necessary.

As for the third point, "respect" is perhaps the wrong choice of word. However, by it I simply mean that the countries involved must actually like each other and have common bonds and values. Both in regard the respective governments and the people at large. For example, not even zealous open-border advocates would argue that Britain should have complete open borders with countries like Saudi Arabia and China as per the current world situation.

If we look at the open borders within the EU and apply the above rules we can see what did and didn't fit.

If we consider Britain and Germany first.

Is it mutually beneficial to both countries? Yes. Is there a reasonable amount of economic parity? Yes. Is there mutual respect between each country? Again, Yes.

Consequently both British and German people are relatively happy with the situation, and the migration between both countries hasn't been excessive.

If we then consider Britain and Romania things are a little different.

Is it mutually beneficial? Probably not. At least from the British perspective anyway. Is there a reasonable amount of economic parity? No. There's a fair bit of difference. Is there mutual respect? Yes, to an extent, but Romania is much more remote and culturally different to Britain than Germany is. There aren't any deep cultural ties and bonds between the two countries.

Consequently, many British people aren't especially happy about this open border arrangement. Plus, due to the economic disparity there has been an excessive flow of people. Creating tension.

Now this appraisal may sound a little unfair, and people reading may disagree with it. However, the only true judge is the democratic process. It's the only fair way we can decide these things. So I would argue that all such border arrangements must pass the test of democracy. Democracy provides a feedback loop where information is constantly being fed into the governing system. When this system breaks down or is ignored sooner or later chaos ensues. This is why the EU is now in chaos.

You may also be thinking that it would be impractical for each country to have its own arrangements with other countries. Who all in turn have arrangements with other countries themselves. However, such a system would actually be more flexible, more robust and less chaotic. A fluid multi-lane system.

Look at the chaos the Brexit process is causing now. Especially to EU nationals living in different countries to their origin. This chaos is a consequence of the EU not planning or allowing for a country to change its plans or to choose a more flexible arrangement. Or to respond to its democracy. Again, like getting married without the provision for getting a divorce. Though much worse, as this is politics and it requires common sense. Unlike love and marriage which is ennobled by such hope and eternal vows.

So, currently there is no plan for what happens to EU nationals living in Britain precisely because such circumstances were never envisioned by the idealists creating this new world in their image. With every EU border dissolving by decree of these heady few, instead of in lockstep with the democratic processes of the countries involved.

A fluid system would envision such changes and plan for them. This should not be beyond human reason. Really the EU should be a forum for democracies to arrange agreements and accordance with each other. Not be a liberal tyrant doling out gifts that do not belong to it.

****************

The Scott System for Free Movement

EU Elections - What Would Be Success?

In the last post I showed this little schematic;

However, I failed to state what success for either side would be.

It's really hard to judge. The most basic way of judging will simply be which side gets the larger vote share. Can this really be considered a "win" for either side of the argument though given it represents such a small share of the wider vote?

For the EU referendum back in 2016 the turnout was a huge 72.2%. The turnout for the last EU elections in the UK, in 2014, was 35.6%. So if the turnout out is similar this time about half the voting population will be unrepresented in the numbers. On top of that many will be voting Conservative or Labour, so it'll be difficult to gauge where these voters stand on the EU issue. What with it being so difficult to gauge where the parties themselves stand.

So it stands to reason we'll be witnessing the hardcore vote on either side bringing their troops to the table. With the "average" semi-engaged voter's opinion - the opinion which would ultimately swing any vote - remaining elusive.

So the bigger the turnout the better. The bigger the vote share the better.