Corbyn Gets The Trump Treatment

The recent story that has caught my attention is the one concerning Jeremy Corbyn's health. Or rather the supposed claims coming from two civil servants that he's too aged and frail to be PM.

This is a little bit worrying. It's reminiscent of the speculation about Trump's health when he became president. In fact, one of the claims made by the civil servants is that Corbyn is "losing his memory". It feels like another attempt to debar someone from office over health issues. The fact that it's coming from within the state is especially concerning.

In a democracy it has to be the decision of the people as to who is fit or unfit to stand for office. As with Trump, if a person can stand up and take part in public debate, and then pass the public test it stands to reason they're in pretty good shape in regard their mental faculties.

Also such talk will mean that if someone's health does begin to fail then people will begin to suspect some kind of foul play on the part of state operators. Such as poisoning or some other type of nefarious behaviour.

The Irish Dream

Today the focus is Ireland. The Irish republic really seems to be going the way of the globalists at the moment. Big climate change plans, immigration and demographic shifts. Major change.

It seems to me that Ireland is the true major political battleground in Europe at the moment, though people don't see this. If Ireland were to start going against the EU/globalist dream then that would mean that the whole of these islands would become a united and problematic block. It would also be much easier for the Irish to leave the Euro than it would for other European countries as they could just adopt the pound or have a currency pegged to the pound in some way.

I think the EU realise this and are currently doubling down. Working at breakneck speed to ensure that there's no going back for the country.

Sadly I think the antipathy the Irish have for the English means that this will only continue. It's similar with Scotland. As I've noted on here before. I really don't understand why Scotland want to leave the UK only to throw their lot in with another union. A bigger union at that and one that is actually taking power away from its constituent countries. Unlike the UK which is handing powers back.

I totally get the desire for independence, and I absolute support it if that's what the majority of people want ..but if you don't control your own currency you don't have true independence. You're just essentially a county in a bigger country. It's just a pretend independence.

I'd love to see the whole of these islands support Britain's current reach for independence. Hopefully that will happen, but I'm not hopeful.

I remember growing up watching football. As England fans we'd always support the other teams from the British Isles if England were absent. It just seemed natural to support Ireland in World Cup '94. They were our near neighbours. Of course, you always took it for granted that Scotland, Ireland and the rest didn't like us so much. A simple product of the history, but you kind of hoped that deep down they didn't really mean it.

I don't know what the future of these islands holds, but I'm sure the spirit is pretty similar right across the map.

Tory and Labour

I'll keep it short again. With Boris today the big story is that he called the French "turds" because of their attitude to Brexit lol. I really hate that word. I'm tempted to stick an asterisk in there as people do with swearwords. Terrible word. Saying that though I share his frustration and have said similar things over the last few years. Not of course aimed at the French people, but Macron & Co.

The other story is the continued wrangling over anti-Semitism in the Labour Party. With Chris Williamson being readmitted into the party. I've covered this topic on here before so I won't return to it. It is very much a further sign that the Labour Party will eventually split in half though.

Getting a little bored..

Let's get cracking. I'm getting a little bored following the Conservative leadership contest. I'm starting to feel like I'm just writing for the sake of it. Which isn't good. I've now been posting daily for well over a month. So perhaps it's just a general fatigue. I think I should try to publish a few more shorter, bulletin like posts going forward. To break up the flow a little. Like this one.

[Lazy (: ]

Socks and Models

I was hoping there wasn't going to be any Boris stories today, I really can't be arsed writing anything. They just keep coming though. Two slightly amusing ones.

Firstly this one about his claim that he makes "model buses" in his spare time lol. I've watched the interview where he says it and it's hard to tell if he's being serious or if he's just trolling. Either way it's just harmless fun. The Guardian article can't just enjoy it though, and insists on pointing out how bizarre the story is. Questions its truthfulness and even quotes one Twitter user who states;

Feels like a screw-you status thing - "I can literally say any old unbelievable shit and still become PM."

To be fair though most newspapers have commented upon the bizarreness of the story. How could you not do?

(Boris bus story, The Guardian)

Second story is from the Sun and it states that Boris has possibly been wearing the same pair of socks for three out of four days. Again ...lol. Of course, it's probably just the case that he has multiple pairs of the same style socks, but it plays into the Boris image all the same.

(Sun sock story)

Neither of these articles could be called hit pieces. In fact, the Sun tend to be pro-Boris anyway. They're just classic comedy Boris really. It feels like he's finally starting to get in campaigning mode too.

..and they jazz up the list a bit.

22nd June: Wine-sofa.
23rd June: "Far-right" Bannon links
24th June: "He want's to get back with his wife."
25th June: Hairgate (!)
26th June: Socks and model buses
27th June: ????
.....

The Boris Calendar Continues.. Hairgate

First up, in my haste to leave the house yesterday I missed this story. Claims that Boris wants to get back with his wife. I think I can probably put this in the list. The argument is that drama in his personal life will affect his ability to do the job, which is a fair point of criticism. Again though, it does just seem to be yet another personal attack.

(Boris, Daily Mirror headline)

On to today the articles all seem to be about Boris's hair. A photo appeared in the press showing Boris and his partner cordially sat at a picnic table. A seeming PR response to the "wine sofa" bust up. Anyhow, it's been pointed out that his hair in the picture looks about three inches longer than it is at the moment. Suggesting an old photo has been leaked to the press and presented as a recent one.

I saw people point this out on Twitter when the photo first appeared. Very eagle-eyed of the people who spotted it. I wasn't quite expecting the press to run with the anomaly though. Now it's very much an issue.

(The picture in question)

I don't know who's running the Boris campaign at the moment, but it's not going to plan. He's been held back from the media and has avoided debates, yet yesterday he agreed to be interviewed by Laura Kuenssberg, who's a sharp-shooter par excellence. If I was trying to manage a gaff prone politician avoiding Laura Kuenssberg would be top of the list. Then again though, I think the very fact that he's on the back foot with the media is a problem. He should just go out all guns blazing.

Everyone already understands that he sometimes says controversial things, and most people don't mind this. For many it's even a plus. The over-management is just making it look like he is completely disorganised though ..and also disingenuous.

Saying all this I get embarrassed when going to a job interview, so who am I to give advice. When you think of it, and you imagine yourself in this situation dealing with the media, it must be an absolute nightmare.

Finally, on a slightly different topic I've been watching quite a lot of Rory Stewart interviews on YouTube. I've really enjoyed them. I hope he gets onside if Boris wins. It'll be fascinating to see how things pan out in this regard now.

Oh, and I almost forgot, the list;

22nd June: Wine-sofa.
23rd June: "Far-right" Bannon links
24th June: "He want's to get back with his wife."
25th June: Hairgate (!)
26th June: ???
.....

Boris vs Hunt - The Abortion Aspect

No major Boris story today it seems. Just criticism for declining to take part in a Sky News debate. Like one of those days when you open a calendar window just to find a crappy picture of a shepherd or something.

The thing that has been most apparent to me over the last day or so is the abortion issue. Jeremy Hunt believes that the limit on abortion should be reduced to twelve weeks. Something I'm in sympathy with. This is apparently more a personal than a political issue for him though. Whereas Boris Johnson is said to have actually paid a mistress to have an abortion.

So judging on this issue Hunt seems to be the more responsible of the two. I think this is colouring quite a few peoples opinion.

I'm still very much hoping Boris wins, but it's weird when an issue like this crops up.

As an aside, on the topic of abortion I'm surprised that more people don't make a distinction between abortion for medical reasons and abortion for social reasons. We tend to just have this blanket debate about how many weeks the limit should be. Personally, were I in charge, I'd ban abortion for social reasons more or less altogether, but be very tolerant of abortion for medical reasons.

If a child is going to be born severely handicapped or the mother's life is at risk then that's a real moral conundrum. In which case abortion may be the lesser evil. I really hope I'm never in such a position to have to make such a judgement, and would never want to judge in my ignorance someone in that position.

Abortion for social reasons is quite different though, be it for personal or for wider reasons such as population control. In fact, I remember sitting on a bus about ten years ago and overhearing two college age girls sat on the seat in front of me. One, about seventeen or eighteen, was casually telling the other she was pregnant and that she was considering having an abortion. The reason she gave was that her family had booked a holiday in Turkey and if she had the baby she wouldn't be able to go. I could feel my views shifting to right with each second as I listened.

Anyway, I'll continue the Boris calendar. In spite of the lack of hit piece today.

22nd June: Wine-sofa.
23rd June: "Far-right" Bannon links
24th June: (refusing to take part in Sky News debate - fair game)
25th June: ???
.....

The Boris Johnson Mainstream Media Advent Calendar

It seems like every day there'll now be some story about Boris. First the wine sofa incident, now "far-right links" ..speaking to Steve Bannon that one is. Tomorrow no doubt something else.

(The Observer, Bannon Boris links)

Personally I really like Bannon, so that's a big plus for me. It gets my hopes up.

It stands to reason there could be some big reveals to come. The media tend to build these things to some kind of crescendo. I think the final vote is the 22nd or 23rd of July if I recall correctly. So it's a whole month of stories. It might be fun to keep a record. Like an advent calendar we may get a nice little story every day.

22nd June: Wine-sofa.
23rd June: "Far-right" Bannon links
24th June: ????
.....

Boris Drama - Easy Copy

Something to say today. Thanks to Boris. The police apparently called out to deal with a domestic issue between him and his partner. From what I can tell he spilt some wine on his partner's sofa, which then resulted in a heated argument. Standard behaviour that occurs in most normal homes from time to time.

(Guardian headline)

It's a weird time we're living in when you see a hit piece about someone in the Guardian and it actually reassures you about their suitability for a position. In spite of the fact that it portrays them in a bad light. I went to bed last night thinking "ah, he must be doing something right, perhaps he'll make a decent prime minister after all." I slept well ..much better than his neighbours did.

It's no doubt a poor way to judge things, but it does feel like it'll be a month of stories about how truly awful Boris Johnson is.

Zip All To Say Today

Literally zip to say today. It's Boris vs Hunt now in the race for PM. It looks like a fait accompli. It'll be crazy if Hunt wins though. Surely the remain-voting continuity candidate won't end up in charge after all this hubbub.

And I'll leave it at that.

Rory, King in Waiting?

So Rory Stewart went out yesterday. Difficult to know what to make of things at the moment. He's vowed to never serve in a Boris cabinet. So that means he'll effectively be sitting on the sidelines waiting for him to fail. Which adds a new dynamic to Conservative politics. There have always been Tory remainers of course, but now they have a king in waiting. To rally around, ready to pounce.

Obviously it's all speculation right now. First of all based on the assumption that Boris will win. So who knows how things will pan out in actuality. Perhaps Rory will get behind the team once the dust settles.

Also to be fair Rory did vote for the May deal, and he stated Brexit needs to happen. Plus he ruled out a second referendum. So he's certainly not a full on remainer. Certainly taking things on face value anyway. So it'll be interesting to see what happens now.

The BBC Leadership Debate - My Thoughts

I wasn't too impressed with the debate. As I was watching I tweeted that it was like watching Loose Women and accused all five candidates of being remainers, which kind of tells you how it went. On a side note I don't think I would've wrote things like that had I been calmly writing a blog post like this. So yet again it shows how Twitter brings out the impoliteness in people. Though in many ways it was perhaps a more honest appraisal than what is about to follow here.

I should start by mentioning that Dominic Raab got knocked out yesterday before the debate began. This was unfortunate as I'd been listening to him on LBC and he was very impressive. I think the Tory Party members would've probably liked both Raab and Leadsom much more than some of the candidates still left, but they're by the wayside now.

(The way it's heading it seems)

The debate itself was truly awful though. Both the format and the performances. The whole thing revolved around questions from "members of the public". I put "members of the public" in quotation marks because they were, as ever, clearly chosen with a degree of bias.

The climate change question - asked by a young person no less. The "you're all racists" question. The "I'm Irish, and we'll all start killing each other if you guys mess up the border" question. ..and of course, the "No Deal" will bring Armageddon question.

Now whether this bias is deliberate or a consequence of the bubble the media-elite exist in. Or perhaps more a consequence of the fact that most the people who go on TV to do these things tend to be attention seeking dramatists. It's hard to tell. It's undoubtedly bias though.

Rory Stewart fans should take heed of this. A "citizen's assembly" would be filled with exactly the same type of people. With exactly the same biases.

One woman complained hysterically about the prospects of "no deal". Her husband worked in "property" and her children were all at work or in university. From what I could tell her family seemed to be doing quite well, she was just worried about hypothetical problems at some point in the future. All the candidates, including Boris, pandered to her hysteria. Not one of them put her straight and said "Listen, you're worrying about hypothetical problems that are complete speculation, largely because the media has put these fears in your mind."

This is what really annoys me (I'm going into Twitter mode now). Many people have real problems. Problems they have now. Problems they had long before the Brexit vote even took place. Yet we have to constantly listen to the media class talking about hypothetical problems. As if the status quo is brilliant for everyone, and these Brexiteers are coming along and kicking over the sand castle.

For the record. The status quo is pretty bad for many people. The EU is failing. Both here and in Europe ..and guess what, no one ever voted for it or asked for it.

It was similar later in the debate when Boris was chastised for previously referring to women in burkas as looking like letterboxes. There are stabbings in London every week and countless other serious problems with the country, if your main concern is someone saying something slightly offhand in a newspaper article you need to grow up.

It's crazy. Why is this one of the main questions on a supposedly serious debate?

Anyway, you can tell it has me a little bit riled 😅

As for the individual candidates. Sajid Javid improved quite a bit from the previous debate. He showed a lot more energy. Boris was completely on the back foot. Hunt was fairly solid to be fair, and Gove didn't impress too much. In fact, when he went after Corbyn I think that did it in for him. People don't want to see attacks on the opposition party. Certainly not in a party leadership contest. It's a bad strategy. People want to know what you yourself will do.

Finally, Rory didn't manage to make a real impact. So it'll be interesting to see if he stalls now. Taking the tie off mid-debate was very memeable though. So at least he provided some entertainment.

Low Hanging Fruit

Lots of low hanging fruit at the moment. Easy to pick. However, there's so much of it that it's impossible to tell which tree the fruit belongs to, the branches are so tangled. So I best just keep my opinions to myself and sit back and observe.

Sorry, that was very cryptic wasn't it, but I guess what I'm trying to say with that is that I'm seeing things that bring out the conspiracy theorist in me. However, firstly, I'm trying not to go down that route too much these days. I'm tired of the stigma, and I don't want to be completely excommunicated from the internet. Secondly, I'm beginning to realise that I simply don't have a big enough picture to make a true judgement. Sure, I may see something in the media that I deem ..err, un-true let's say, and I may be completely right about that, but perhaps that lie is taking place in a wider context. Maybe if I understood that wider context better I'd be more sympathetic to some of the people telling the lies.

So in regard this thing with Rory Stewart potentially being an MI6 agent. It's interesting, but is it good or bad? It probably stands to reason that there are both good and bad people working in intelligence agencies. You can be a bad person working in a good organisation. You can be a good person working in a bad organisation. So ultimately you do just have to judge the person.

It does lend an extra element of confusion though, as you now become more uncertain of their motives. They may do or say something that makes them look like a wrong 'un, however you then have to think. Are they really a wrong 'un or are they just pretending to be a wrong 'un, to infiltrate the other wrong 'uns? Like a good cop getting amongst some bad criminals. Then again, perhaps they're the criminals infiltrating the decent folk.

Of course, dishonesty is common in politics anyway. So we always have to question motives sadly. Even honest politicians have to hold their tongue and toe the line to a large extent. There are so many things you just can't say.

This is one of the problems with censorship really. It forces everyone to hold their tongue. We'll end up replacing the outspoken mob, saying naughty things on the internet, with a very canny, fox-like populus. All being as duplicitous as politicians.

Press Any Key To Leave Cyberia

I've went for a name change on here. I've been thinking about having a name that reflects the fact that I'm posting daily content. Cyberia seems apt. It has a sense of digital exile. As ever with name changes I may change it again on a whim ..or just realise it sounds awful (:

The previous name didn't feel quite suited to what I'm doing now. So that had to go. I won't be changing the blog address however. It's just not that important really. Plus I don't want broken links.

Channel Four Debate: Verdict

So I watched the Channel 4 leadership debate. Looking at things from an unbiased perspective I'd have to say that Rory Stewart was the clear winner. It was a great performance and he's clearly running a superbly engaging campaign. My spidey senses are tingling though. The more I look the more I come to the opinion that he's a vehicle for remain. "No deal" off the table and a "citizen's assembly" will mean we're going nowhere if he can't get a large chunk of MPs to come round to the May deal. I really hope I'm wrong, but delay and obfuscation are what I would expect if Rory does win it.

Then again, perhaps I should give him more credit. He has been quite excellent in this campaign.

(Raab and Rory)

Of the other candidates Dominic Raab was the best. Hard to tell how he will have went down with Tory members, but he was the one I instinctively felt the most rapport for. Also he has David Davis supporting him, who I like. So that's another feather in his cap. The suggestion that he would prorogue parliament to get a "no deal" through obviously went down very badly. It just looks so undemocratic. However, I sympathise with this view.

Technically it's doable, but the problem is that parliament has been given a say on any Brexit deal, so it would look very undemocratic to take that back. This perception alone would cause a huge crisis, and people would not accept such an action.

Normally a prime minister has a degree of executive power. For instance, last year Theresa May took the decision to bomb Syria without going to parliament. Something in my opinion much more serious.

Normally it would be perfectly natural for a prime minister to sign deals and agreements without having a vote in parliament. Imagine if we were trying to agree a future trade deal with the US and every dotted i and crossed t had to be ratified by a vote in parliament. A PM having to say "hang on, I'll have to go back and check" at the end of every negotiation with any foreign body or country. It would just be silly.

Plus, the whole point of having a referendum is to go to the people, and not to parliament. So really the government should simply be executing the public wish without parliament being directly involved. However, now it's been handed to parliament we can't just take it back sadly.

I can totally understand why Theresa May decided to involve parliament. It was a huge decision and she wanted to bring everyone together in an attempt to unite the country. So she wanted cross party responsibility. Plus she probably didn't count on so many politicians going back on their word and trying to outright thwart any attempts to leave. So it's a very unfortunate situation.

The only real option now if parliament can't agree a deal is a general election it seems.

So, returning to the debate I have sympathy for the Raab desire to just ignore parliament. However, proroguing would cause chaos. It would also hand the "democratic" high ground to people on the remain side of the argument. Perhaps losing many undecided voters in the process.

Of the other three candidates in the debate I have little to say. None are my cup of tea, though Gove does look like someone very able when it comes to the actual implementation and getting things done aspect. He's very energetic. Hunt is probably the candidate I'd least like to see win, and Javid just looked like he wouldn't be massively bothered if he lost.

I know I keep banging the same drum here, but I really would've loved to have seen Leadsom in the mix. She ticked all the boxes. Leave, tick. Likeable, tick, Attention to detail, tick. The others seem to have just one, or at best two of these traits.

Just a case of waiting to see how Boris bounders in now. The next debate is Tuesday night on the BBC. Interesting stuff.

Populism for the Chattering Classes

It seems that recently there has been a bit of a renewed love-in for Tony Blair in certain quarters. Particularly with the pro-EU crowd. It's a little bit amusing, as many of these people also hated him over the Iraq War, etc. It's like many of the more fervent remainers are lost on an ocean with no anchor to the ground. Watching them suddenly begin retweeting messages from Blair, or Alastair Campbell, or even George Osborne, with a "hmm, well actually they do speak a lot of sense on this issue". Once (if) the Brexit issue is put to bed these people will find themselves truly rudderless.

The Blair rehabilitation, along with, to a lesser extent, the Rory furore, is almost like a populism for the chattering classes. Quite aptly as both men are very good at chattering. I watched Rory Stewart speak live for half an hour with David Baddiel yesterday, and though he spoke a lot, he said nothing. Everyone was saying how "nice" he was, and he was nice. Very nice ..and charming. But he said very little. It was very reminiscent of the master himself in the run-up to 1997. Like the head tennis with Kevin Keegan, but now on social media.

(click to enlarge)

It's perhaps unfair to compare someone to Blair. Though then again, saying that, perhaps I'm being a little bit harsh on Blair himself. He is just flesh and blood after all (I think). The love-in is a bit crazy though. Aside from the endless wars, there was also the endless spin. Plus he attempted to take us into the Euro. Likewise he opened the doors to mass immigration, but had a policy to not build anymore housing. In order to keep house prices up.

Iran - Good/Bad, I Just Don't Know

Nothing much to talk about today. The big thing seems to be this Iran oil tanker issue. However, I have literally no idea what's going on there. So I'll remain agnostic. My general rule is that I don't support things I don't understand, especially if it's an act of war. So I'm just sceptically observing at the moment.

It's a bit of a cliche but the Iraq war really shaped my worldview. I actually supported the war in Iraq at the time. I remember being at college doing a music course during the run-up to it. I spent part of that time arguing with other long-haired students that the war was a "lesser evil". It would've been much easier to just go along with everyone else and say "yeah, war bad, man", but I just didn't believe that the British government, the government of a democratic country, would lie about something so serious. So it felt like the responsible position to take. I remember seeing them pull the Saddam statue down live on TV and thinking "yey! democracy!".

So, when it began to dawn on me over the following months and years that I'd believed things that weren't true, and supported a war that was a big bloody mess, I had a lot of humble pie to eat. It's a good job Twitter wasn't really a thing back then, because reading back some of those opinions would've been brutal.

Of course, you don't want to swing from the one extreme of believing everything to the other extreme of believing nothing. Perhaps the US and allies are right this time. However, my bar for evidence is high now. Some vague footage on TV isn't going to swing it for me.

Colonisation's Coming Home

Both Boris and Rory Stewart went through to the next round of Conservative X-factor yesterday. Sadly Andrea Leadsom never reached the required number of votes, which seems a shame as she was my favoured candidate. I guess I'll be hoping Boris gets it now, but it really is hope above expectation at the moment for me.

Anyway, I read another New Yorker article yesterday, again featuring Rory Stewart. Again leaving me with mixed feelings. He seems to have a very balanced view of the situation. Especially given he's coming from the remain side of the argument. For instance, understanding how divisive a second referendum would be. Likewise in grasping how uncomfortably the UK sits in a United States of Europe project, and accepting that it's time to finally move on. Though with caution.

However, once again the citizen's assembly idea leaves me with concern. This was his reply when asked about it.

"A citizens’ assembly. These people are selected to be representatives of the population. You start by selecting fifteen thousand people through randomly-generated names by post code, and then you write them all use a polling company to cut them by gender, attitudinal views, to provide a representative sample. And then they sit for three to four weeks. They sit like a committee of the Senate."

It seems like a combination of the Postcode Lottery and a Question Time audience. If it was done completely randomly and the people were selected without bias then that would be, quite literally, a big gamble. A dice roll. How would anyone know what verdict they would deliver?

If the people are handpicked, which the phrase "cut them by gender, attitudinal views" would suggest an element of. Then that opens the door to shenanigans. Who does this "cutting"? How are they themselves selected for this role? What if they have a bias?

There's also the obvious problem that most normal people simply don't have the time or inclination to take part in such an event. Most people don't want to go and sit in a public arena and argue with complete strangers. That's why they're happy to elect a representative to do that on their behalf. So any such assembly will no doubt be filled with attention seeking types. The silent majority by very definition will be absent.

Being a high cynic I'm generally of the opinion that such exercises are used to provide the semblance of democratic will. A fig leaf for the people organising such assemblies. To provide the outcome they desire with the appearance that it's coming from the populus.

(Rory the Peacemaker)

However, I'm happy to believe that Rory Stewart is sincere, and that he genuinely sees this as a good way of helping to break the deadlock. He seems a very honest guy. Though then again he is a politician. Even in complete sincerity though this gives an indication of how he sees Britain - as a colony in need of guidance. Obviously this is quite ironic given that he himself is not only British, but British with the air of an old school colonialist.

So perhaps this says something about where Britain is at the moment. Such an assembly feels like a way that an outside or parental force would help to guide the warring natives. To get them to come to some sort of desired concord and way forward. The remainer natives and the leaver natives are at war, so the foreign office is coming in to do some peace keeping and gentle management. Conveniently forgetting that they themselves are also remainer natives.

If Rory does somehow win Britain may weirdly become a colony of Britain. Or rather a colony tentatively belonging to some globalist empire, being managed to best effect. Maybe this will be for the best? Who knows?

Alexander the Great vs Winston Churchill

Yesterday evening I read a piece from 2010 in The New Yorker about Rory Stewart. A very good read (it can be found here - https://www.newyorker.com/magazine).

In it Rory compares himself to both T. E. Lawrence and Alexander the Great. It reminded me of the Boris Johnson/Churchill comparison. It's mildly amusing in a way, but at the same time I do admire this sort of ambition. I think it's a good thing, though I guess a little dangerous too. Rory has given it a lot of thought it seems.

"We imagine, in the modern world, that heroes are accidental heroes [...] But, historically, many of the people who were heroes in their society set out to be heroes. They emulated other heroes, were obsessed with being a hero, wanted to be godlike."

It's always struck me as odd as to why some people have this sort of ambition or grand sense of their place in the world and why most people don't. I think it's something that's common across all levels of society, but that manifests itself in different ways. If you're a working class British person you want to be a John Lennon or a Johnny Marr. Or perhaps a Lionel Messi or David Beckham. If you're a highly educated Brit you want to be a Churchill or a T. E. Lawrence it seems.

In fact, come to think of it perhaps this sense of spirit exists in all people to some degree - we all want to be a footballer or an astronaut in childhood. So maybe for most this spirit disappears at some point before we reach adulthood.

Then again though, it does seem that most people are happy to be normal people, with normal ambitions. Sure they want more money and a bigger house, but they certainly aren't attempting to emulate Alexander the Great.

It reminds me of the Thomas Carlyle great men of history idea.

"Universal History, the history of what man has accomplished in this world, is at bottom the History of the Great Men who have worked here. They were the leaders of men, these great ones; the modellers, patterns, and in a wide sense creators, of whatsoever the general mass of men contrived to do or to attain.."

Godlike men love lightning.

Tory Leadership Race: Boris Speaks

As I write I'm listening to Boris Johnson's leadership campaign launch. I've almost given up on making any sort of judgement myself.

When judging politicians and other media figures there are always two questions to ask.

Do I agree with what they're saying? Do I believe what they're saying?

However, I now feel like we're playing some kind of 4D chess game with Brexit, where it's impossible to know exactly where people stand. It's much more fun and simple when you can play everything with a straight bat and simply take everyone at their word. Then it's simply a case of; do I agree with what they're saying, can I support that? However, when you're looking at things through a more cynical lens it becomes hard to know where to place your support or endorsement.

Watching people on Twitter who were previously pro-Brexit switch to a candidate like Rory Stewart. Who seems to be remain par excellence, has been both fascinating and baffling to watch. He's ran a superb campaign. So I can see the magic. I also see the sense of just going with the May deal, but I can't get past the fact that he seems like Macron-light. Citizen's assembly. Appeals to emotion. Storytelling. I much preferred listening to Andrea Leadsom's cool and calm discussion of the details and facts of the situation.

So, do the people supporting Rory know something I don't know? Or are they just more swayed by the razzmatazz? Or do they just understand the situation facing us better than I do?

It's interesting to watch, but hard to judge.

Having listened to Boris I'm still not sure what to make. The speech itself washed over me, but he was on very good form during the Q and A section. I do enjoy his way of speaking. Great phraseology. Let's see what happens now.

At What Point Does It Become Not Racist To Talk About Immigration?

A short post today, asking a simple question. It stemmed from a real life conversation a friend was telling me about yesterday. Where one of his friends was expressing concern over the immigration figures, and another was following the media line that all talk of immigration is racist, or a cover for racism.

So the logical question to ask is - at what point does immigration get so high that it becomes an acceptable, non-racist topic of conversation?

If it's racist to fret over immigration when the yearly net figure is around 300,000 people. Then what about 400,000, or half a million? Or 600,000? And so on.

Personally, I believe that if you're going to throw such a heavy label at someone you should at least be able to answer this question yourself. Of course, the classic response is generally "I'm not putting a figure on it, I don't believe in quotas". However, even just a ballpark figure, or a general relative judgement will do. A hundred thousand more. A few hundred thousand more. Over a million.

Likewise if you're of the opinion that completely open borders with the rest of the world is the way to go. That there's effectively no upper limit. Then that's a perfectly fine thing to believe, but at least be honest enough to openly state this.

Corbyn & The Self-Defeating Media

Today in your media black is white. Up is down. Left is right. Emotionally loaded. Devoid of debate. Incapable of balance. It's a sad thing to watch.

It's also sad because it's so pathetically self-defeating. The issues surrounding Jeremy Corbyn are a prime example. Now personally, as is probably apparent to anyone that has been reading this blog, I'm not a big fan of Labour or Corbyn at the moment. I think they've been completely irresponsible in their handling of Brexit, their response to Trump arriving in the UK was pitiful, and I certainly won't be voting for them anytime soon. Perhaps ever.

However, the constant allegations of anti-Semitism levelled at Corbyn are making it more likely that he'll win any future election. I say this because people can see that it simply isn't true, and it makes him look like a victim of smears. Which in turn makes him look like the honest and heroic alternative. People can see through this stuff. Everyone knows that Corbyn once dated his colleague Diane Abbott. So it's a very odd type of racist that sleeps with a big, black woman. Likewise his attitude towards immigration is so far to the left that it's essentially an open border policy. So it just doesn't wash with people.

Again, as per my previous posts, these things are subjective. So if you're reading this and you genuinely believe in your heart of hearts that Corbyn is a racist and a threat to Jewish people then I have genuine sympathy for you. That's not a nice feeling. From watching many pundits and politicians in the media though it's clear that they themselves don't really believe it when they say it. I watched Nigel Farage repeatedly make the accusation yesterday on LBC and this was very apparent.

I like Farage. More often than not I agree with him, and even when I don't I still like the guy, but yesterday he just looked bad. Again, it just looked like smear tactics. It also looked highly hypocritical, as Farage himself has also been subject to similar accusations in the media. The guilt by association. The cherry-picking and twisting of words and comments. The accusation that when he speaks of immigration "what he really means" is that he doesn't like different races and minorities. Guilt by implication, guilt by smear, not by evidence.

So he should know it when he sees it, and again people can see this. The public aren't dumb.

Of course, Labour are equally guilty of throwing such accusations the other way. Not only is Farage a racist, but Boris, with his Muslim women "look like letter boxes" comment, is likewise a racist. For simply commenting upon the headscarf issue in an offhand way he's deemed fully and completely racist. In fact, according to Labour, the whole government are racist for their handling of the Wind Rush scandal. Not incompetent, not heartless or careless ..but driven by full blown racism.

It's all a bit depressing. It's not people calling out racism. It's people pointing the finger at others, so that the finger doesn't get pointed at themselves. It's quite cowardly in many ways. It would be nice to see just one figure step up, put aside the political points scoring and say "come on, Britain is a truly great country. For all our faults our leaders are certainly not racist." Then, with a more balanced sense of judgement, it would be much easier to deal with genuine racism when it appears.

If this continues the big winners will be Labour though. In spite of their own hypocrisy on the issue. Again, the accusations of racism levelled against Corbyn just won't stick with the majority of the public. However, they're much more likely to stick with the Conservatives or the Brexit Party. After all, they are on the right of the political spectrum. Corbyn is so far to the left it just seems completely baseless.

Fields of Rye

It's all Michael Gove and cocaine today. I'm not really too concerned one way or another. I preferred Theresa May's fields of wheat. Much more wholesome. It's not a big deal someone taking cocaine, but it is a tiny window into that person's personal decision making. So it can help you to inform your judgement when voting. Theresa May has been a very safe pair of hands, and quite cautious. Which reflects what you'd expect from someone whose worst piece of mischief is running through a wheat field. I worry people will only begin to appreciate that sensible nature once she's gone.

I also finished reading The Catcher in the Rye. Great book. I still can't really imagine why notorious killers would be so fond of the book. Sure, the main character Holden Caulfield is a bit of a loner with a manic disdain for many aspects of society. However, he's certainly not a bad character. Quite the opposite. If anything his disdain seems to stem from a general contempt for the lack of goodness in society. Though in a very confused, teenage way.

Not to get too conspiratorial, but the book seems to me to be the sort of book that people would perhaps think a would-be killer would be obsessed with. Though, then again, the book was very commonly read by people during the decades after it was written. So no doubt many people who grew up reading it took the book to heart. In fact, it reminded me very much of the movie Rebel Without a Cause, with its teenage angst and romance. Not at all what I expected given the impressions I was given of the book from popular culture. Though then again I'm not sure what I expected really. Perhaps something much more dark and violent given the associations with assassination.

A Stranger in the Village

Regarding my last post from earlier. I feel a little bad for describing people concerned about racism as "hysterical". It's true, this is my general feeling at the moment, but obviously our feelings are hugely dependant upon our own personal circumstances. So what may seem trivial to one person may feel much more weighty to another. So I should really bear that in mind.

Tribalism is quite a natural thing, and it can lead to fears. Often perfectly rational fears. That can then also spill over into irrational fears and prejudices.

A Village.

Take a village. Let's say a village set sometime in the distant past to make it especially rural and insular. Imagine the classic out of the way village in a vampire movie. Or perhaps some misty medieval farming settlement. Now if a stranger arrives in this village the people will have natural fears.

Who is this stranger? Will he/she rob us, or strangle us all in our sleep? Do they have good intentions?

These are natural fears. They certainly don't justify hostility or ill will towards the visitor, but they do excuse a little apprehension on the part of the villagers.

Likewise the stranger arriving in the village will also have fears.

What will this village be like? Are they friendly? Will they chase me out with pitchforks? Will they rob me and take my money?

Again, all natural fears. Understandable fears.

So to have good relations both sides need to understand and consider the feelings of the other. The villagers need to imagine what it must be like for that stranger. To put themselves in his or her shoes. The stranger in turn must put himself in the shoes of the villagers - and consider their natural apprehensions regarding strange people coming into their cosy little world.

Now this is a bit of a silly example, but it serves a purpose. To illustrate that these mutual fears are natural, and also subjective.

So Moving Forward..

Moving back to the modern world we see a similar, though much more complex situation.

People living in a particular area or country will naturally worry about the consequences of immigration. Not just regarding the individual immigrants themselves, but also the wider numerical consequences.

Do we have enough housing and resources for all these extra people? Will it affect my job opportunities? Will these people be law-abiding? Will it change the cultural or political landscape in a way that restricts or erodes my own cultural values?

Likewise immigrants, or people who don't feel fully native to a particular area, will also have fears.

Will I be the victim of prejudice and abuse from people who don't want me here? Will the political landscape change in a way that means the majority native population will use that power to persecute minorities such as myself? Will I have to hide or abandon my own cultural values to remain living here?

Again, natural fears on both sides. Fears that can at times lead to prejudice and hatred, but that have their roots in genuine worry and concern. So when people, from either side, voice their feelings regarding these fears they're generally not doing it from a place of hatred, but from a place of genuine concern. Perhaps at times selfish concern, but nevertheless concern. Therefore it's always important to try to look at things from the other perspective. To view things from the other side and take their concerns seriously.

It stands to reason that someone who is an immigrant, or from an immigrant family. Or likewise someone that is part of a minority religion or ethnicity. Will sympathise more with other immigrants and minorities, and less so with native populations when debates over immigration arise.

Similarly, it's likely that someone who feels fully native to a region will feel more sympathy with those arguing for immigration restrictions, as they're more likely to be affected negatively by such immigration. Neither side is necessarily right or wrong. It's often just an issue of perspective.

The people expressing concern over immigration levels aren't evil racists - they're people with genuine concerns about excessive immigration.

The people advocating for ever more immigration aren't deliberately trying to destroy countries or the lives of the people living there - they're people with genuine concerns about restrictions on immigration.

Demonising either side is the road to trouble.

Politics, getting a bit samey

Another short post today. I'm getting a bit bored of politics at present. It just seems like a playground. Especially Twitter. The constant allegations of anti-Semitism thrown at the Labour Party are particularly exhausting. I'm not saying there's no cause for debate, but the idea that a party that are advocating mass open borders are filled with actual racial hatred just seem bizarre to me.

The lady who won the Peterborough by-election for Labour, Lisa Forbes, just looks like a normal average woman. She looks like a nurse or a school dinner lady. I have huge problems with Labour, but I think if you look at this woman and see something to be feared you're being a little bit hysterical. Again, by all means call her out and criticise her for what she's liked or written on Facebook, but to demonise the woman so heavily for something so trivial is not a balanced response. Tolerance works both ways.

On a lighter, or perhaps darker note I'm currently reading The Catcher in the Rye by J. D. Salinger. I was expecting it to be much more depressing and gloomy, but so far (I'm about eight chapters in) it's been a great read. No sign as of yet as to why iconic murderers would be so fond of it.

I can't help but think of John Lennon as I read it. I wonder what he would make of today's world. I'll crack on reading later today I think.

A Buddhist Brexit

I should mention the Peterborough by-election. Personally I'm now taking a more Buddhist attitude to Brexit. All you can really do is make the argument and hope enough other people agree with you. If you don't have the numbers you don't have the numbers, and it's hard to know who has the numbers at the moment.

Although the Brexit Party narrowly lost yesterday it's probably a good result for them. I say that because firstly, it suggests that they very much can win seats, and because secondly it'll force them to sharpen the spear tip going forward.

At any future general election every seat will be a unique set of circumstances. To win you really need a good candidate who also suits the local landscape. You can't put a Tory-esq candidate in a Labour-voting area and just expect Brexit to do the rest. So I fully expect the Brexit Party to learn from this experience and use it to their advantage going forward. This is something that doesn't seem to have been mentioned by too many people, but the Brexit Party is the only party that is evolving to match the political landscape. Unlike the other parties they do actually learn from their mistakes.

Interesting times.

The Standard Of Debate Is Rising..

Just watched Rory Stewart on Peston. He spoke really well and made quite a sensible plea for trying to continue with the May deal going forward. Christ, I think he's possibly even beginning to win me over. Were it not for the citizen's assembly nonsense I'd be even more swayed. Perhaps the memes are working. I'll stick with my hopes that Leadsom gets the job for the time being though, even if it is looking like she has little support at present.

Today I also watched the following debate in the House of Commons between Stewart and Rees-Mogg over human rights. It's from a few years back, but it was my first viewing of it.

(Jacob Rees-Mogg and Rory Stewart

Debate Human Rights)

It was a truly fascinating watch. Made me proud to be British. Both men spoke excellently. The discussion was over whether parliament should be the ultimate lawmaker in the land, or whether it should be subservient to wider European and international human rights agreements/rulings.

On balance I very much came down on Mogg's side. I won't go into the topic in detail here, but ultimately it is a question of who makes the law. Even if there is such a thing as a truly moral and logical set of laws who decides if that is correct or not? And with what authority? Ultimately parliament has to be sovereign and answerable to the public. It's a social organism that constantly evolves and adapts to marry practical (political) needs with collective moral sentiment. Judges in their wisdom alone are not enough.

Stewart made a very powerful argument though. I felt quite inferior. I wish I could speak a fraction as well as these two men. It really is a testament to a proper education I guess. I think standard state schooling should attempt to emulate the public schools in this regard. Difficult though that would be.

Currently there's simply a complete lack of focus on public speaking in standard state education. Perhaps this is the way it's supposed to be. Maybe such a focus is supposed to be the sole reserve of the "leadership" class.

I remember my own schooling. I left with excellent GCSE results, but truly awful social and speaking skills. Being the quiet, studious child in the class meant that my verbal skills were very much suppressed. I think for many people it's the same. With school tending to offer a choice between being sociable and being academic. It's very difficult for both sides of the personality to flourish in such an environment. Plus teachers tend to want their children to be quiet. It's what good, well behaved children are supposed to do.

Also, there are repercussions if a school gets poor maths or English results, but no one's really checking or measuring the speaking ability and confidence levels of the children. So standard schooling probably tends to be a bit self-defeating on the whole.

Another factor is the prejudice towards those that are privately educated. Like in the discussion regarding Margaret Thatcher a few posts back, where I noted the antipathy towards the Conservatives that the left are inculcated with. Similarly many normal and lower class people tend to hate or decry the Eton brigade, and dream of destroying that "privileged" way of educating children. This attitude however stops people from lower down the social ladder from learning from and admiring the benefits that come with such an education.

Being working class myself I don't take joy in stating this, but the difference in both education and intelligence between those on the Tory side of the House of Commons and those on the opposing benches seems quite stark at the moment. I really can't imagine such a debate as the one above taking place between two politicians from any other party.

Then again though, there are plenty of normal people out there in Brexit-land making the exact same argument as Jacob Rees-Mogg, with the exact same logic. Just with much less poetry and eloquence.

Trump's Visit ..and the NHS

I'm currently sat listening to Piers Morgan's interview with Trump. Trump has been superb over here in my opinion. He really couldn't have been more generous both in his language towards Britain and his offer of a future trade deal.

He was previously asked if the NHS was on the table in regard a deal, to which he replied in the affirmative. "Everything's on the table." A reply no doubt simply a consequence of Americans not understanding the British attitude towards our nationalised health care. Following the outcry, in this interview Piers asked him again, to which he took it right back off the table.

"I don't see it being on the table. ..that's something I would not consider part of trade. That's not trade."

Not even making an issue of it. Very courteous and accommodating.

..but the Trump protests

Sadly not everyone over here has returned that courtesy. All the protesting in the street has just been silly, and a little bit embarrassing for the UK. I've come to the conclusion that protesting in the street is the lowest form of political engagement. In all honesty I have more respect for people who just don't care and don't vote. Though I can at least have some sympathy for the younger people out on the streets. At least there's time for them to realise how pointless it is. Plus, it is kind of natural to want to cause a bit of mayhem when you're that age :D

Anyone over the age of about 25 should know better though. Which brings me to Jeremy Corbyn boycotting Trump and then taking to the streets.

I live in an area represented by a Labour MP, an MP I actually voted for at the last election. Consequently the Labour Party are representing me, my family and my area. I want those representatives in the room, at the table, representing me. Making the argument, exercising that power they've been given. I don't want them standing outside, shouting in the street. I could do that myself.

Did Thatcher Get The Trump Treatment?

I've been trying to follow the Trump visit over the last few days. However, I've been more preoccupied with events from the past. I've been watching quite a lot of documentaries about Margaret Thatcher. Both the BBC's Thatcher: A Very British Revolution series and also the Martin Durkin Channel 4 documentary Margaret Thatcher: Death of a Revolutionary.

(Fascinating TV)

Growing up in a very working class part of the north-east I was raised to despise Margaret Thatcher. She was the very devil incarnate. In my formative years I parroted this view and genuinely believed her to be an awful leader (and person). Over time though my views have softened, almost to the point of outright admiration.

It's difficult to judge these things though. I was born in 1982. So though I was born into, and lived through much of her period at the helm, I was far too young to make any sort of experienced judgement.

Looking back I think that perhaps the various adults in my life were a little bit wrong about her, but watching documentaries and reading history are no substitute for real lived experience. So who am I to say that she wasn't as bad as they seemed to think she was. Or that those days were weren't as hard and as unfair as I'm told they were.

Am I just being reactionary myself in swinging away from the view I was raised to have - that of complete and total sympathy towards the miners, etc.  To the exact opposite opinion. That the unions were a plague on the nation needing remedy, and that Thatcher was absolutely right in challenging them.

Like with Trump, I wonder if the media are partly to blame. Were the parents and teachers in my life encouraged to hate her like many today are encouraged to hate Trump? Again, it's hard to judge, and it's a little bit patronising and perhaps also naive of me to think or say, "You're wrong. You were just brainwashed by the media. They wanted you to hate her!".

Maybe I'm the one being brainwashed now by the media with these documentaries o_O

The true lesson I guess is that it's hard to ever have a balanced opinion. We naturally want to see people as either villains or heroes. Seeing a complex social landscape through the polarising lens of right and wrong.

So as I continue to delve into this history perhaps I should detach myself a little and be a little less quick in passing judgement.

Conservative Leadership Race: Managed Exit or Citizens Assembly?

Yesterday I used the term softer politics, whatever that means. Anyway, I watched Andrea Leadsom's ptich for the Tory leadership on the Marr Show yesterday. I don't know enough about all the Tory leadership candidates to make a fully fair judgement, so I'm just sitting back and watching it all unfold. However, I do very much like Andrea Leadsom. She seems very balanced and sensible.

She also seems to have a good head for detail. Which is a very reassuring quality for a candidate who will be enacting a no deal Brexit.

Her leadership slogan is "decisive and compassionate", which doesn't set the world alight as a headline, but does seem very apt for her. It also, once again, sends out the message of balance. Hard decision making, but with the utmost care. I'd feel very confident with her at the helm.

Another leadership candidate who seems to be putting out a caring and compassionate message is Rory Stewart. He seems like a decent guy, and he's become very memeable recently. Which seems to have upped his profile.

(click to enlarge)

However, he seems to be pushing for this idea of a "citizens assembly" to solve the Brexit impasse. This idea has also been suggested by the likes of Stella Creasy in the past, and is similar to methods of engagement used by Macron in France.

Its proponents state that it will use a random selection of citizens to discern a fair and compromised way forward. However, "we have to make sure all sides of the argument are fairly represented". So it'll be about as random as a Question Time audience.

I think ideas like this are just used to provide a semblance of democracy. So it looks as though the will of the people is being enacted. When in reality it's more the will of a carefully selected segment of the public.

So memes or no memes it's a no from me.

A softer politics..

I had a few experiences yesterday that made me think it's time I started being a little less spiky when expressing my opinions. Firstly, whilst arguing against the Brexit media narrative with people online I realised I was being a little rude. Or at least blunt anyway. So I think I should try to show a little more patience with people on the other side of the argument.

Secondly, I watched some of the We Are Middlesbrough broadcasts on the BBC. This was a series of feature pieces about Middlesbrough to coincide with Radio 1's Big Weekend, which was held here this year. In the past I've always felt that the BBC has had a bit of a negative, even snidey attitude towards Middlesbrough. However, this was all very warm and positive. Clearly a lot of time and effort was put in. Normally I'm quite critical of the BBC, but credit where credit's due. This was a nice change in tone. It gives me the feeling that the country is coming together and things are moving in the right direction.

So it's perhaps time I started being a little softer in my criticism :)

I often wonder. Is politics about winning the argument, or is it more about explaining your own position to other people in a way that helps them to understand why you feel that way, or believe what you believe? And likewise making an effort to understand why they feel the way they do about an issue. Then finding a common ground or compromise.

And Trump's here...

As I'm writing this I'm currently listening to Nigel Farage discuss Trump's visit and "interference" in British politics with his listeners.

I think we really are getting in a tizz with all these discussions about foreign interference. The term interference suggests some kind of malpractice. However, essentially what we're talking about are just opinions. It's simply impossible to insulate voters in one country from the opinions of people from another. Be they that of a president or of the average man on the street.

Every major election in the modern world is a topic of global debate now. The more opinion the better I believe. By attempting to insulate people from foreign opinion you're essentially saying that voters aren't sharp enough to juggle and process all this information.

Eurasian Gamesmanship

Super quick today. I've just watched a short clip of Tony Blair arguing that we need to be a part of the EU to protect ourselves (a medium sized country) from India, China, the USA and other larger Orwellian landmass based political entities. It's funny how the pro-Brexit side are constantly being labelled regressive and xenophobic. Or even outright racist. Yet the remain side can speak about the European nations against "foreign" powers so casually without criticism or inspection.

China, yes, is a threat, but India and the USA. Two great democracies. What reason do we have to think we're going to be at loggerheads with these two fine nations in the coming decades? It's incredibly negative talk, and I would wager quite insincere talk too.

As for China it seems the EU is already very cosy indeed. As is Switzerland.