Boom Boom Boom

So Biden has dropped out. In a whoosh everything has happened, rapid fire.

June 27th: Trump/Biden debate - which led to the clamour for Joe to go.

July 13th: Trump assassination attempt.

July 15th: Trump VP announced

July 21st: Biden out

It looks like Kamala Harris will take over. So now the last slot to be filled is the Democrat VP pick. Which should tell us a lot.

Obviously, with the Trump brouhaha, it seems Trump is nailed on for victory. That these stars are being aligned directly for that. The powerful people at the top have made peace with him, and now we're all going to get some type of closure. A release valve. Discontent pacified. A great smoothing-over. The cancellations of leftists adds weight to this notion. The people at the top now willing to pull their levers on behalf of the right. A visible shift. The talk of prison sentences for Trump gone. (And, of course, the simple fact that they could've gotten rid of Joe long ago, and stuck an A-list Democrat candidate in, but didn't.) So the Hollywood stars align.

It makes so much sense. I think it's totally wrong to be cancelling Home Depot workers because they've said something nasty about Trump on Facebook, but that aside, the general trend I can applaud. It's the sensible course to chart.

Having seen so many twists and plots, I always feel like I'm sat at the Red Wedding though. That I'm sat hearing Hulk Hogan tell me how great I am, with a big smile on my face, as daggers hide beneath cloaks. Ready, not only to do me in, but to mock my naïve stupidity as they do it. My mind can't help but go to the worst case scenario.

So, at the moment, I think the best, but fear the worst. Some of the instant cope I've seen from people on the right lends itself to the fear. People saying that Kamala will be easier to beat than Biden, which obviously isn't true. Biden was literally senile. Anyone, even Kamala Harris, will be an improvement. How can they not be?

Kamala Harris actually reminds me of Rebecca Long-Bailey. Likeable, but a bit light in the head. The Labour leadership contest seems such a long time ago now. As that was taking place, Covid was springing up from the ground, like a maleficent aether. On this very blog those two things overlap. The one seeming so very innocent compared to the other. I remember typing those Labour leadership blog posts at the time. I had the dread of the coming Covid nightmare all through January and February, but I was trying so hard not to be a conspiracy theorist. This time I'm also trying hard not to be a conspiracy theorist. Though with Covid there was instinctive dread in my stomach, here there's instinctive hope. My instinctive judgement - my reading of the tea leaves - says things will indeed be smoothed-over.

Is it any wonder my mind can't help but race towards Red Wedding scenarios though? We've seen so many events, moments, and shakedowns - and three months is a long time, so a lot can happen. Plus, the world - and human culture - is a complex thing. So organic events can overtake written scripts. When the right surrendered the moral high ground, by advocating the cancelling of people on the left, they made a big mistake in terms of culture war. They surrendered moral authority. You'd think people wouldn't be so stupid to do this when fighting a culture war. You almost assume it must be deliberate. However, people find it hard to read culture - it requires a bit of female-brain. Men tend to be analytic. They love rules and theories. "Machiavelli said this ..therefore we must take this course of action." Ideologies are always inferior to real life though. And they dull the senses. A person operating on instinctive real-world judgement instantly sees that harassing a middle-aged woman who works at Home Depot makes you look like an idiot, but if you're subsumed by a set of rules that says you must do it, the instinct takes a back seat. And real life takes a back seat to memes and theories.

I'm getting a bit far from the original intent of the article, as I often do, so I'll leave it there.

Learning To Lie

It's super hot. Sleep is a virtual impossibility in this heat. I was in work today, so last night I had to force myself to sleep through it. From a possible eight hours I think I got about three. However, I'm off tomorrow, so I have the luxury of not caring tonight. So, with tired eyes, I'm posting..

I'm not sure what I have to say, but I feel I should post. Over the last few days or so I've been a little arsy and impetuous over on Twitter. Watching the right behave as badly as the left in response to the Trump brouhaha was annoying. Of course, I also promised to try to show goodwill towards the new Labour government as well, but seeing the media love-in over that has made that difficult too. I think I've exhausted my humpiness now though, so my pragmatic self can regain control of the wheel. I must admit it was nice to shoot from the hip a little. You feel so much more alive and youthful when you're acting on your actual emotions.

It stills amazes me how much I care about the truth. I always wonder where this feeling comes from. Is it something innate I was born with? Or is it a consequence of how I was raised? Was the importance of honesty just drilled into me? Did all those Christian school assemblies I scorned make a difference after all?

I really hate lies. Though, saying that, what actually triggered me was seeing lies being enforced. I watched one livestream where audience members in the live-chat were shut down pretty aggressively by the talking heads taking part. I just can't stomach it. The desire to dumb the inquisitive senses of others. That a course of action has been taken, and everyone else must pay lip service to it. The pecking order is never more visibly apparent than in moments like these. Suddenly the talking heads that feign friendship and common cause show their teeth.

Also, this idea that, because the lies are being told by people on your side, you'll be cool with it. Like this idea that it's now somehow okay to censor the left, "cos they're the enemy." It almost goes beyond right and wrong. The ego takes over. It's an insult to me personally. I don't want to be a snake.

I'm getting hyperbolic again now ..and I shouldn't. I know how the world works. I've learnt that we live in an imperfect world. I've even written pieces like this one: The Spring, showing how natural and inevitable (even necessary) systems of secrecy and lies are. Yet still, I hate it. I just want to live in a world where I can have honest, open conservations with other humans, without having to worry about hitting the tripwire.

Manier Things To Discuss

On election night there was a moment that summed up post-Brexit politics quite neatly for me. Alastair Campbell corrected the grammar of Nadine Dorries live on air. The classic, "It's not less, it's fewer."

https://x.com/lemonadelush/status/1808976529440878641

There were subsequent back and forth points made on Twitter about who was correct, as though Nadine was talking about numbers, she used less in the phrase "less than a handful" - and a handful isn't a discrete amount. Personally, I don't care. It's a silly language rule that I just completely ignore anyway. I'm not bothered about the brownie points.

(You can kind of see how silly it is by the fact that we don't hear similar debates when people use more. If someone says, "there are more people," no one interjects, "Akhschully, it's greater people." Which wouldn't work anyway. Many is pretty much the opposite of few - too few, too many - so we'd probably need to invent the word manier. "..Akhschully, it's manier people." Imagine how annoyed these language nerds would be if we just started inventing words though.)

Anyway, it was just the latest example of people on the anti-populist side of the divide making appeals to technicality. It's been a recurring theme, that I've mentioned on here before (The Remain Brain vs The Leave Perceiver - 2019, didn't realise it was so long ago!).

Seeing the media coverage, and the number of seats the Lib Dems won, got me thinking about this class of people once again. I'm not quite sure how to box them. Remainer is a bit specific, and doesn't fully capture it. I was thinking unserious people that take themselves seriously, but that's probably unfair - and incorrect too. What inspired that descriptor was another media snapshot. This time an exchange involving Steve Baker, Ed Balls and George Osborne.

https://x.com/GMB/status/1809114873894228261

Osborne and Balls were laughing and giggling, like it was all just a big game, as Steve Baker was making a serious point. To be fair, their party had won, and Baker had lost his seat, so naturally moods would be different. And yes, Osborne and Balls are of the same party. Technically Osborne is a Conservative, but these party structures and labels don't reflect actual political reality anymore. This is another theme I've touched upon before.

https://x.com/NeilSco17180435/status/1759197809515925952

I feel like this election finally crystallised many of these things. Which, I guess, means it's the end of one era and the beginning of something else..

//////////////

More, More, More

This is a bit off topic for this blog, but I can't help but make mention of the words less and more in regard their mechanics. That is, the way we make these words using the mouth.

More is a very natural word. We make the "M" sound by simply opening and closing the mouth. It's an easy consonant to make. I'm almost certain that this is why so many words denoting mother begin with M. More is the sound a child naturally makes when it wants more milk.

Likewise, less is similarly fitting. We make the "L" sound by lifting our tongue to the roof of our mouth. We have lots of lifting type words beginning with L - lift, lower, level, levitate, layer, lever, etc. The word less begins with us lowering our tongue from the roof of our mouth to make the L sound. Then ends with us bringing or teeth together to make the "S" hissing sound. Making our mouth smaller - almost closed. (If you make these words in your own mouth and note the position of the tongue and the lips this becomes easier to understand.) So, with less, we lower the tongue, then make the mouth small. So the physical action of the mouth mirrors the actual meaning of the word.

I should really do fewer for thoroughness. Here the "F" sound is made by biting the bottom lip (again, try it with your own mouth to see). I guess you could say that grabbing the bottom lip fits neatly with the idea of something being lower or less. With the "R" we then curl the tongue backwards, though often people don't pronounce the R. (With my terrible Teesside accent I pronounce it few-a.) So the R doesn't really add too much in regard mirrored mechanical meaning - though you could maybe make the claim that bringing the tongue inwards - the recoiling motion - naturally implies a lessening or retraction. (The "W" in the middle, though technically considered a consonant, is actually just a transition between two vowel sounds.)

Vowels are open mouth vocalisations. Essentially letters/sounds we can sing or sustain. Aaaaaah, Ooooo, etc. So the relative openness of the mouth could also be said to carry meaning. With "Aaaaaaah" we open the mouth wide - so it's fitting for big or wide things. With e or i sounds - "eehhh" - the mouth is smaller. So you could say the "eh" in less and fewer also fits with the concept of less-ness.

(Actually, phonetically we pronounce the word fewer very differently to how it's spelt. For a start, that initial "F" is immediately followed by a "Y" sound. Then, the first e is pronounced more like an Ooo. We write fewer, but we say F-you-er. Written language is messy.)

In regard the mechanics of the mouth the word less seems more apt and pleasing than the word fewer. Perhaps this is why people naturally reach for it. Maybe it just feels more intuitive.

My Advice For Reform

Firstly, congratulations to Labour. This isn't what I wanted, but we do live in a democracy, and they've won. So they do have a clear mandate from the people - at least a mandate to deliver the things they've pledged to deliver.

(In fact, on that topic, Starmer did make this statement the day before the election, which seems worth making note of:

("I've been really clear about not rejoining the EU, the single

market or the customs union..")

That seems pretty emphatic.)

So, I'm happy (or, at least, I'm going to try) to give them a period of grace and goodwill. Obviously, my fear is things will be bad. We now have a parliament entirely dominated by managerial technocrats - 412 Labour MPs, 72 Liberal Democrats, and 121 (for the most part) wet Tories. People like Jacob Rees-Mogg, Liz Truss, Steve Baker, and my local MP Simon Clarke all gone.

This was a terrifying prospect before the election, but now it's a reality I calmly accept.

I think it's important to act in hope after an election. Again, to offer some goodwill towards your victorious opponents, and to not prejudge their efforts in government. To give them some time to prove your fears wrong. To acknowledge if they get things right.

Perhaps it won't be so bad after all.

REFORM

Reform picked up five seats, which is a huge silver-lining. I think five is a very impressive total. Even after the exit poll predicted thirteen I wasn't confident they'd get more than one or two.

My immediate thoughts are two-fold:

Firstly, Reform need to make sure they diligently serve these five constituencies. They need to be present, do the boring things, and resist the temptation to simply use these seats as a platform for wider activism. If they get a reputation for not being local, loyal and serious it's curtains for any grander ambitions.

Secondly, I think they would be wise to be absolutely forensic with any statements made going forward. Cavalier mouthing off and high drama might undo them. As if they cause too much trouble in parliament, the committees and kangaroo courts will be back in no time. "Disrepute!" "lying to parliament!" "financial irregularities!" Don't think in this current era that only the public can remove people from parliament.

(This is quite a negative suggestion, and it goes against my earlier desire to offer goodwill to Labour & Co. However, I'm not saying this type of chicanery will definitely happen, I'm just pointing out that there's a very realistic possibility that it could.)

Tony Blair: The Cristiano Ronaldo of Politics

What does Tony Blair actually believe?

In that last post I mentioned I'd been watching a documentary about the Blair/Brown years. At the point of writing I'd only watched up until the third episode, so the Iraq War hadn't been fully dealt with. Since then I've watched the last two.

What struck me the most was the emotion, especially of Blair. It's easy to forget these politicians are human beings. When you're reminded of this fact it's hard not to feel a greater sympathy. It also returned me to a topic I've considered a few times over the last few years. Namely: what does Tony Blair actually believe?

He can be difficult to pigeonhole. Is he a Neocon? A globalist Europhile? Is he a Marxist revolutionary hidden beneath the guise of a moderate centrist? Is he a Tory Boy in Labour clothing?

(In fact, I'd forgotten about this last one. I remember, vaguely, from my teenage years accusations that he was a Tory - a child of Thatcher, that had somehow snuck into the Labour Party to transform it. A lot of the footage from the 1980s and early 90s I'd never seen before, and watching it, it was very easy to see why people would have thought so. He was indeed very "Tory Boy" back then. I can see why he fooled so many actual Tories into thinking, "Don't worry, we can give him a few years running the country, he's basically one of us.")

Anyway, I've generally come to the conclusion that Tony Blair doesn't really believe in anything. These documentaries only confirmed this notion. (The "Tory Boy" recollection being the clincher.)

What I think defines Blair is personal ambition. A sheer desire to be successful. It's easy to assume that politicians must have some kind of ideology. Some worldview that they want to implement. However, this isn't really how humans work. We have an inbuilt impulse to be successful. A will to thrive and survive. A gorilla doesn't become the dominant gorilla because he wants to implement capitalism or communism in the jungle. He just does it because it's his nature. He doesn't know why he does it. He doesn't stop to ask.

We're all like this to some degree. If I play football I want to win. I rarely stop to consider why. I just do. And, of course, we all know people that are very competitive. That can't stand to lose even if it is just a friendly game of football. We naturally want to win in life, whatever we find ourselves doing - some people more so than others.

If we take a very driven footballer as an example, let's say, Cristiano Ronaldo, we can see how extreme his will to win is. The lengths he goes to. The amount he pushes himself. His eagerness, you could even say need, to score the most goals, or win the most trophies. To be the centre of attention. But why does he do this? Is there a grander purpose to it all? Does he want to acquire all this fame, money and reputation so he can implement some utopian political world order? Of course not (at least, I don't think he does!). He just wants to be successful. It's human nature. And in the field he finds himself in: football, that means scoring goals, breaking records and winning trophies (along with signing mega contracts and sponsorship deals).

(Actually, as another aside, there was a nice moment in the Euros last night where Ronaldo unselfishly passed to set up a goal for another teammate, from a position where he would've normally had a shot. It was almost a redemption arc, noted and memed by people on Twitter. As if, in the winter years of his playing career he's suddenly realised he can get a deeper joy from being a team player, as opposed to the star attraction.)

I think Tony Blair is a Cristiano Ronaldo type politician - and in politics one of the benchmarks is "progress". Particularly for politicians born in our era of history. So I think if he has a political leaning it's more just a vague attraction to the notion of "progress." His messianic (this term was actually used to describe his personality in the documentary series) ..his messianic desire to be personally successful manifesting as a need to be on the progressive side - that is, the winning side, in terms of historical narrative - of any particular issue.

If we look at some of his defining themes or decisions we can see this.

Pro EU/wanting Britain to join the Euro

At the end of the 20th century the general consensus was that nation states were an outmoded thing of the past, and that big regional blocks (if not single world governments) were the natural way of the future. So, naturally, Blair took the side of progress.

Iraq War

Likewise here. We'd reached the end of history after the fall of the Berlin Wall. The march of democracy was inevitable. It was just a case of pushing over the last few dominos of the past, with their little Hitler-esq rulers. Again, the right side of history was obvious.

Technocratic Solutions

Blair has always been a big technology guy, be it digital IDs or whatever else. Alas, a recurring sentiment you'll often hear from Blair when he addresses forums, and I'm paraphrasing a little bit here, goes along the lines of this:

"Listen, I don't have a clue about mobile phones, I have to get the younger guys to help me use the damn things, but, y'know, it's the future, and we have to embrace it."

Normally, it's the job of older people to be a break on change - partly as a consequence of this natural confoundment at the latest trends and fashions. However, the 1960s generation - the boomers, so-called - absolutely defined themselves as change-agents. In complete opposition to the old fuddy-duddies and squares that were the previous generation - who resisted the "inevitable" march of progress that came in the 20th century. So, the hippie generation grew up with this ingrained way of thinking, "..When I'm older, I'll be down with the kids - even if I don't quite understand what exactly it is they're doing. I'm not going to make the mistake the previous stuffy generation made, when they stood ignorantly in the way of progress."

So, as technology is viewed as the future, and pushing against it is seen as luddite, once again, Blair chooses to be on the side of progress.

Thatcherism

Finally, we can return to the "Tory Boy" accusation that I'd so forgotten and disregarded. Here too, the same was true. Thatcherism and the liberalisation of the markets was the future. The Labour Party, on the other side, very much stuck in the past. So we see yet another variant of Tony Blair seeking to be on the winning side of history.

And the notion of "winning" really defines Blair. He won three terms, and in his various Labour speeches he returns to the theme time and again. That desire to be successful overriding everything else. A few months ago I posted on here, recollecting a memory of someone calling Blair the literal Anti-Christ. The comparison with the Devil, and labels such as the "Dark Lord," pop up in relation to Blair quite commonly online, at least in more conspiratorial spheres. Obviously, it's a tad silly. However, there is definitely a slight Faustian spirit to Blair. The will to power, the ambition, the sheer desire to breakthrough and achieve success.

I've criticised Blair many times in the past. I think I've been wrong to ascribe malign intentions though. Watching the documentary series I couldn't doubt the humanness and sincerity. I have to admit it seems like he sincerely wanted to achieve peace in Northern Ireland, and I don't doubt he wants it for the Middle East now.

I always think the human ego is like a wild horse. It can get you to places, but you have to learn to tame it and keep it under control. Some people advocate the complete suppression of the ego. The rationale of this initially feels attractive, but to me it always seems like a rejection of life. A desire to retreat into neutrality and nothingness, instead of actively seeking goodness. I think the wild horse of the ego can be employed for good and for bad.

The sheer horsepower of Blair (and Ronaldo) is impressive to behold.

Euros during the Euros

I've been watching a documentary series about the Blair/Brown years. It's hard not to be impressed by Gordon Brown. Weighty, intellectual, that dour Scottish sense of moral purpose. I can't help but like him when I see this younger footage. Even when he's doing things that I don't agree with, like making the Bank of England independent.

Blair, not so much. Though, even with Blair, you have to admire the sheer will to power.

Watching the series just reminded me how much the issue of Europe figures in each political era though. In this case Blair having a zeal for taking us into the Euro. Of course, as ever, no one actually voted for this. The issue becoming visible only after the landslide win ..a win that was all about a "New Britain," not a "New Europe."

We see the same in the Major era. The ERM was all about streamlining European currencies in preparation for the Euro. The public, again, weren't told that was the case. The line was that it was good for the economy - that pegging ourselves to the Deutsche Mark would instil economic discipline. In the end it crashed the pound and cost the country a lot of money. Yet, despite failing, less than ten years later the Euro was fully underway regardless. Fortunately, without Britain (in my opinion).

It's incredible to watch so many politicians throw away so much political capital on this ideological vision of a new world. It's unceasing. And politicians that don't believe in this vision - who just want to deliver for their voters - constantly have their hands tied, as they're having to fight a constant rearguard action. How much time and money and effort have we all spent just to keep Britain as Britain? Just to hang on to the status quo, in the face of this undemocratic undermining of the nation state.

And it is undemocratic. Nobody ever voted for an EU flag, parliament and anthem. It's always a constant salami slicing; shaving off our sovereignty bit by bit. Inching us ever-onward into the EU. Before you know it the family silver is halfway out the door, and when you realise it's going you're told that somehow you'd agreed to this - and that you're just making a big fuss in trying to stop it.

Just this morning I saw a tweet from Rory Stewart urging Labour to re-join the EU Customs Union after they win. Stating, in capital letters, it's NOT the same as re-joining the EU. Again, that salami slicing. Feigning that this will be the last cut ..after that, no more. We know - from experience - this is never the case though. That people like Rory Stewart want us fully in the EU, in spite of their protests.

Likewise, it needs to be reminded, that not only did the British public vote to leave the EU, and vote Boris in at the last election to Get Brexit Done, but, even now, Labour have to pay lip service to this as re-joining remains so unpopular. So, again, as in the past, whatever they do, they will have no mandate for it, and will have sneaked it out the door once again.

Finally, this is another thing that's so annoying (I've talked about this on here before). The constant word twisting. Endlessly we're asked "What are the tangible benefits of Brexit?" This idea that sovereignty and who governs us and how aren't that important. That pro-EU advocates are just so much more pragmatic and realistic. It's such a dishonest line though, as the EU advocates are just as invested in an abstract ideology. As the history above shows, they're obsessed with building their vision of a new world. And it doesn't matter what the economic risks are, or how much political capital they waste on it. They're just much less upfront about this. They pretend they don't believe in the EU project, as they endlessly pursue it.

When you look at the big picture (as you sit watching these political documentaries) it's impossible not to see this, but many people on Twitter live only in the latest TV moment. The argument reduced and fixated on the latest little salami slice.

The Alchemical Election

Go home, return to your farms and villages. The battle is lost..

Here we are, in an election campaign, and so far, I've posted nothing. Normally, in times like these, I'm posting daily, charting the action. So, what's up?

What's up is we're in praying for a miracle territory. Labour are heading for total victory, and our forces are fleeing in disarray - divided and betrayed. The Tories, either by incompetence or design, have surrendered parliament, and Reform have stepped onto the battlefield like Viking berserkers, swinging swords in all directions, sparing not even the most ardent of Brexiteer Tories.

Peter Hitchens, like a wise wandering druid, has been begging people to vote tactically, to block Labour, but no one is listening. (Actually, I'm sure some people are listening, but I'm being melodramatic - let me have some fun.) Whilst the online right cry for "zero seats," all bloodlust and mindless emotion.

Obviously, as you can see from my framing of things, I think Peter Hitchens is broadly correct. However, at the same time, Reform can, no doubt, win some seats -- and that would be a huge breath of optimism in an otherwise bleak, black fog. So, now the chaos has begun, I'm not quite sure what to state publicly.

With that in mind I'll just state what I'm doing personally.

Farms and Villages

Where I live there are two constituencies: Middlesbrough and Thornaby East, and Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland.

Middlesbrough and Thornaby East, which is my constituency, is a super-safe Labour seat. So, consequently, my vote will probably make very little difference. Middlesbrough South is a little more interesting however. That seat flips back and forth. Currently, it's Conservative, and Simon Clarke is the MP. As far as Tories go, he's one of the better ones. So, if I lived there, I would definitely vote Conservative. In fact, on election night I'll probably be paying more attention to this seat than my own.

As for my own, I'll likely vote Reform. Also, as a side note, my current MP is Andy McDonald, which adds another minor tactical dynamic. I don't like Labour and have plenty of criticisms, but he's a bit more of a Corbynite than a Blairite, so potentially he could be a thorn in the side of Keir Starmer at some point over the coming years. And, he is at least sincere in his views, as much as I would disagree with them. So, if both seats stay the same, I would happily take that as a win right now. Making my vote even more of a free spin.

Re-Farm

I actually donated £50 to Reform a day or so before Nigel Farage announced he was running. When I did it I felt a little bit like an alchemist throwing mercury into the fire. With the writing seemingly on the wall regarding the election it just felt like it needed something. Obviously, £50 in the grand scheme of things isn't very much. However, I think all the donations people made that weekend did make a difference. It seemed like Reform were testing the public mood to see if the support was there, and it seems it was.

Ever since then I just think, "alchemy," whenever I tune into the election. There's no overall narrative, you just hope that somehow people get things right in their own constituency. That somehow we get a bit of magic that upsets the apple cart. I always believe that, if you give the British public options, they'll get it right more often than not. I'm not especially optimistic this time round - we could end up with a bit of a nightmare. We do at least have a bit of fizz in the cauldron though now.

This is partly why I'm not as mouthy and vocal as I normally am. All you can really do is just go back to your farm, village or constituency and cast your vote ..and trust people in other parts of the country to do the same. It's very difficult to tell other people what to do when the options they have locally may be completely different to your own, and when things may be changing in ways that make it difficult for outsiders to grasp the vibe in a particular area.

I know where I live. I might, over the next few weeks, take a deeper look at some of the other seats on Teesside. Beyond that I really don't know ..and I definitely don't trust polls enough to start painting by numbers.