Following her party's devastating electoral defeat this month, Ms Kemi Badenoch is running for the Conservative leadership later this year under the claim that the country must get back to capitalism and belief in the nation state.
When did that ever work?
Think about it.
The only possible alternative is the Universe created itself.
The investigation is ongoing.
We can’t blame Plato; we’ve all got this Idea. My response was to accept it for years without thinking, to become baffled by experience, then gradually to put it away. I see the point of everything, I find ideas and the search for them always engage me, but I do not believe any of it much beyond feeling that we’re here and have to do what we can. That's an idea that works, but hardly an Idea. If Truth were real, I should have bumped into it by now.
The best explanation I have for this in philosophical terms is that I am an "empiricist". (I use inverted commas here in case I'm accused of having a Philosophy.) I know everything that’s wrong with empiricism, but I am still an "empiricist". Empiricism “works” for me; metaphysics does not. I am naturally structured to take the world as I find it and quite put out when doing so is given some label: skepticism, or worse, cynicism, or worst of all, not understanding.
Though I don't go for theories and think Truth is the Emerald City, I follow the Yellow Brick Road with the best of them. And report on the journey from time to time like an historian.
History teaches Hitler invaded Russia, not that it was wrong, still less that it was ordained. History gives many reasons for it, not one simple answer. History tells me we have moved on from Ancient Egypt and Rome, left behind medieval and twentieth century Europe, socially, politically, intellectually and yes, morally. There it is.
My daughter called me a “good listener” when she was over last year. I liked that, but I knew anyway. I am what I am.
As if that weren’t enough, environments also change, and the life
varieties that survive over time are those naturally adapted to sustain their
existence - their 'life' - in changed conditions. Charles Darwin, who of course
introduced this mechanism to us all, called it ‘natural selection’ to
distinguish it from the artificial selection that people had already been doing
for ages. From tigers, pussy cats.
There is no known or apparent reason why the process of natural
selection is not at work in the Universe itself, or across the Multiverse if
that’s what the situation is.
Our Universe has certainly evolved or we wouldn’t be here. And
we’ve all heard as well of a primordial ‘soup’ that was around very early on.
If our Universe, in all its stunning complexity - galaxies, stars, planets,
tigers, cats and us - did not emerge out of that soup, we must explain what it
did emerge from, and how.
On that, more recent scientific theorising (itself constantly
‘evolving’) considers that the Universe is not necessarily running down like
some gigantic machine, as is generally supposed to be the case. That scenario,
faintly depressing however far off, is the result of entropy,* which means
everything runs from order to disorder and finally arrives at a featureless
state of equilibrium. Like the coffee in our picture, or the hot water left to
become tepid then cold in your bath.
The alternative proposal is that, provided a system is not
‘closed’ - that is, it continues to receive inputs of energy - the increase in
disorder spontaneously gives rise to new forms. And those that succeed are the
most stable, the forms naturally adapted to the environment.
Now the Universe that began with the Big Bang clearly did not
start out like it is today. In which case, entropy may not be death but
re-birth, midwife not undertaker, and this may be the way things are eternally.
That’s where, if S/He ever left, God
comes back in.
*Entropy is promulgated by the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Could
it have been repealed?
Come what may, God is with you.
Even as the Universe evolves (see About genes, science, the Universe, evolution, God and all that stuff) no one - no caliph, bishop, mystic, naturalist and, let’s be clear, no scientist - is able to say for sure how the process started or why. Chances are none ever will.
If
the Big Bang started it, next up is what started the Big Bang? If the Big Bang
started itself, how did it have the necessary explosive? If it wasn’t
an ‘explosion’ in that sense, just quantum fluctuation and an instant
expansion of space*, where did the quanta come from and why the fluctuation?
Any way you think about it, you're into an infinite regression. In one Creation story the world stands on the back of a giant turtle, the reply to any query about what the turtle stands on being it's turtles all the way down. There’s no way out of infinity. Only the possibility that there is no infinity and no mystery “out there” at all.
Our brain did not evolve to deal with the infinite; it evolved dealing with our bounded “environment” here on Earth. When elementary single-celled life emerged in some boiling pool somewhere eons ago, its entire concern was surviving in the pool, not on planet Earth or Mars. It's at it there to this day. We humans tackle surviving on planets.
To go a little deeper
into that, we're also able to grasp with no sense of a fathomless mystery the long past and formation of Earth and Mars, and before that, can conceive of a distant time when neither of them was around.
And it doesn't stop there. We know Earth in not going to last forever yet can imagine an infinite future for the Universe with humans a living part of it. Only a Beginning, try as we might, is beyond reach.
But what if there was no Beginning, if there is no answer, no question, no mystery, never will be - only ever God? What on earth would explain that?
Us.
*Most scientists seem to agree the Universe is expanding, but not on how fast.
We've all heard about our genes.
Genetics is the science of genes, their structure, function and the not quite
perfect way they transmit copies of themselves - without which there would be
no variety and people would not show it in profusion among us, as they do.
As if that weren’t enough,
environments also change, and the life varieties that survive over time are
those naturally adapted to sustain their existence - their 'life' - in changed
conditions. Charles Darwin, who of course introduced this mechanism to us all,
called it ‘natural selection’ to distinguish it from the artificial selection
that people had already been doing for ages. From tigers, pussy cats.
There is no known or apparent reason
why the process of natural selection is not at work in the Universe itself, or
across the Multiverse if that’s what the situation is.
Our Universe has certainly evolved
or we wouldn’t be here. And we’ve all heard as well of a primordial ‘soup’ that
was around very early on. If our Universe, in all its stunning complexity -
galaxies, stars, planets, tigers, cats and us - did not emerge out of that
soup, we must explain what it did emerge from, and how.
On that, more recent scientific
theorising (itself constantly ‘evolving’) considers that the Universe is not
necessarily running down like some gigantic machine, as is generally supposed
to be the case. That scenario, faintly depressing however far off, is said to result from entropy,* taken to mean that everything runs from order to disorder and
finally arrives at a featureless state of equilibrium. Like the coffee in our
picture, or the hot water left to become tepid then cold in your bath. No difference. No variety. Nothing.
Needless to say, this is controversial, an equally controversial proposal being that the increase in 'disorder' (seen rather as an increase in complexity) spontaneously gives rise to new forms, including self-sustaining life. And human life, possessed by natural selection with agency, has the potential to change things.
Be all that as it may, the Universe that began with the
Big Bang clearly did not start out like it is today. In which case, entropy may
not be death but re-birth, midwife not undertaker, and this may be the way
things are eternally.
That’s where, if S/He ever left, God
comes back in.
Even as the Universe evolves, no
one - no caliph, bishop, mystic, naturalist and let’s be clear, no scientist -
is able to say for sure how the process started, or why. Chances are none ever
will.
If the Big Bang started it, next up
is what started the Big Bang? If the Big Bang started itself, how did it have
the necessary explosive? If it wasn’t an ‘explosion’ in that sense, just
quantum fluctuation and an instant expansion of space,** where did the quanta
come from and why the fluctuation?
Any way you think about it, you're
into an infinite regression. In one Creation story the world stands on the
back of a giant turtle, the reply to any query about what the turtle stands on being it's turtles
all the way down. There’s no way out of infinity. Only the possibility
that there is no infinity and no mystery “out
there” at all.
Our brain did not
evolve to deal with the infinite; it evolved dealing with our bounded environment here on Earth. Likewise, when single-celled brainless life emerged in some
boiling pool somewhere eons ago, its entire concern was surviving in the pool,
not on planet Earth or Mars. It's at it there to this day. We humans tackle
surviving on planets.
To go a little deeper
into that, we're also able to grasp with no sense of a fathomless mystery the
long past and formation of Earth and Mars, and before that, can conceive of a distant time when neither of them was around.
And it doesn't stop
there. We know Earth in not going to last forever yet can imagine an infinite
future for the Universe with humans a living part of it. Only a Beginning,
try as we might, is beyond reach.
But what if there was
no Beginning, if there is no answer, no question, no mystery, never will be - only ever God?
What on earth would explain that?
Us.
*Entropy is promulgated by the stern Second Law of Thermodynamics. Could the Universe ignore it?
**Most scientists agree the Universe is expanding, but not on how fast. None can say if it will stop.
Journalists, even when partisan in the name of freedom of speech, still like to say they are after the truth.
That may well be honest in terms of how they see truth and in the eyes of their prime listeners and readers. But is it how their work comes across to an audience requiring unbiased information on current events? If it isn’t, is it a job done honestly? - assuming some superior ‘objective approach’ is open to them.
Interview after interview shows most politicians, legally and professionally counselled beforehand, are able to evade journalists' questions and stifle useful discussion by robotically repeating the party line. Digress and deny, concede nothing.
In the same way, mixed panels on popular political ‘shows’, got up to present a ‘balance’ of opinion, all too often end in a futile shouting match between panelists whose one shared aim is to prevent opposition views being heard.
We appreciate this is election year in key western democracies and that no one said democracy, or life, is fair. If we want democracy, we must accept all its ways and means, not just the ones we agree with.
But if there is such a thing as 'the truth', can politicians somehow be held to it? Let us speculate.
What if journalists were always to interview politicians constructively, giving them time to put their position while pointing as now to any gaps and contradictions along the way. Then suppose they ask the same simple question politely every time - it could even become this method's catch-phrase:
“Do you really believe what you’re saying?”
Even politicians could not talk round that question. And wouldn’t their answer 'tell' all listeners, those agreeing and not agreeing with what they just heard, everything they want or need to know about the truth: namely, whether the speaker is telling it?
Alas, we live in the real world. The truth, like politicians, is elusive and the media is doing what they can in the circumstances. Indeed, they would no doubt quickly run out of willing interviewees if they did anything more.
We have the pageant politician-journalist jousting we have and had better think for ourselves.
You may know how you're going to vote already of course. Though most of us are not prepared to admit it to pollsters, most of us know and have always known already, from the distant days when the vote started to be extended to what is called 'the common man'.
Roughly speaking, common men voted against the toffs and the toffs voted for the Tories. In other words, your class decided your vote.
After WWII, and particularly after Tony Blair, psephologists - big word, simple meaning: psephology is the study of elections - psephologists began to notice that not all Labour voters wore a cloth cap and not everyone who voted Tory wore a top hat.
A new and perplexing explanation for our voting conduct began to emerge: people voted according to their "values", the two apparently most significant values being economic values and social values.
Now economic values are tough enough to find a way through. Most of us think there's something to be said for soaking the rich (except most of the rich of course), and every political party promises to cut taxes while raising public services to heights never before dreamed of. Divisive ideas from way back.
But these divides are nothing beside the open war caused by social values, the countless issues that bring out our moral differences.
Must the state care more, or will need and want be left to charity again? Flout women's rights and stop abortion? Will harsher punishments fix crime, or greater compassion? Should we let 'them' in or send 'them' all back to where they came from? Are freeports a good thing for the economy and strikes wrecking it? Who are the bad guys, Russia or America? Should we 'rejoin'? - the Customs Union? the Single Market? the EU? Time for 'the people' to come together and stop wars.
No wonder so many of us say we don't know how to vote, even if we'll end by giving up and voting as usual, or not voting at all.
Only 1 in 20 voters switched their vote from one of the major parties to the other one in the 2017 UK election. A minority of 1 in 10 are classified as "Apathetic" in political terms and don't vote. And why is not voting an answer? Not voting plainly makes no social or economic difference and leaves the individual as frustrated as ever after a gesture no one knows about.
You think things are bad. You're disillusioned with politics because all politicians are the same and nothing will change whoever wins.
What makes you certain of that? If things didn't change, we wouldn't have arrived at this low point now. And if this is the low point it seems to be, why is the only possible direction of travel down?
What is certain is change, and change is the only thing certain. That's why our two imperfect adversaries Mr Sunak and Mr Starmer both promise it. They know change happens even when they work to stop it. And it's why you haven't got the impossible decision you thought.
Stop giving yourself a bad time over the crisis and the way politicians can't be trusted to do something about it. If you're right on that, and if you haven't decided already, the only decision you have to make on how to vote is who you trust least.
This article is not a review of the ICJ judgment in the case of 'South Africa v Israel', full coverage of which is available across the media. It outlines the legal and political
framework to that judgment.
States,
in theory anyway, are "sovereign", an idea descended, obviously, from
kings: no one can tell them what to do.
Accordingly,
the ICJ only delivers judgment in a dispute between states that have agreed to the Court having jurisdiction in the dispute. This sounds strange because it is
entirely different from a domestic criminal court, which hears and delivers
verdicts on cases about law-breaking - that is, about crimes that have been
committed.
The
ICJ is not a criminal court. It is not involved in investigating war crimes and
in finding parties guilty or innocent. War crimes are brought against
individuals in a different court altogether, the International Criminal Court.
At
the start of its work to determine if and how the Israeli state has committed
genocide, as South Africa proposes, the ICJ also did not “call for” a
ceasefire, as many seem to have hoped it would and see as a failure in the present
judgment. The reason is simple. The ICJ cannot enforce such a call, or its judgments, because it
is not backed by a police force or army.
Unlike
in domestic society where courts are backed by those means of coercion,
international society has to manage its affairs and disputes through diplomacy
and, ultimately, war. There is no alternative, no executive authority to
maintain legal order in international society.
In
those circumstances, states can ignore judgments and carry on as if they had
never been arrived at and handed down. From its immediate reaction, Israel may
be ready to do that in respect of this judgment.
Many
people think this makes international law powerless and the whole business an
elaborate waste of time, an interminable process ending in empty words.
That
is mistaken. Words uttered, opposing positions set out, a formal judgment from the ICJ, do not disappear. Legal arguments are rehearsed,
precedents are created and stand forever. The law can be clarified and
advanced. In that respect at least, international law works like domestic law.
The
ICJ judgment has a moral force that Israel like any other state can ignore and
even ridicule.
But
at its peril, now and in the future.
Someone on Twitter this week (let's call her Georgie, not her real name) helped me understand why many of us misunderstand science. More particularly, why conservatives, who know what they know and don't like to be told anything different, often distrust science - among them anti-vaxxers and folk who know Apollo 11 didn't land on the moon but was filmed on a backlot in California like Casablanca.
How Georgie and I started on this doesn't matter. It's just that at one point in our little exchange Georgie remarked that "reason" told us Earth is round.
I couldn't agree with that and pointed out that people who think Earth is flat also have "reasons". Reasons - our reason and reasoning, rationalism and "common sense" - all support things that are incorrect as well as things that are correct, support sense and nonsense alike.
Georgie agreed with that and suggested we should speak of "logic" instead. I felt bad about it, but again I had to disagree. Logic doesn't tell us Earth is round but quite the opposite: logic definitely makes Earth flat because you can walk over it on the level in a straight line. You see the problem?
Actually, the problem is straightforward. The problem is that we think of "science" and "reason" as the same thing when they are not; and we think of both as "logical" when they aren't necessarily. Forget the illogical Cheshire Cat whose grin survives its disappearance: today it's Schrodinger's Cat, alive and dead at the same time.
So many of our mysteries, not to mention our disagreements, are the result of the way we use words, and Georgie helped me find the right words this time. I know because she didn't answer when I wrote:
Science told us Earth is round. Until it did, it was anyone's guess.
It's a question we all face, you'd think inappropriately, from when we are young.
Most of us seem to agree that, provided your health holds up, you never feel any older; and that time goes more quickly the older you get. They're the common experiences, although I remember my friend Dave saying, 'We're over the hill', and citing as proof - when I denied it - 'Look how quickly it's gone.' We were 27 at the time.
There's another oddity, not so often mentioned. Everything gets younger the older you get. Not just the policemen, as the saying goes: the whole world. Things you once thought of as long ago, as Olden Times - your mum and dad's lives before you came along, the Swinging Sixties or Roaring Twenties, World War, Will Shakespeare and the rest - aren't far-off at all: the past is not another country, but your own. Except for your family childhood, that is. That seems to belong to another life altogether.
Is it just that we know more? Have we simply grown wiser?
We'll all speak for ourselves on that. I personally know a great deal more because I've read more books, seen more plays and movies, gone to lots of places and talked and listened to a lot more people than when I was 15. Obvious enough.
Does that mean I'm wiser? My youngest daughter sort of asked me that when she was over on a visit this year. It went something like, 'You must know what life's about because you've been around for yonks.'
Swallowing a teaspoonful of resentment at this impudence, I answered promptly, 'Yes, I can definitely tell you everything you need to know about life,' which at least made us both laugh and me think about it afterwards a little more seriously.
No, I don't believe you get wiser, but you do get to know yourself better as long as you care to give it some thought. One view is that we don't exist as a continuous person psychologically throughout life. That's the common belief: we're the same person growing all the time. But it's also claimed to be an illusion, created by our memory.
I'm not sure it's an illusion. My review of me seems to show all the seeds are there when you're younger, and of course you don't spot them then because you're not looking for them then.
Later in life, Jonathan Swift evidently took to saying, 'I am what I am.' It's a long term assignment, to Know Thyself.
In an article or a comment on the internet last week (can't remember which), some rather unfortunate person lamented, 'What's the point of life if you die and everything's lost and that's the end of it?'
Which is no doubt the difference between getting older and being old.
We must guard against anthropocentrism. The Universe, we found out quite recently, is a very big place. How could we know higher forms and more advanced societies didn’t survive for millions of years before we and our intelligence came along? Or whether they are still around?
And then, quite apart from WWIII finishing us off, we're maybe approaching the point where we're able to meddle with evolution itself. That could also be the end of us humans. 'With the advent of artificial life,' wrote Doyne Farmer in Artificial Life: The Coming Evolution, 'we may be the first creatures to create our own successors.'
But in that event how would we tell?
Stay calm. Carry on. Like everything else, we're going to have to live with AI in the here and now.
Even a Daily Mail journalist appearing on a TV programme suggested the reason could be the phone contains black humour, remarks about the pandemic made in the "pressure cooker moment", as the journalist put it, that would come across as insensitive in the cold light of day. But no one knows if that is the reason for withholding the phone. What's interesting are people's reactions to the possibility that it is.
Evidently the journalist himself accepts such a response would not be untypical of Mr Johnson: Mr Johnson is not noted for his gravity. And with that in mind, I followed up with a question about it.
In a Tweet that is getting well over 8,000 views so far, I asked: 'Why would you make black jokes about deaths in a pandemic? - that is the question. Why? Why would your response to a national disaster be to trivialise it with "pressure cooker" black humour?'
The overwhelming number of 'Likes' for my Tweet suggests people find that joking about the pandemic would at least be out of place. More arresting were the few that found it was 'only human', that 'we all joke about death', or that I was being judgmental about what was in fact 'coping', in the same way that medics and nurses often cope with the awful business of death. In the last case I pointed out, I think fairly, that Boris Johnson is not a medic or a nurse but was the country's prime minister.
No doubt people differ as individuals, use a variety of personal defence mechanisms to get by, and adopt opposing loyalties, especially in respect of the famous and those elected to govern us.
But what was very striking was no one said straight out we should be able to expect better of our politicians, particularly a prime minister and leader, and that more appropriate and reassuring messages to find on the missing phone would be spontaneous sympathy for the people who died and those who suffered their loss.
Who knows? Perhaps it's there.
It's a well known question, generally followed by the instinctive answer, "Of course it does!"
Then, perhaps, a short pause and point taken. "But you're asking how can I myself be sure if I am not there to hear? And if no one is there to hear, how can anyone be sure it makes a sound?"
Well, it's common sense that it would make a sound.
Common sense? What's that? Common sense like the common sense that tells some people the world is flat - that if it were round, we'd all fall off? Anyway, isn't saying it's common sense just a way of saying what people often say in the first place - that of course it makes a sound?
That's silly. Everyone knows a tree falling in a forest, empty or not, would make a sound and if you weren't there yourself - if no one was there - it would still make a sound. You could easily put a tape recorder or something there to prove it. And when the tree fell you could hear it make a sound. It stands to reason.
But that's not a sound reason - it's just another way of saying it makes a sound. Putting a tape recorder there is just putting ourselves there when we're not there. It's not an answer to the question because we have to be here to put the tape recorder there. We've got to be there or put something we've made there - to prove a tree falling in an empty forest makes a sound.
Look, I've got more important things to do than talk about this. I'm off to stare at a brick wall for an hour.
I know it seems silly, but it's actually important.
Important? What's important about trees falling in empty forests?
It's whether they make a sound. What the question means is we can't prove an external world exists outside us.
What!? Does the world exist ...? That's the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard. Of course it does!
However much they still argue, Leavers and Remainers should be able to admit by now that it wasn't agreed in June 2016 what Brexit involved and was meant to achieve. The Tory government and party was as confused and at odds about it as the Opposition and the bewitched, bothered and bewildered British public.
Leave, yes. But stay in or get out of the Customs Union and Single Market? Global Britain? Sovereignty? Turbo-charge the economy? Freedom from an unelected EU? Preserve the democracy we fought two world wars for? Solve the Tory party's problems? All and much more found a home in an artful slogan, 'Take Back Control'.
Failure then wasn’t just an Eton mess up, or about a sinister European Union outwitting a feeble UK, or even because Mr Nigel Farage's reputation for only saying what people were thinking proved hollow.
The reason Brexit failed to deliver is 'Take Back Control' became a promise to deliver everyone's fantasy; and the referendum was a fantasy that actually delivered the means to do it.
A couple of clarifications to start.
Look up a dictionary and it will tell you democracy is 'Government by the people'. This strict verbal definition may then be expanded to 'Government by the people either directly or through representatives'. In short, there is direct democracy and indirect or representative democracy. But note these terms are for different forms of democracy. It is essential to remember democracy is first a form of government.
Democratic government varies by society, but it shares the same broad content of ideas and values everywhere: the separation of the powers; votes for all; equality before the law; freedom of expression and religion; the pursuit of an ever-increasing body of individual freedoms now viewed as human rights; a commitment to peaceful change.
Put these ideas together with the two forms of democracy and we would need to speak of 'direct democracy democracy' or 'representative democracy democracy' to tell the difference, which would swiftly become unendurable. Normally, the term 'democracy' is assumed to mean the latter and so it is here. Who or what 'the people' are, and their precise role and influence in it, are left open to the usual arguments.
Under British representative democratic government (now 'democracy' for short) problems are not passed to 'the people' at large for an expedient Yes/No solution. To see why that is, consider - Should you change your job? Would you sell your house? Is it okay to marry if you have political differences? Real people expect proper information, a chance to ask questions and to have second thoughts, about important decisions in their lives.
Yet after what is now widely acknowledged to have been a glorified advertising campaign or travelling circus, the referendum gave the British people one shot at it in just such a Yes/No option. The question seems childish, Not Suitable For Adults: 'Should the UK remain a member of the European Union or leave the European Union?'
Defenders of the Brexit referendum insist 'the people' were able to answer this question adequately because they are intelligent or act out of self-interest. This may or may not add one uncertainty to another.
But real people's intelligence or lack of it, like their self-interest, is hardly relevant if they have been denied information or fed false information. It is not insulting to real people or 'elitist' to point that out. Statistics - voter turnout, the numbers and percentages voting Yes and No, however both sides quote them for support - are also irrelevant in that case.
All these points challenge our loyalties and will be argued indefinitely in with Brext as part of Britain's history.
And many other points challenge us: the claim the close vote 52-48% was an 'overwhelming' result; the fact that the referendum was only - and explicitly - advisory; that prime minister Theresa May nonetheless took it as a 'mandate' to action Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty and leave the EU without agreed terms; Boris Johnson's flippant 'oven-ready' deal, Gas Mark Four in the microwave. A dog's dinner or not?
But for all those who stand by the referendum as 'democratic' - who believe that direct democracy is superior, somehow more genuine or 'real' than representative democracy ... who believe in 'the will of the people' - a last point is fatal to these arguments.
When the 52% voted Leave, they could do nothing to get what they voted for done. Even if we suppose 'the people' could know exactly what 'Take Back Control' meant and had the same end in mind when they voted, the problem remains. 'The people' could not make it happen because, whether 'the people' exist or not, they do not govern.
The referendum breached Britain's democracy to grant an illusionary empowerment to thin air. Fancies and fantasy ran unrestrained. The result was not the dramatic win for Leave that it first seemed, but a guarantee that any future Brexit would fail to meet expectations. Under democracy, all hopes, all aspirations, still come back to government, which will do no more than government can do.
Polls show people have their doubts about Brexit now; doubts about direct democracy will follow; we are likely to be wary of referendums in future. All is not lost. The good news is if people change their minds and turn against the government for getting things wrong, they can vote that government out. Not in a referendum, though - that doesn't work. An election does.
Among other benefits, democracy is a form of government that allows for peaceful change. All told, it's probably the best we can get. As long as that means a representative democracy democracy.
Many on social media found this reply unsatisfactory after Mr Raab's sour letter of resignation, and also duplicitous. Mr Dowden referred to the report of Adam Tolley KC, who had investigated the bullying charge over five months, as an 'interpretation', a term they took as more government double-talk to imply there was something defective if not dismissible about the findings.
In the world of politics, there are always good grounds for this alternative 'interpretation', of course. But let us consider if an honest answer to the question is possible at all, given the context: a loaded question, no doubt justifiable but loaded nonetheless, on a popular and widely reported TV show; Mr Dowden's personal standards under the spotlight as well as his professional duty to his party; and the readiness of opponents to pounce on his every word as evidence of the basest villainy regarding both.
Still Mr Dowden might have started a genuinely honest answer along these lines: "Look, I know I am here to answer questions, not to ask them, but I really can't answer that question. It'd be terribly arrogant of me, grossly judgmental, to do so - lacking in ordinary common decency expected of us all. May I ask - not to be evasive or argumentative - would you comment in public on the character and conduct of some colleague of yours in your field, journalism, on occasions you were not even present? Would anyone, in any field? No one, not just me, can discuss a colleague in that way."
That may carry weight as an honest answer? Over to you.
Along with which Mr Dowden might be thought to have been fair in what he actually said. He pointed out there had been a long and careful inquiry; he raised no question as to the independence or professional competence of the investigation; and ended by saying Mr Raab had promised to resign if there were any adverse findings and that accordingly Mr Raab had resigned. Contrary to the interpretation of Mr Dowden's reply as suspect, some might say this suggests he accepts the conclusions of the Tolley report.
The problem seems to be whether there's any answer to the question that will satisfy voters' fierce loyalties, whichever side they are on. What can it mean to be 'honest' in politics today? Is it possible for any politician or political party to bring the country together by speaking up for obvious common interests in accountability, probity and fair-minded government, when the country is fundamentally, maybe indefinitely, at odds with itself after Brexit?
If it tries anything, it is to make some points to think about, whether that is for, against or undecided. You'll judge whether it succeeds at that at all.
.jpg)
British
Prime Minister Rishi Sunak and his team have clearly worked hard to find a
decent way round the crisis caused by Boris Johnson's Northern Ireland
Protocol, it being perhaps the most disagreed part of the widely disagreed UK-EU Trade and Cooperation
Agreement*.
Together
with the EU, they have paid due attention to the practicalities, the economic
concerns, politics and ideological positions of the different interests the
former Prime Minister neglected. By contrast, and subject to no invincible
devils hiding in the detail, the resulting Windsor Framework appears as a range
of considered proposals and a commendable achievement.
The
questions that will not go away are how and whether this framework can be built
on. Is it solid enough to structure lasting arrangements in Northern Ireland
or, failing that, how long before it must be dismantled as a makeshift?
Perhaps
more awkwardly, is it entirely fanciful to see a constitutionally devolved
region, one foot in the European Union and outperforming economically because
of it, becoming a kind of fifth column inside a not-so-United Kingdom of Great
Britain and Northern Ireland? Questions around Brexit, sole cause of this and
so many internal divisions and contradictions, are not going away either.
Long
term there seem to be only four dependable ways out of the Northern Ireland
dilemma: 1) Defeat or ditch the DUP and Tory Brexit Irreconcilables; 2) A
united Ireland; 3) Defeat or ditch the European Union.
An
answer to 1) could be closer than we think: Mr Sunak has said there will be a
parliamentary vote on the Framework. Tory terror of wipeout in the general
election will ensure the Ayes have it and maybe some Brexit hardliners will go
along with it and maybe some won't. Either way it's hard to see them carrying the same clout afterwards.
The
answer to 2) calls for prophecy, always of doubtful reliability.
And 3)
is just one more pipedream of Brexit, which the public are coming to see is a
total fantasy.
Many
will also see the Windsor Framework is essentially a sideshow and point to
the likeliest way out of the real problem given time: Number 4) Rejoin.
Some will say it has started already.
*The
Unsettled Settlement, December 31 2020
British
Prime Minister Rishi Sunak and his team have clearly worked hard to find a
decent way round the crisis caused by Boris Johnson's Northern Ireland
Protocol, it being perhaps the most disagreed part of the widely disagreed UK-EU Trade and Cooperation
Agreement*.
Together with the EU, they have
paid due attention to the practicalities, the economic concerns, politics and
ideological positions of the different interests the former Prime Minister
neglected. By contrast, and subject to no invincible devils hiding in the
detail, the resulting Windsor Framework appears as a range of considered
proposals and a commendable achievement.
The questions that will not go away are
how and whether this framework can be built on. Is it solid enough to structure
lasting arrangements in Northern Ireland or, failing that, how long before it
must be dismantled as a makeshift?
Perhaps more awkwardly, is it entirely
fanciful to see a constitutionally devolved region, one foot in the European
Union and outperforming economically because of it, becoming a kind of fifth
column inside a not-so-United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland?
Questions around Brexit, sole cause of this and so many internal divisions and
contradictions, are not going away either.
Long term there seem to be only four
dependable ways out of the Northern Ireland dilemma: 1) Defeat or ditch the DUP
and Tory Brexit Irreconcilables; 2) A united Ireland; 3) Defeat or ditch the
European Union.
An answer to 1) could be closer than we
think: Mr Sunak has said there will be a parliamentary vote on the Framework.
Tory terror of wipeout in the general election will ensure the Ayes have it and
maybe some Brexit hardliners will go along with it and maybe some won't. Either
way it's hard to see them carrying the same clout afterwards.
The answer to 2) calls for prophecy,
always of doubtful reliability.
And 3) is just one more pipedream of
Brexit, which the public are coming to see is a total fantasy.
Many will also see the Windsor
Framework is essentially a sideshow and point to the likeliest way out of the
real problem given time: Number 4) Rejoin.
Some will say it has started already.
*The Unsettled Settlement, December 31
2020
The notion of balance has a powerful audience appeal. We, the people are said to be capable of thinking for ourselves and need only to be given the facts without bias. A favourite saying of politicians is 'the people are not fools' and media professionals repeat the flattery. Everyone agrees we can decide what's true once we have the facts.
It may feel we're all on the same page on this, but the story is unconvincing. The media, on the left or right, plainly do not offer balance. They take sides and press opinions more uncompromisingly than ever because social media can leave them behind now on any tricky topic of the day.
Distracted if not divided by this though we are, we citizens, as a body, complain unceasingly about the media's wicked ways, whatever their political colours.
We rail against the influence of press barons and wealth, the glaring omissions and outright lies of MSM news coverage and TV documentaries; we claim the 'woke' have taken over or the fascists have. Across social media there's relief that Donald Trump's once vaunted truth-telling is no longer the force it was; in the UK, the right wing are outraged by the BBC's pushing 'lefty views' and the lefties are outraged by Britain's national broadcaster 'suppressing' them.
Can some sense be found in this jumble? Rather than look only at what the media are doing, we need to look at the media's audiences. That's all of us.
Aren't we, the people, simply showing 'confirmation bias'? Everyone's heard about confirmation bias today. It's our tendency to seek out opinions that we agree with. Life is less of a problem that way.
Confirmation bias may be exercised consciously but, much more often, works unconsciously. Either way we're not buying our usual tabloid or tuning into CNN or Fox News because we're looking for balance. We're spending our money and time on confirmation. Far from the media offering balance, it appears the media are telling us what we want to hear.
This cannot be made illegal; people are entitled to their different loyalties; we take sides. That's individual rights and democracy. But it raises questions we can easily overlook.
Do the media manipulate us, pull the strings as the illustration to this article proposes, or do they simply reflect our biases? If the media are biased only because we are, is there any harm in it?
On the other hand, if they are manipulating us, what are they doing it for? If the usual answer is correct - it's for money and power - why don't they make money and grab power by taking the other side? It's equally open to them. What makes them choose?
Whatever the answer to that, we cannot escape our own part here. Confirming time and again that we're right about something - shocking! just like I spotted before! - can convince us we're always right about everything. If that's not good, what's worse is that it makes other people, other opinions, always wrong. Which ones? All of them! They're either hiding some sinister agenda or fools. (The italics indicate irony: the people aren't fools, remember?)
And if we refuse to negotiate because the others are wrong, if we mustn't give in because we're always right, if we scorn to work with fools, how can we or society manage to succeed? What's the answer?
A start would be never to trust what you read in the papers.
It
was a question in an online Masterclass: was Susan making a free choice when
she ordered noodles instead of rice with her Chinese meal?
Most
of us would say at once, Of course. She could have ordered rice if she’d chosen to. Or not ordered rice or noodles and asked for chips that
were not even on the menu. Susan can do what she likes. Susan has free will.
Well,
has she? Science and thinking about it can suggest otherwise.
I answered first that she did not make a free choice. There were alternatives on
the menu, but Susan chose noodles because she wanted noodles, not rice.
Obviously. That left her, in effect, with no choice.
Then
I thought, it’s a question in a Masterclass. They must expect more thought than
the obvious. And so I thought some more.
Did
Susan choose noodles because she always
chooses noodles? Wouldn’t that suggest that she hasn’t got free will like I
said - that she’s just ‘programmed’ to choose noodles? Then I thought, on the
other hand, even if she’s programmed like that, she’s still free to break with
the programme. She could order something else, including rice, if she chooses
to. And so I changed my answer to she has
got free will.
But
now I examined my reasons more closely. I was seeing this little Masterclass
problem in terms of Susan’s choice, which of course begs the
question - meaning the question itself assumes she has a choice. (We all assume
that, don’t we?) But what if we don’t have a choice? So I changed again and
decided, finally, Susan did not make a free choice. What she wanted determined she
would choose noodles, at least on that occasion.
Which means my first, instinctive answer was the right answer, though it didn't explain why. In this way.
The
choice and the action are not always two ‘events’ - that is, first we decide to have
noodles as opposed to rice and then we order noodles. The two can be one and the
same thing. This idea can be confusing at first, contrary to common sense, but
becomes clearer with another example.
I
choose to raise my left arm .. and it’s raised. I choose not to raise my left
arm .. and so it’s not raised. We believe we’re making a choice between two
options when our action must plainly be one. Your arm is raised because you’ve chosen
to raise it; or it stays put because you’ve chosen not to raise it. The action does
not involve any choice: the action is the choice.
Now
that still seems strange, even wrong, until we see there's a quite simple
explanation for all this.
Susan
could have chosen rice, looking back, because free choice and free will are
what we always have when we’re looking back
or forward, not faculties we necessarily exercise at the time. Occasionally we glimpse and confirm this. We say about something we've done, I felt I had no choice. Is freedom only what we believe we have, not a reality?
However much they still argue, Leavers and Remainers should be able to admit by now that it wasn't agreed in June 2016 what Brexit invol...
