Archive for the ‘Politics’ Category

« Older Entries
Newer Entries »

Markets assume that BREXIT chances died with Jo Cox

June 20, 2016

The markets are all up sharply today. It seems as if the murder of MP Jo Cox has put paid to the small chance of a BREXIT win and that the financial industry is now assuming that any BREXIT will not happen. It is not just the FTSE but markets all across Europe which are showing gains of 2 – 3+%. Even in japan and Hong Kong, markets are buoyed by the apparent risk of a BREXIT receding. Gold is down by about 1%.

markets 20th June 2016 c1300 -- Reuters

markets 20th June 2016 c1300 — Reuters

The relief in the markets is palpable.

Of course, there is still a faint possibility that BREXIT could win, but elections, like markets, depend upon mood.  There is plenty of anti-EU sentiment which will not go away so easily. But the dominant mood now, I think, is that Jo Cox’s murderer cannot be seen to have won. For the markets, better the blundering and fumbling EU and the ECB than the uncertainty of a BREXIT.

BREXIT died with Jo Cox.

 

Tags:,
Posted in Behaviour, Politics, UK | 3 Comments »

UK likely to vote to remain but fundamental flaws in the EU concept are now exposed

June 20, 2016

I see the BREXIT vote as an opportunity to correct the glaring flaws in the EU concept of a Holy European Empire. Whether BREXIT wins or not in this vote, the EU will no longer be able to just ignore the disconnect between the concept and the bulk of the voters/tax payers in the EU. Of course if BREXIT does not win, it will slow down the inevitable reforms that the EU must introduce.

I suspect that finally the fear of leaving will govern and that BREXIT will lose by a small margin. The EU politicians and bureaucrats will probably tout this as a win for the EU concept but, in fact, they will have to prepare for drawing back the various EU encroachments into the territory of national sovereignty.

NYT: 

There is no argument that the European Union is a flawed institution. Its dysfunction has been on display in its fitful handling of the Greek debt and refugee crises, its bureaucracy is pathetically slow to recognize or correct its failings and it often acts like an out-of-touch and undemocratic elite. Part of that is the inherent inefficiency of an institution of 28 member states with big differences in size, wealth and democratic traditions, and which participate to different degrees in the single currency and border-free zone.

Yet the E.U. is an extraordinary achievement, a voluntary union of nations whose histories include some of the bloodiest wars ever waged. However flawed the bloc, it has replaced blood feuds with a single market, shared values, free travel and labor mobility. Britain has always been something of an outlier in the E.U., joining what began as the European Coal and Steel Community two decades after it was formed and declining to participate in either the euro currency or the borderless Schengen zone. Yet there is no question that Britain has benefited from membership, both economically and as a strong voice in shaping E.U. policy.

The euroskepticism that has led to the British referendum, and that forms a strong component of the right-wing nationalist parties on the rise in many European countries, is not about efficiency or history. It is about ill-defined frustration with the complexities of a changing world and a changing Europe, a loss of faith in mainstream politicians and experts, a nostalgia for a past when nations decided their own fates and kept foreigners out. To those who hold these views, the European Union is the epitome of all that has gone wrong, an alien bureaucracy deaf to the traditions and values of its members. Not surprisingly, Mr. Trump and the French politician Marine Le Pen both favor Brexit.

I see parallels in the “anti-establishment” views embodied in euroscepticism and in the “anti-establishment” views of the Trump supporters in the US. In both cases the revolt is a reaction to what is perceived as the over-weening arrogance of a political, liberal, elite who insist on defining political correctness and on telling the electorate that they know best what is good for them.

In 2016, both in the EU and in the US, it is immigration and the flawed concept of multiculturalism which is dominating. It is occupying this ground which may well determine many of the elections. In fact the rise of the right-wing nationalists in Europe is the pendulum swinging back from 3 decades of self-righteous, social democratic dogma. Europe has moved further left in the 3 decades after communism fell than while communism was still an acceptable philosophy. But I note that some of the right-wing parties (Sweden, Denmark, France …. ) are losing some support as more of the centrist parties adopt more restrictive measures on immigration and take away this ground from the right. Take Trump’s immigration ground away from him and he will not stand a chance.

Tags:, , ,
Posted in Behaviour, European Union, Politics, UK, US | Comments Off on UK likely to vote to remain but fundamental flaws in the EU concept are now exposed

Could Trump get concessions from the NRA that are beyond Obama and Clinton?

June 16, 2016

It is strange but true that a left-wing government can succeed in implementing an austerity package where a right-wing government cannot. The left leaning government in Greece has implemented austerity measures which would have caused riots if implemented by a conservative administration. Of course there has to be a practical imperative to do so and the apparent betrayal of ideology is excused on the necessity of realpolitik. Similarly right-leaning governments are excused for going against their natural instincts when being heretical. Increasing taxes or increasing public spending can be introduced where a left-leaning government would be critcised for blindly following ideology.

Now it is reported that in the wake of the Orlando massacre, Donald Trump is trying to get the NRA to cooperate in preventing people on watch lists from easily acquiring automatic weapons.

CNBC: Presidential hopeful Donald Trump on Wednesday said he will meet with the leading U.S. gun rights group about preventing people on a government terrorism “watch list” from buying guns, a move that may put pressure on fellow Republicans to enact new gun restrictions following the Orlando massacre. …….

…… The National Rifle Association, a politically influential lobbying group that claims more than 4 million members and has played a key role in thwarting gun control legislation in the U.S. Congress, on May 20 endorsed Trump, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee.

“I will be meeting with the NRA, who has endorsed me, about not allowing people on the terrorist watch list, or the no fly list, to buy guns,” Trump wrote on Twitter.

Trump last month told an NRA convention that he would protect the constitutional right to bear arms. He accused the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, Hillary Clinton, of wanting to abolish that right, which she says is false. Trump said in a November television interview he would support gun restrictions for someone on a “watch list” who is “an enemy of state.”

Trump NRA

I observe that when the same suggestions have been made by Democrats it invites immediate and instant opposition from the NRA.

But it could be different coming from Trump. The suggestion is basic common sense and unexceptionable. While Paris and Brussels demonstrate that even stringent gun restrictions will not stop terrorists from carrying out their atrocities, it may well make their life a little harder. But for the NRA to take a Democratic suggestion on board is not genetically possible. But accepting a suggestion coming from Trump – who they have endorsed for President – offers both Trump and the NRA a potential win/win. Trump could do with demonstrating his effectiveness in achieving something – even when just a Presidential candidate – which Barack Obama has not been able to do in 8 years with the full range of Presidential powers available to him. The NRA has the possibility of demonstrating their consideration not only of “individual rights” but also of “the national interest”.

So my expectation is that the NRA may well accept restricting gun sales to people on “watch” lists or “no-fly” lists and that Trump will be able to take the credit.

 

Tags:,
Posted in Behaviour, Politics, US | 3 Comments »

Orlando was primarily about radical Islam not about gun availability

June 13, 2016

Common sense is the victim when political correctness reigns. Gun controls are much stricter in Europe than in the US, but that didn’t stop Paris or Brussels or London.

Those in the US who don’t wish to confront radical Islam are spinning the Orlando event into a gun control issue. I perceive a tendency among the (mainly liberal) media to ignore both the shooter’s declared allegiance to ISIS and ISIS’ claim of responsibility. There is a reluctance to address the shooter’s path to radicalisation and, at 28, he was no spring chicken. The influence of his father and his support for the Taliban is given very little space. His being interviewed three times by the FBI gets some attention but not much. It is seen as more important not to blame the vast bulk of moderate Muslims than to confront the radical elements within Islam. Political correctness is clearly in the camp of cowardice.

Instead of blaming radical Islam there is a clear effort to blame the availability of guns. But this spin rings hollow. The politically correct sections of European media (BBC, The Guardian ….) are also closing their eyes to the influence of radical Islam and focusing on gun availability. After Paris and Brussels they should know better. Obama has made his standard speech after a mass shooting for the 14th time during his time in office. His words stand out because of his reluctance to pin the blame on radical Islam and not for his empty – and now largely discounted – boilerplate words about love and hate.

Orlando now joins San Bernadino and London and Paris and Brussels and Bagdad as victims of terrorism inspired by radical Shia Islam – and probably ordered (loosely) by ISIS. The US will have to get used to the fact that radicalised Muslim maniacs are now among them and many of them were born in the US. For someone with an agenda, stricter gun control laws are unlikely to be any kind of a deterrent.

For both Europe and the US, it is of little value to ignore the fact that among the millions of refugees on the move from the Middle East and North Africa there are going to be significant numbers of proponents of radical Islam and “terrorists”. Political correctness and molly-coddling radical Islam for fear of being labeled Islamophobic will not change that.

 

Tags:, ,
Posted in Behaviour, Politics, Religion, US | Comments Off on Orlando was primarily about radical Islam not about gun availability

Is it fear of Saudi Arabia which stops Obama from calling it “Islamic” terror?

June 12, 2016

The Orlando mass murderer called 911 to claim allegiance to ISIS before the massacre.

IS have come out with a statement claiming responsibility. They declared 3 days ago that they would target Florida.

The shooter, Omar Saddiqui Mateen, was an Afghani American and a Muslim. His father reckons religion had nothing to do with the massacre. Just a coincidence no doubt – again. He was also a Florida registered Democrat. He was also being watched by the FBI. Not many Muslims are terrorists but a remarkably large number of terrorists  (currently) are Shia Muslims. And that is not entirely coincidence.

And still Barack Obama cannot bring himself to call it “Islamic” terror.

Politico:

President Barack Obama on Sunday declared the worst mass shooting in U.S. history “an act of terror and an act of hate.”

“Today, as Americans, we grieve the brutal murder, a horrific massacre, of dozens of innocent people,” Obama said Sunday. “We pray for their families, who are grasping for answers with broken hearts. We stand with the people of Orlando, who have endured a terrible attack on their city.”

“Although it’s still early in the investigation, we know enough to say that this was an act of terror and an act of hate, and as Americans we are united in grief, in outrage and in resolve to defend our people,” he continued. 

A man armed with a handgun and an assault rifle rampaged through a gay nightclub in Orlando, Florida, early Sunday, killing at least 50 people and leaving more than 50 hospitalized.

The shooter was identified as Omar Saddiqui Mateen, who died in a gunfight with SWAT officers after initially firing shots into the club and eventually taking hostages.

The death toll is now upto 53. still 50 but some of the injured are in an acute condition.

I note that Saudi Arabia blackmailed the UN and Ban Ki-Moon into removing the Saudi-led coalition from the blacklist of organisations committing atrocities against children in Yemen. I note that the CIA now states – under Saudi pressure – that confidential documents will absolve Saudi Arabia of any involvement with 9/11. That may technically be correct as far as the government of Saudi Arabia is concerned, but it was Saudi money and Saudi nationals led by a Saudi fanatic who were involved.

Is it fear of Saudi Arabia (and the undoubted Saudi based support for ISIS and other Shia fanatics) which stops Obama from calling Islamic terror Islamic? Even when it is? Or is it his fear of being considered an Islamophobe?

 

Tags:,
Posted in Politics, Religion, US | Comments Off on Is it fear of Saudi Arabia which stops Obama from calling it “Islamic” terror?

The EU cannot change geography , but they can change their rules

June 11, 2016

The geographical reality of the UK being part of the continent of Europe will not change with Brexit. Europe will not disappear even if the EU does.

The European Union is a somewhat artificial, and now also very sick, association. The EU as it is today “is a misassembled, headless monster, owing less to Charlemagne than to Frankenstein.” Economically the EU has become the sick man of the global economy. It is a club which needs to revise its reason for being. It has to move away from grandiose dreams of creating a new Holy European Empire and its rules need urgently to change. The European Parliament is a useless appendage and needs to be abolished. It is the most wasteful and non-democratic parliament ever. The European Court of Human Rights has done more than most institutions to demonstrate that the EU (not human rights) is an ass. The European Commission is a self-righteous, self-serving, profligate bureaucracy which dwarfs Roman bureaucracy. It may have been intended to be a disseminator of best practices, but has become instead the propogator of scams designed to milk EU subsidies. The Euro is a failed experiment.

With less than two weeks to go for the UK referendum, it is worth remembering that the vote itself is just the start of a long 2-3 year process. It can be stopped by the UK parliament at any time (though at the cost of a government and a few politicians). A NO vote would galvanise similar sentiments in Holland and Denmark and even some of the newer members. I am convinced that it is the shock necessary for the EU to confront its existential problem and tone down its political aims and focus on its trdaing and economic aims. The free movement of genuine labour has to be tempered to exclude the free movement of the scavengers. The European Commission has to be decimated and drawn back from its intrusion into what are local, national matters.

My desired scenario is that a NO vote in the referendum will give the EU the biggest shock it has had since its inception. Minds will then be sufficiently concentrated to really think about reforms and to be more than the cosmetic sops so far offered to David Cameron. The rush to reform (led by Germany, France and Italy) will be real and announced well before any ratification vote (probably in about 6 -12 months) in the UK parliament. And then the UK parliament can overrule the BREXIT referendum and have that ratified by a General Election.

Just wishful thinking on my part. But I see a glorious future possible for Europe. But not for the Europe of the European Union.

Frank Jacobs wrote in his piece “Where is Europe” in the NYT:

…… This “Europe” is a misassembled, headless monster, owing less to Charlemagne than to Frankenstein. It stalks the bureaucratic labyrinth of Brussels, beying for tribute from the peoples of Europe. But this modern minotaur is also a petty, powerless bureaucrat, issuing directives on the correct curvature of cucumbers, but unable to save the euro from collapsing. …

…… most of Europe’s borders are self-evident. They are the waters that border it on three sides: the Arctic Sea to the north, the Atlantic Ocean to the west and the Mediterranean and Black Seas to the south. Ah, but then the ultimate problem becomes painfully clear: Where to draw Europe’s eastern border? And does it even have one?

Let’s return to our earlier definition: A continent is a large, contiguous land mass. And not half of one. Many geographers see what we call the European continent as a mere peninsula of a gigantic continent of Eurasia, spanning halfway across the world, from the Strait of Gibraltar to the Bering Strait. There is no good reason to divide that continent in two. No good geographic reason. …..

Europe as she should be

Europe as she should be

Europe is not a continental mass in itself. It is just the western end of the Eurasian continental plate. The Eurovision song (?) contest may – in its inanity – include Israel and Turkey and Azerbaijan and Australia but whatever definition of Europe finally evolves it should not include Turkey and cannot include Ukraine or Belarus. That the definition must encompass Switzerland and Iceland – and the UK – is self-evident.

 

Tags:,
Posted in Europe, European Union, Politics, UK | 1 Comment »

Clinton versus Trump is the Bad versus the Ugly …

June 10, 2016

The Good is nowhere to be seen.

Of course, there may be some good among the bad and what is ugly is not necessarily all bad, but it must be immensely frustrating for US voters that the choice available is as impoverished as it is.

How Presidential candidates appear during the election is not a very good indicator of their performance. Ronald Reagan reduced expectations to those of a bad B-movie script, but ended up changing, and charging up, the mood in the country. Barack Obama raised expectations for all that he said he could but his Presidency has become a litany of all that he could not (did not).

So it is not impossible for Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump to be great Presidents, but the signs are less than promising.

Still, it should be a fascinating contest with real entertainment value. I hardly watch and am no expert on how Big Brother functions, but my perception is that it is not “niceness” that wins. In fact, my perception is that ugliness is prized. Maybe Trump has shifted the battle to be an ugliness contest and has an advantage. But shrewishness also wins and wins big.

The Ugly Beast versus the Bad Shrew.

The Good is noticeable by its absence.

 

Tags:,
Posted in Politics, US | Comments Off on Clinton versus Trump is the Bad versus the Ugly …

Obama, Clinton, media slam Trump, and Trump support will probably rise

June 2, 2016

This week has seen a concerted, seemingly coordinated, attack by Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and the establishment press on Trump and Trump University. If my theory, that Trump is riding an anti-establishment wave which feeds on attacks from the establishment, is correct, this will lead to an increase in Trump’s numbers. This will show up in next week’s polls.

The anti-establishment wave could, if fed enough energy by the media attacks on Trump, turn into an anti-establishment tsunami. I find it amazing that the NYT, WaPo, LA Times, HuffPo …. have not picked up on the reality that it is their “over the top” attacks on Trump which are energising and feeding his support. The content of their attacks has become irrelevant. It is their contempt which is creating a magnified reaction. The more the establishment seem to be “ganging up” on him, the greater the reaction. I see an analogy with the vibrational collapse of a bridge when troops march across in step and cause a resonance failure. As media attacks on Trump seem more coordinated, the anti-establishment reaction could reach resonance and become an uncontrollable tsunami.

Obama’s stuttering attack was particularly unconvincing and gives some backing to the suggestion that “Barack Obama as your enemy is equivalent to having a thousand friends”. 

(ISIS might agree. I note that the Iraqi (with US air support) assault on Fallujah has stalled. Massive advance publicity was released about the assault but it has been somewhat less effective than when Syria (with Russian air support) has taken back ISIS strongholds.)

In the meantime Clinton does not seem able to finally kill off Sanders. In line-ups against Trump, Sanders consistently does much better than Clinton. I take this as being consistent with the angry, anti-establishment wave which transcends “left” or “right”.

 

Tags:, ,
Posted in Behaviour, Media, Politics, US | 2 Comments »

Would Clinton or Trump be better for a global economic recovery?

May 31, 2016

After 8 years of an American Democrat administration the recovery from the global financial crisis of 2008 has still not gathered steam. Europe, with its EU chains, is no longer capable of leading a global economic recovery. (I note that the UK or Germany could have played a bigger part in a global recovery if they were each unhampered by EU membership). China and India, together and if their economies were in phase, could also have led a recovery. But the Chinese growth story has stalled and is out of phase with the Indian growth. The US certainly could have, and could still, lead a recovery. But Barack Obama has been too risk averse (read too scared) to take any real leadership role. So while the US is recovering, very slowly, it has not really contributed to being the global economic motor it could be. The primary reason, of course, is that public spending is much too high and, in consequence, taxes are higher than necessary. Obama has elected to print money (quantitative easing) rather than attempting to get the fundamentals right. The EU is still printing money and public spending is little less than profligate. Spain and Portugal are next after Greece and France is not very healthy. They are all pursuing traditional socialist policies of trying to get out of the economic hole by increasing public spending (with newly printed money of reducing value). And with the structure of the EU being what it is, they hold back the countries which have much sounder fundamentals.

The question is, who of Clinton or Trump would contribute more to a global recovery?

Certainly public spending would be higher with Clinton than with Trump. Public infrastructure spending – which is now necessary in the US – would probably be more likely with Clinton. But her choice would be to print money or to increase taxes. Obama took the easy way out and printed money. Whether Clinton would have the nerve to either cut non-infrastructure spending or to raise taxes is uncertain. She may not dither like Obama, but she is not any less risk-averse. Assuming she did increase taxes, she would probably increase corporate rather than personal taxation and that is always a “growth killer”.  Small businesses would be hard hit. As Europe has demonstrated so well, minimum wage legislation only destroys – for ever – the entry-level and low-qualification jobs. Clinton will find minimum wage legislation tempting and may fall into the trap of destroying jobs. There seems little chance that a Clinton administration would contribute any more to a global recovery than Obama has.

What Trump might or might not do is uncertain. It is possible that he might address the fundamentals and really reduce the size of the bureaucracy. Or he may increase defence spending and try to balance the books by cutting welfare spending. He could take the measures to help small businesses and it is here, with small businesses, that real growth and wealth creation is generated. Or he may just help the large corporations which creates fewer jobs and favours the wealthiest.

The Clinton path will be “more of the same”. Not much to gain but probably not much worse than with Obama. The Trump path is unknown. It has a much larger upside than anything Clinton has to offer, but it has a much larger downside as well. A Trump path is full of risks. If the economic downsides with a Trump Presidency could be limited and he helped small businesses more than large corporates, then he could contribute to a global revival which Clinton would be incapable of. But the risk is significant.

I remain of the opinion that The US choice is now high risk with Trump or low gain with Clinton. 

 

 

Tags:, ,
Posted in Politics, US | Comments Off on Would Clinton or Trump be better for a global economic recovery?

Trump leads — is it a perversion of democracy?

May 24, 2016

Donald Trump leads – just – in the polls and there is some panic. The RCP poll of polls shows Trump leading Clinton for the first time by just 0.2 percentage points (43.4 to 43.2).

Trump leads 22nd May 2016

Trump leads 22nd May 2016

But this support for Trump is not reflected in the US media. Overwhelmingly – and I would guess over 90% – of the main stream media are contemptuous of Trump. The liberal media is filled with anti-Trump vitriol. (These attacks are counter productive and I have written elsewhere of how Trump and the anti-establishment wave he is riding feed on these attacks). The consensus even among my friends – who do reflect the media – is that a Trump victory would be a catastrophe for the US and the world. Trump supporters are considered fools or worse. They are supposed to be the racists and the rednecks and all the stupid and “angry” people.

The US media attacks on Trump show a hint of panic (especially the liberal-left media). They are still missing the point that attacking Trump increases his support. It is only by adopting an anti-establishment stance that some of this support could be siphoned away.

Suppose Trump does win the election. Will the media and the establishment accept the “verdict of the people”? Will they still be extolling the virtues of democracy and universal suffrage where the stupid have as much of a vote as the intelligent? I suspect that Trump will not be as bad a President as people fear. But if he wins, it will be because of the inherently, perverse nature of democracy.

The basic problem is that “universal suffrage” with an “equal vote” for everyone is fundamentally unjust.

……. it is mere existence as an individual that suffices to have an “equal vote”. And if everyone has the vote it is assumed that “democracy” has been attained – as if it were some sort of state of grace.  The only real criterion is that of age, even if some countries still have some other criteria in force. The merit of the individual is irrelevant. Votes can and are bought by promises or by free meals or by money or by a bus-ride. A “bought” or coerced vote weighs as heavy as one that is freely given. (There is nothing wrong in buying or selling votes – the flaw lies in that the seller has a vote equal to that of free elector). A fool has the same vote as a wise man. A large tax contributor is equated to a small tax contributor. Government servants paid for by taxes have the same weight of vote as the tax payers. Priests and politicians have the vote. The behaviour of an individual does not affect his vote. Experience, intelligence, wisdom, competence or criminality are all considered equally irrelevant. A majority vote is considered to be the “will of the people” where “constitutions” are supposed to prevent excesses against minorities. But constitutions are subject to the same majority vote. One hundred and one idiots take precedence over one hundred wiser men. And we inevitably get the politicians that universal suffrage deserves. This democracy and its universal suffrage needs also to be tempered by merit. But meritocracy smacks of elitism and no self-respecting socialist could tolerate that.

Universal Suffrage which ignores merit has led to the Lowest Common Factor becoming what counts and not the Highest Common Multiple that is being sought. And that was not, I think , what Lincoln intended.

Perhaps what is needed is a differential vote. Every one would have a basic vote but extra fractions of a vote could be earned for merit – for intelligence, for service, for wealth creation, … . It is probably time for “democracy” to shift towards a “meritocracy”.

 

Tags:, ,
Posted in Behaviour, Politics, US | Comments Off on Trump leads — is it a perversion of democracy?

« Older Entries
Newer Entries »