Archive for the ‘Politics’ Category

« Older Entries
Newer Entries »

Saudi Arabia, Netanyahu and GOP make unusual bedfellows

March 16, 2015

The nuclear non-proliferation treaty is fundamentally flawed. Establishing a monopoly for some selected countries is unsustainable in the long run. But the opposition of the GOP, Benjamin Netanyahu and now Saudi Arabia to any nuclear deal with Iran makes an unholy alliance against a deal but which is counter-productive. It provides an unusual indication that Barack Obama – by accident rather than by design – is on the right track with his negotiations with Iran. The general expectation of course is that a deal is inevitable. It will be reached (at some time if not now) where Iran will – with certain safeguards – continue the enrichment of uranium for the production of nuclear fuels and the UN sanctions will be lifted. As far as nuclear weapons are concerned, no international treaty can succeed unless all member countries sign up to the same obligations. It cannot be a few reserving special positions for themselves and imposing different obligations on all others. Four of the nine nuclear countries are not signatories to the nuclear non-proliferation treaty.

SIPRI: At the start of 2014 nine states—the United States, Russia, the United Kingdom, France, China, India, Pakistan, Israel and North Korea—possessed approximately 4000 operational nuclear weapons. If all nuclear warheads are counted, these states together possessed a total of approximately 16 300 nuclear weapons (see table 1) compared to 17 270 in early 2013.  

…. all five legally recognized nuclear weapon states—China, France, Russia, the UK and the USA—are either deploying new nuclear weapon delivery systems or have announced programmes to do so. India and Pakistan continue to develop new systems capable of delivering nuclear weapons and are expanding their capacities to produce fissile material for military purposes.

There is an emerging consensus in the expert community that North Korea has produced a small number of nuclear weapons, as distinct from rudimentary nuclear explosive devices.

world nuclear forces 2014

* ‘Deployed’ means warheads placed on missiles or located on bases with operational forces.

Source: SIPRI Yearbook 2014 

The GOP letter to Iran makes for an interesting precedent. It emphasises – again – that the US is now highly polarised  and that the government does not represent a very large section of the country. But the GOP actions (their Iran letter and their invitation to Netanyahu to make a speech) are primarily about opposing Obama and secondly about supporting Netanyahu. The support is for Bibi himself and not for any “socialist Israel” which they – and Netanyahu – fear. (In fact most of the Republican business world would quite welcome the lifting of UN sanctions).

Netanyahu’s opposition to any deal with Iran is not unexpected. Israel is the sole nuclear force in the region and this underpins its existence. Even its massive superiority in conventional forces could not prevail against another country in the region prepared to use nuclear weapons. The deterrence strategy – based on overwhelming superiority – which has served Israel very well would fail against a more “equal” opponent who was more ready to use nuclear force than Israel. “A mad mullah would be more ready to destroy himself while destroying the enemy than a mad rabbi”.

The Saudi Arabia opposition to anything which benefits Iran is the front-line of the Shia – Sunni war. Moreover Saudi has plans to build 16 nuclear plants over the next 20 years. The idea that Iran could produce nuclear fuel while they had to import all theirs is unthinkable. Anything Iran gets is something that Saudi Arabia also must have.

BBC: A senior member of the Saudi royal family has warned that a deal on Iran’s nuclear programme could prompt other regional states to develop atomic fuel. Prince Turki al-Faisal told the BBC that Saudi Arabia would then seek the same right, as would other nations.

Six world powers are negotiating an agreement aimed at limiting Iran’s nuclear activity but not ending it. Critics have argued this would trigger a nuclear arms race in the region spurred on by Saudi-Iran rivalry.

“I’ve always said whatever comes out of these talks, we will want the same,” said the prince, Saudi Arabia’s former intelligence chief. “So if Iran has the ability to enrich uranium to whatever level, it’s not just Saudi Arabia that’s going to ask for that. The whole world will be an open door to go that route without any inhibition, and that’s my main objection to this P5+1 [the six world powers] process.”

…… Riyadh has also signed nuclear co-operation agreements with China, France and Argentina, and intends to construct 16 nuclear power reactors over the next 20 years. ….. 

Tags:, , ,
Posted in Iran, Israel, Nuclear Power, Politics, Saudi Arabia, US | Comments Off on Saudi Arabia, Netanyahu and GOP make unusual bedfellows

Putin has not been seen in public for 10 days

March 15, 2015

He has not been seen in public since March 5th and speculation is rife. Being missing for a week-end would be rare but not unknown. Going AWOL for a week would be almost unheard of except for a well-planned holiday announced well in advance. But for a world leader to be “missing” for 10 days would suggest something quite unusual – and rather disturbing. An illness would either have to carry some kind of stigma or leave him unsightly not to have been announced.

  1. He is in Switzerland with his girl friend, gymnast Alina Kabayeva, for the birth of his “love-child”.
  2. He is under arrest after a secret coup by hard-liners who think he is being soft on Ukraine.
  3. He has the flu.
  4. He has bird flu or swine flu.
  5. He is undergoing a face-lift.
  6. He is being held for ransom and negotiations or ongoing over a price for the kidnappers to keep him.
  7. He is dead.

I am not quite sure how much more dangerous or destabilising a Russia without Putin might be. A public meeting with the leader of Kyrgystan is expected on Monday. If that does not happen ……….

Tags:
Posted in Behaviour, Politics, Russia | Comments Off on Putin has not been seen in public for 10 days

Not much difference between Hillary Clinton and Richard Nixon

March 11, 2015

They didn’t have email in Richard Nixon’s day. And we don’t have much in the way of magnetic tape recordings these days. But otherwise Richard Nixon’s deletion of 18.5 minutes of incriminating recordings is no different to Hillary Clinton’s deletion of some 32,000 emails – self defined as being “private”.

To claim that over 50% of her email during this period when she was secretary of state was private is an insult to intelligence. “Of the 62,320 emails in her account, her office said 30,490 were deemed public business, while the remaining 31,830 were deemed private”. Really!

WashPo (16th June, 2014):

This week in 1972, a conversation took place which would lead to the most famous incident of evidence destruction by a presidential administration. ……. 

On November 17, 1973, the White House informed Federal District Judge John Sirica that the 18 1/2 minute Nixon-Haldeman conversation of June 20, 1972, had been erased. White House Counsel Fred Buzhardt told the Court that he no explanation for the erasure.

Nixon’s Secretary Rose Mary Woods took the blame for the first five minutes of the erasure. She said that she had been transcribing the tape, and when she reached to take a phone call, her foot hit a pedal on the recording machine, inadvertently causing the tape player to “record” over the original tape’s contents. Reporters were called to the White House to watch her perform a re-enactment, and the photos of her performing a tremendous stretch, which she supposedly held for five minutes, were rejected as implausible. Moreover, the particular tape recording machine does not operate the way she had claimed; simply pressing the foot pedal to “record” would not initiate a recording unless the play button was being manually depressed at the very same time.

Chief of Staff Alexander Haig blamed the 18 1/2 minute gap on a “sinister force.” In January 1974, experts who examined the tape reported that were four or five separate erasures. ……..

WashingtonTimes (10th March, 2015):

Former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton deleted nearly 32,000 emails she deemed private from her time in the Obama administration and refused Tuesday to turn over her personal email server, insisting she “fully complied” with the law and that voters will have to trust her judgment.

Answering questions for the first time about her emails, Mrs. Clinton said she’s turned over to the State Department 55,000 pages of emails she deemed work-related, but said she got rid of the rest last year. She defended her decision to keep control of her emails by using a private account, saying previous secretaries did the same thing, and saying it was more “convenient” for her this way.

“I wanted to use just one device for both personal and work emails instead of two,” she said in a hastily called press conference after she spoke at the U.N. Conference on Women.

Hillary Clinton’s motives and morals in destroying incriminating evidence are not so different to Richard Nixon’s. There is only one reason for a public official (or even any employee in any company) to use private email rather than the organisation or company provided email. And that is to keep something secret from that organisation or company. Deletion of material is even more an explicit admission that the deleted material was incriminating. The “convenience” argument is childish – but I am surprised at how many in the US can be so “gullible” and take such an excuse seriously. I suppose the acolytes will believe whatever they want to believe no matter what the evidence says.

Tags:,
Posted in Behaviour, Politics, US | Comments Off on Not much difference between Hillary Clinton and Richard Nixon

“A bloody nose” as Swedish foreign policy degenerates to be just domestic policy

March 10, 2015

UPDATE! The 22 foreign ministers of the member countries of the Arab League released a statement today condemning the Swedish Foreign Minister, Margot Wallström, for her anti-Saudi comments. Her comments were considered “irresponsible and unacceptable”. The undertone is that she does not understand very much about the Arab world or about Sharia law. No matter what one may think of Sharia and Saudi Arabia, Margot Wallströms statements reveal a Swedish foreign affairs behaviour which either does not analyse the consequences of its statements – or is incompetent. The obsessions of the greens and the far-left are bringing the country’s foreign policy into disrepute.

The new left-green Swedish government seems to have become a slave of their minority green partners (and are also going out of their way to placate the far left party which supports them from outside the government). So much so that foreign policy has now become a string of sanctimonious positions. It is now more about being politically correct in a domestic context rather than actually promoting Sweden’s interests (geopolitical and commercial) in foreign lands.

The Foreign Minister – Margot Wallström – started of her term by recognising Palestine as a State. It pandered to all her domestic constituents and allies, upset Israel and the US,  and has not helped the Palestinians one jot. But it allowed those on the left to expound their beliefs and provided support for the growing anti-semitism in Sweden.

Some 10 years ago the socialist government of the time entered into a cooperation agreement with Saudi Arabia regarding defence and defence production. The agreement was nurtured all through the 8 years of the subsequent moderate-led government and provided a good deal of business and many jobs in Sweden. The current socialist government of Stefan Löfven is hard pressed by its own left wing to cancel the deal. The greens absolutely hate this agreement but that is because their goal is to dismantle the Swedish defence industry. The politically correct feminist view is that all things Saudi Arabian must be condemned. For the last few weeks the Swedish media (which are predominantly left of centre and hopelessly politically correct) have been running a campaign to support the greens and the far left in condemning the Saudi agreement.

And their efforts have now resulted in Margot Wallström “receiving a bloody nose” from Saudi Arabia. She was scheduled to make a speech to the Arab League (about Human Rights) but this was cancelled at short notice by a very irritated Saudi Arabia.

TheLocal.se: Sweden’s national debate about a controversial arms deal has sparked anger in Saudi Arabia and formed the backdrop to its move to block the Swedish foreign minister’s planned speech at the Arab League, according to an expert on Saudi politics.

Thord Janson, a Saudi Arabia expert at Gothenburg University, said: “This isn’t a slap on the hand; it’s a punch in the nose,” he told news agency TT. The decision by Saudi Arabia, a regional powerhouse, to prevent Wallström from speaking in Cairo on Monday appeared designed to cause embarrassment, he said. “From a diplomatic perspective it’s incredibly harsh. One couldn’t be more clear.” Janson predicted that Saudi Arabia would now make life trickier for Swedish firms operating in the wealthy Middle Eastern oil state. “The authorities might make it more difficult for them to import goods, deliveries might get slowed down in customs, and it could become hard to get certain permits.” 

The very public discussion in Sweden on whether to extend a military cooperation agreement with Saudi Arabia had sparked strong reactions in Riyadh, said Janson. Sweden’s Green Party, the junior partner in the Social Democrat-led government, wants to scrap the deal, as do several members of Prime Minister Stefan Löfven’s own party.  

Swedish criticism of the flogging of the blogger and human rights activists Raif Badawi may also have played a part in the Saudi decision.

“They thinks it’s an internal matter,” said Janson. “They don’t understand why a morally decadent country like Sweden is getting involved in the Saudi legal system.

My perception is of Swedish foreign policy now becoming quite shallow and with little substance. It is more concerned with being – and being seen to be – politically correct in the eyes of the greens, the far left and the feminist party. Foreign policy has degenerated to become a series of sanctimonious and self-righteous statements where the purpose is to look good for the domestic audience. And Margot Wallström – who is not inexperienced – has not the strength to resist the domestic lobbying.

Swedish foreign policy no longer shows any evidence of any deep thought about Swedish interests or how to promote change abroad. The end of the agreement with Saudi Arabia is now inevitable. There is little chance of Saudi Arabia (or Israel) now paying any attention to the “Swedish opinion”. Swedish business of any kind – and not just the defence business – can expect to meet more unfriendly customers. Other European countries will not be slow to step in to replace Swedish suppliers. But the far left and the greens can wallow in self-righteousness. Any chance of a place on the Security Council has disappeared.

 

Tags:,
Posted in Behaviour, Politics, Sweden | 1 Comment »

Immortality of identity

February 26, 2015
The winner spermatazoon - Gabriel Sancho

The winner spermatozoon – Gabriel Sancho

The human reproductive process is remarkably inefficient. A male produces sperm throughout his life from puberty on. The quality and quantity deteriorates with age but he probably produces between 500 billion and 1 trillion sperm during a lifetime. Most get nowhere near where they are supposed to go, are very badly directed and eventually die. Unexpelled sperm are reabsorbed. Some few tens of millions find their way into a female reproductive system but the vast majority of these never meet a mature egg and wander around aimlessly until they die, unrequited and unfulfilled. On average a male fathers between 2 and 3 children. Each such instance requires just one sperm. There is little evidence to suggest that the successful sperm is the “best” of the bunch. It is more a case of which lucky one was at the right place at the right time. The “hit rate” for male sperm is thus – quite pathetically in process terms – around one in 300 billion. Things are much more focused on the female side. The success rate for mature eggs is very much higher than for sperm, but still quite low. A woman has a total of some 400 – 500 mature eggs, released singly during each menstrual cycle over a child-bearing period of 30 – 40 years. Of these, on average, with widespread contraception, between 2 and 3 will be fertilised by a sperm to result in a child. A hit rate of around one child for every 200 eggs. Perhaps twice that without contraception.

The inefficiency of the process is a commentary on evolution but it is still sufficient to produce more births than the replenishment rate needed to keep the total population stable. (Evolution never looks for “excellence” since it is always satisfied with what is “good enough”). In fact the resultant population growth rate has been so high that humankind has had to apply methods to further restrict the already low hit rate. In the last 100 years, globally, fertility rates have declined from over 6 to the current 2.5 per woman. Contraception, sterilisation and abortion are the methods of choice (and infanticide is now very rare but not unknown). Contraception has had the largest impact on this decline in fertility rate.

I was listening to a politician recently spouting politically correct platitudes about abortion and got to wondering how to describe the various human attitudes, in spite of a commonality of purpose (the avoidance of a child), between contraception and abortion and, by extension, infanticide.  It would certainly be incorrect to claim that a sperm or an egg are not “living”. They show in fact that “life” is a continuum from the parents, and then through their eggs and sperm to the fertilised egg, its birth and then its life as an independent individual. So why should it be that preventing an egg being fertilised, which would otherwise go on to become a foetus, causes no moral qualms but aborting that same foetus after it has been conceived is so disturbing to some? Extending that thought, what is it that makes aborting a foetus and preventing a child from being born much less disturbing than terminating the existence of that same child after birth?

I suspect that it is our concept of “identity” rather than “life” which determines.

Contraception and sterilisation prevent conception. Prior to that we cannot attribute any clear identity to one sperm within a swarm of millions. An ovum is much closer to having identity but it still only has the identity of a “component part”. In fact the sperm and eggs live under the umbrella of the identity of their originating individuals. Only one sperm in 300 billion and one egg in 200 succeed in combining and developing into a child. All the rest die unrequited. But when they die or produce a fertilised egg, they do not diminish the identity of the individuals they came from. The component identities cease when the sperm or eggs cease to be. About 70-80% of all foetuses conceived would normally come to term. After about 10-12 weeks of pregnancy this is closer to 90%. (Currently around 20 – 25% of conceptions are aborted globally). The moment of conception is unique in that it is when a new identity is formed. It is a discontinuity in the playing field of identities. It is an additional identity, connected to but separate from the identities of the parents. There is a strong case, I think, for considering the fertilised egg as the start of a new, recognisable, unique human identity even though the life of that identity is not (yet) independently viable. Many societies set a limit of 22 or 24 weeks after conception as being the point when a foetus acquires the “right” to live but this boundary is irrational. This time is based on when a foetus – if born prematurely – is considered to be viable. I don’t find this very useful since the alternative to an abortion is not usually a premature birth. I note also that the probability of a foetus reaching full term changes very little after the first 10-12 weeks of a pregnancy. A 12 week old foetus has almost the same chance of being born as a 30 week old foetus. An abortion at any time after about the first 12 weeks effectively eliminates a birth which – with a 90% probability – would otherwise occur. After birth, infant mortality rates today are generally around 5% (ranging from close to 15% in the poorest parts of Africa to less than 2% in well developed societies).

Looking at probabilities, and based on all the sperm and all the eggs that are produced by humans, contraception halves what is already a very low chance of conception. The probability of an egg being fertilised reduces from about 1:100 (1%)  – of an unidentifiable egg being fertilised by an even less identifiable sperm  – to be about 1:200. Abortion however terminates a 70-80% probability of an independent, identifiable entity coming into being. Infanticide eliminates a 95-98% probability of an independent human life continuing. Could it be that our sense of outrage is related to the probability of an independent entity coming into being? When the probability is very low we see no great harm in reducing it still further but when the probability is high we feel it “unnatural” and “immoral” to intervene?

It is possible that we intuitively assess probabilities but I don’t think that we connect “morality” to probability. I suspect that it is primarily identity and the point at which we are prepared to recognise or assign an independent identity that is the key. It is probably the same cognitive process which leads to our lack of engagement when many thousands of people – but without recognisable identities – perish in a tsunami and the close emotional engagement when somebody known suffers harm. And why it is said to be emotionally easier to drop a bomb on an unknown, unidentifiable mass of people than to be a sniper who can see his target in his sights.

A unique identity is recognisable first when an egg is fertilised. That identity cannot be foretold but it may be remembered long after the individual dies. It may in due course be forgotten. But whether or not it is forgotten, the fact of the creation of that identity remains. Forever. It is identity, once created, which remains unique and immortal.

 

Tags:, ,
Posted in Behaviour, Demographics, Philosophy, Politics | Comments Off on Immortality of identity

Critical PR exercise for Greece today

February 23, 2015

Greece needs to present its own reform package today to get the rest of the Eurozone countries to ratify the 4 month extension of its bailout tomorrow. The extension was agreed on Friday provided the package to be presented today was sufficiently credible for the lender countries.

That leaves the new Greek government with the PR problem of presenting what is essentially an “austerity package” but which

  • is its own package and not “imposed” by others,
  • is packaged as something different to “austerity” for domestic consumption.

No doubt the leftist government will include items which are ideologically sound but which have little relevance in monetary terms. Among these cosmetic items will be such things as attacking tax evasion by the rich, and getting rid of some “fat-cat” bureaucrats in the civil service, reemploying some who lost their jobs and increasing some social spending.

But the bottom line is that they will have to present a package which is all about “austerity” in everything but name.

In every financial crisis in the last 40 years I am struck by how using economic jargon and quoting high-sounding economic theory does not alter the fundamental fact that a country’s economy is just like that of any household. Past profligacy leads inevitably to current austerity. That many of the profligates may have fled the nest does not alter the fact that the rest of the household must bear the burden of the austerity. There is little doubt that in Greece, the profligacy of a few (the nexus of corrupt politician/civil servants/ business) is leading now to the austerity of the many. Unfortunately not all of the profligacy is a thing of the past. Not all the profligates have fled.

A bankrupt household must increase its earnings to get out of debt. It has no other option. Of course it must first end profligate spending. All household members must “tighten their belts”. Luxuries must be given up. All external expenditure must be curtailed. Assets may have to be sold off. And Greece must do the same. (Selling some islands to Turkey is beyond the pale). The only quick way that I think Greece can increase its earnings is by tourism – not by industry which will take much longer.

And I am convinced that tourism to Greece will do much better with a Greek drachma which is allowed to find its own level rather than being forced to use a Euro which – for Greece – is at too high a level.

Tags:, ,
Posted in Behaviour, Economy, Greece, Politics | Comments Off on Critical PR exercise for Greece today

Politicians and pseudoscience

January 14, 2015

I hadn’t realised just how far Obama and McCain were prepared to go in accepting pseudoscience when chasing votes and political power.

Washington Post Fact Checker:

“We’ve seen just a skyrocketing autism rate. Some people are suspicious that it’s connected to the vaccines. This person included. The science right now is inconclusive, but we have to research it.” –Barack Obama, Pennsylvania Rally, April 21, 2008.

“It’s indisputable that (autism) is on the rise among children, the question is what’s causing it. And we go back and forth and there’s strong evidence that indicates it’s got to do with a preservative in vaccines.” –John McCain, Texas town hall meeting, February 29, 2008.

There is no proven link between vaccinations and autism just as there is no proven link between man-made carbon dioxide emissions and global warming.

Tags:, , ,
Posted in Behaviour, Politics | Comments Off on Politicians and pseudoscience

Sweden’s December Agreement abandons parliament for a postmodern, back-room “party democracy”

December 30, 2014

Sweden’s December Agreement can be described simply as an agreement between six of the eight political parties in parliament to abdicate their “rights” and duties – when in opposition – to oppose a minority government made up of some of the other parties to the Agreement. The Agreement negates the representative strengths of the eight parties in parliament as established by the electorate. It is claimed that it is to ensure the continuity of government by making the opposition of the two parties not represented, impotent. The two not represented are on the far left and on the extreme, nationalistic, racist right.

Parliamentary democracy as such has been abandoned in that two particular parties – representing 20% of the electorate – are being suppressed by the others getting together in a “collusion of the cowardly”. “Truth” is simply whatever promotes my (or my group’s) will or interests. None of the party leaders who signed-up to the December Agreement gain much credit. None managed to raise their vision to anything beyond maintaining their own party positions within the pig trough. The Prime Minister, Stefan Löfven was not prepared to resign or face a new election. The new leader of the Moderate Party, Anna Kinberg Batra was too new and too scared to face a new election. The Environmental Party’s Åsa Romson was only too happy with her meagre 7% to remain at the “big table” and in government. The small party leaders from the Alliance don’t come out very well. They were running scared of being wiped out in any new election and were not prepared to come out from under the protective umbrella of the Moderates. Each party had its own fears and it was an agreement based on fear and truly a collusion of the cowardly. There is not even a pretence of trying to represent the interests of their voters. It is all about the “lowest common denominator” and no hint of aspiring to the “highest common numerator”. It is the triumph of a grey, bureaucratic pragmatism over any hint of vision or idealism.

It occurs to me that this is nothing but postmodernism applied to parliamentary democracy. It is whatever you want to make of it. It is a form of “postmodern democracy” which degrades a traditional parliamentary democracy to something else. I take postmodernism to mean a world where

our interests and desires often use “reason” to promote their fulfillment; “truth” is simply whatever promotes my (or my group’s) will or interests.  There is a “political agenda” in whatever we claim to be true. Knowledge is not neutral. (This observation utilizes the “hermeneutics of suspicion.”) In response to the unbiased certainty, postmodernism emphasizes that our ideas and judgments are embedded within a historical-cultural context; so we can never fully remove ourselves from it by pure reflection. 

The will of the electorate as represented in parliament has been over-ruled by the party leaders in the back-rooms. If this is the new world of parliamentary democracy then parliament itself is irrelevant and meaningless. It is only the back-rooms and the decisions taken there which apply. Electoral democracy manifested in a parliament is abandoned and it is only those who choose the party leaders who then meet in the back-room who matter (and to some extent this is already the basic flaw in all multi-party democracies).

 

Tags:, ,
Posted in Behaviour, Politics, Sweden | Comments Off on Sweden’s December Agreement abandons parliament for a postmodern, back-room “party democracy”

Sweden downgrades parliamentary democracy in favour of a back-room collusion of the cowardly

December 28, 2014

Following on from my previous post, it now becomes clear that parliamentary democracy has been downgraded – if not abandoned – in Sweden till 2022. The ruling Social Democratic /Environmental Party grouping has made a back room deal with the four parties making up the centre-right Alliance (Moderate, Christian Democratic, Centre and Peoples(Liberal) Parties) which means that an extra, snap election in March 2015 is no longer necessary.

The ‘December agreement’ will last until 2022, and commits the six major parties not to block any minority government’s budget while they are in opposition. It is an abdication of the parliamentary responsibility of opposition parties to oppose. Neither the Left Party (communists) or the nationalist, racist, anti-immigration Sweden Democrats were included in the back-room deal. The six parties argue that this is to make Sweden more governable and to avoid major budget vote losses from leading unnecessarily to new elections. Any minority, coalition government will now be able to able to get its budget passed. Effectively these six parties have created a partial, pseudo-coalition such that actual party strengths in parliament can be ignored. It is a collusion among six particular parties to suppress and oppress two specific, minority parties across the next two elections.

“Sweden has a proud tradition for solving difficult problems across party boundaries which doesn’t exist in any other country,”  Prime Minister Stefan Löfven announced as he backtracked on all he had said over the last month. Of course he never needed to have announced that he would call a snap election at all. He could have shown some political courage. He had not exhausted parliamentary procedures. He could have resigned and allowed the Speaker to look for other coalition groupings which could have commanded sufficient support in Parliament. The same result could have been achieved in parliament. But Löfven comes from a trade union background. Not surprising that this makes him the quintessential back-room operator.

Of course these 6 parties were all running scared of the Sweden Democrats coming back at any new election with an even stronger position. Their 13% support (49 seats) was likely to increase. The real “agreement” between them is to block the Sweden Democrats from having any significant influence in Parliament. It is a coalition of the cowardly. But holding them back by effectively extra-parliamentary agreements could well be counter productive. Disenfranchising 20% of the electorate (13% SD and 6% Left)  can only lead to frustration. I expect that the Sweden Democrat supporters – who have more than their fair share of hooligans – will now  also resort to extra-parliamentary action. It could lead to even more violent and racist behaviour. Other minority parties among the 6 parties who have cosied up to each other will have a disproportionately large influence. The destructive Environmental Party (7%), the visionless Centre Party (6%), the formless People’s Party (5%) and the failing Christian Democrats (5%) will all have a quite unjustified strength while hanging on to the tails of the larger Social Democrat and Moderate Parties.

I quite like the fact that the Sweden Democrats and the Left Party are rendered impotent in Parliament – but this has been achieved by a back-room, extra-parliamentary deal. Right result, wrong means. It is a clear degradation of parliamentary procedures in favour of back-room democracy. Sweden will apply democracy not by consensus or in proportion to parliamentary strength, but by collusion among a conspiracy of the cowardly. Twenty percent of Sweden’s electorate have had their parliamentary representatives rendered politically impotent. Sweden’s democracy has effectively institutionalised the suppression and the oppression of some specific minorities.

All democracies have their limitations of course. But this new pseudo-coalition is based on fear and cowardice. This deal for back-room democracy stinks.

Tags:,
Posted in Politics, Sweden | 1 Comment »

Swedish extra election to be called off as major parties do a deal to oppress the minority

December 27, 2014

The low farce continues.

UPDATE: It seems that all the political parties except the Left Party (new Communists)  and the Sweden Democrats are agreed on changing the rules to allow the “large minorities” to suppress the “small minorities” and prevent them from taking advantage of tied situations where their positions can give a majority one way or the other. It is all geared to de-fang the Sweden Democrats.

The problem for democracy is that no matter how undesirable the Sweden Democrats are – and they are fairly vile – they are the third largest party in parliament. Effectively the two largest parties are colluding to oppress the third. The Swedish Democrats will probably introduce a motion of no confidence in the government. But the right-of-centre parties in the Alliance will probably abdicate their responsibilities as an opposition and abstain. While I may welcome the neutralisation of the Sweden Democrats, it is being done by institutionalising the suppression of undesirable minorities. The 13% of the electorate who voted for the Sweden Democrats – misguided as they are – are being disenfranchised.

It’s the right result but it is – I think – the wrong way to have done it. The Prime Minister should have allowed the Speaker to ask for a new round of government formation, ditched the Left and the Greens and made a deal with the Moderate Party or the Alliance Parties, on the condition that he remained as Prime Minister.

Swedish Radio is reporting that the extra election threatened to be called by the end of the month by the Swedish Prime Minister will now not be called. The election was threatened because the ruling Red/Green coalition (a minority government) lost the parliamentary vote on their budget.

Now it seems that the major parties have done a deal to change parliamentary voting rules to allow a minority government to govern by preventing all the opposition parties to indulge in tactical voting and supporting other non-governmental minorities to vote down the minority government.

I was half expecting this but was hoping to see the formation of a new coalition where the destructive nature of the Environmental Party would have been eliminated.

It sounds to me as if things are being set up so that the large minorities can suppress and oppress the smaller minorities. There is a certain deficit of democracy that is evident in trying to protect the “establishment”.

A pity on two counts:

  1. I was looking forward to the first woman Prime Minister of Sweden, and
  2. I was looking to the incompetence of the Environmental Party (Greens) being removed from government

Swedish Radio:

There will be no extra election in March, Prime Minister Stefan Löfven is expected to announce at a press briefing at 10:30 today.

The Government has accepted the Alliance’s earlier proposal for a change of rules rules to reign in the minority, according to sources.

Stefan Löfven stays and Alliance budget will apply in 2015, but the government will be allowed to propose some adjustments.

New elections were supposed to be announced this coming Tuesday and held in late March.

Tags:,
Posted in Behaviour, Politics, Sweden | Comments Off on Swedish extra election to be called off as major parties do a deal to oppress the minority

« Older Entries
Newer Entries »