Wednesday, January 23, 2019
Help to save
The government is making it easier for working people on lower incomes to save up for a rainy day by giving them a 50p bonus for every £1 they save.
Key facts:
Why this matters:
Whether you are saving for a family break, putting money away for a rainy day, or even saving for next Christmas, Help to Save is designed to make saving as simple as possible.
Key facts:
- The ‘Help to Save’ account is available online to working people on Tax Credits and Universal Credit and can be managed on an easy to use app which lets savers set goals and personal reminders.
- Over 80,000 people have signed up so far, helping those on low incomes put money aside for the future.
- If someone saved a maximum £2,400 over a 4 year period, they would receive a bonus of £1,200 – a massive 50 per cent boost from the government.
Why this matters:
Whether you are saving for a family break, putting money away for a rainy day, or even saving for next Christmas, Help to Save is designed to make saving as simple as possible.
Tuesday, January 22, 2019
Government deficit continues to fall
New data released by the Office of National Statistics (ONS) shows that the UK Budget deficit continues to fall, meaning we have more money to spend on our vital public services like the NHS.
- The general government deficit in 2017-18 was £42.9 billion – a decrease of £4.1 billion compared with the previous year.
- The Conservatives balanced approach to the economy means that, since 2010, we have reduced our deficit by four-fifths and our debt is starting to fall, so that we can spend more money on public services.
Monday, January 21, 2019
Government publishes Domestic Abuse bill
Today, the Government published a ground-breaking domestic abuse bill to support victims and their families and pursue offenders.
Key facts:
The Government is introducing a series of measures to promote domestic abuse awareness, support victims, tackle perpetrators and improve services, after it was revealed that domestic abuse affects 6 per cent of all adults and cost England and Wales £66 billion between 2016 and 2017.
Why this matters:
Domestic abuse shatters lives around the country. Protecting victims and their children, as well as supporting survivors, is at the heart of our strengthened response to this horrific crime.
Key facts:
The Government is introducing a series of measures to promote domestic abuse awareness, support victims, tackle perpetrators and improve services, after it was revealed that domestic abuse affects 6 per cent of all adults and cost England and Wales £66 billion between 2016 and 2017.
- We’ve made a total of 120 commitments to tackle this horrific crime, including the first ever statutory definition of domestic abuse to specifically include economic abuse and recognise the impact of controlling and manipulative non-physical abuse.
- Non-legislative actions will see further support for children affected by domestic abuse as well as elderly, disabled, male and migrant victims and those in the LGBTQ community.
- We are barring abusers from cross-examining their victims in the family courts and giving courts greater powers, including new protection orders, to tackle this hideous crime.
- The new measures include £8 million of Home Office funding to support children affected by domestic abuse, as well as supporting survivors by bolstering the protection for victims and helping to expose and bring the vile abusers to justice.
Why this matters:
Domestic abuse shatters lives around the country. Protecting victims and their children, as well as supporting survivors, is at the heart of our strengthened response to this horrific crime.
Statistics watchdog calls out "Schools Cuts" website
Last week, the UK Statistics Authority
wrote to the Trade Union-backed campaign 'School Cuts' to rebuke their misleading use of statistics.
·
We welcome the UK Statistics Authority’s letter to the ‘School Cuts’ campaign, which makes clear the group’s use of statistics ‘creates a worse picture’ and gives a ‘misleading
impression to parents over how much money their local school receives’.
· The 'School cuts" campaign should remove the discredited and misleading figures which the statistics authority has challenged from their website.
Conservatives will always be committed to delivering a world-class education for every child.
Conservatives will always be committed to delivering a world-class education for every child.
Quote of the day 21st January 2019
Marcus Aurelius was Roman Emperor from AD161 to AD180 and was the last of the line of rulers known as the "Five good emperors." It is interesting how many of the comments in his "Meditations" and other quotes attributed to him, such as this one, seem highly relevant today.
Sunday, January 20, 2019
When politics makes us irrational
I have been reading a very powerful article on the Unherd site by Tom Chivers called
"How politics makes us irrational."
It refers to two studies which are about to be published and which find that people with strong ideological beliefs - whether left or right - find it harder to spot errors of logic an arguments supporting their beliefs.
It is important to distinguish here between errors in your premises and errors in logic. Chivers starts by quoting an example of a syllogism which starts with a false premise and argues with perfect logic through to a false conclusion.
Consider the following:
“All things made of plants are healthy. Cigarettes are made of plants. Therefore, cigarettes are healthy.”
The conclusion is wrong because the major premise is wrong: plenty of things which can be made from or obtained from plants - deadly nightshade, and cyanide to give two examples - are not healthy. Tobacco is an example.
The actual syllogism is perfectly logical and if the two premises had both been right, the conclusion would be right too.
However, because the conclusion is so obviously jarringly wrong, there is a tendency to assume that the logic must be wrong too. That can be the case but in this instance it isn't.
in the first of the studies to which Tom Chivers refers, respondents were asked to rate themselves from “very liberal” to “very conservative” and then asked them to judge some ideologically loaded syllogisms such as
“All drugs that are dangerous should be illegal. Marijuana is a drug that is dangerous. Therefore, marijuana should be illegal.”
This was an American study so "very liberal" roughly maps onto what would be described as "very left-wing" on this side of the pond and "very conservative" roughly maps onto "very right-wing." This would not be an exact match.
And the results? researchers found that conservative-minded people were quite a lot better at spotting false syllogisms when they have liberal conclusions, and vice versa. It wasn’t an enormous effect, but it was significant – in one of the experiments, conservatives spotted unsound arguments about 80% of the time when they had liberal conclusions, but only 60% when they had conservative ones, and the effect was almost exactly reversed for liberals.
A second similar study found broadly similar conclusions.
I want to stress the point - neither study found any evidence that people on the right are more prone to errors in logic. To quote Tom,
"Both Left-wingers and Right-wingers find it harder, to roughly the same degree, to make accurate judgments in the face of an ideological headwind."
The key lesson from this is that it is not enough to be vigilant for the biases of others: it is important to watch out for one's own.
"How politics makes us irrational."
It refers to two studies which are about to be published and which find that people with strong ideological beliefs - whether left or right - find it harder to spot errors of logic an arguments supporting their beliefs.
It is important to distinguish here between errors in your premises and errors in logic. Chivers starts by quoting an example of a syllogism which starts with a false premise and argues with perfect logic through to a false conclusion.
Consider the following:
“All things made of plants are healthy. Cigarettes are made of plants. Therefore, cigarettes are healthy.”
The conclusion is wrong because the major premise is wrong: plenty of things which can be made from or obtained from plants - deadly nightshade, and cyanide to give two examples - are not healthy. Tobacco is an example.
The actual syllogism is perfectly logical and if the two premises had both been right, the conclusion would be right too.
However, because the conclusion is so obviously jarringly wrong, there is a tendency to assume that the logic must be wrong too. That can be the case but in this instance it isn't.
in the first of the studies to which Tom Chivers refers, respondents were asked to rate themselves from “very liberal” to “very conservative” and then asked them to judge some ideologically loaded syllogisms such as
“All drugs that are dangerous should be illegal. Marijuana is a drug that is dangerous. Therefore, marijuana should be illegal.”
This was an American study so "very liberal" roughly maps onto what would be described as "very left-wing" on this side of the pond and "very conservative" roughly maps onto "very right-wing." This would not be an exact match.
And the results? researchers found that conservative-minded people were quite a lot better at spotting false syllogisms when they have liberal conclusions, and vice versa. It wasn’t an enormous effect, but it was significant – in one of the experiments, conservatives spotted unsound arguments about 80% of the time when they had liberal conclusions, but only 60% when they had conservative ones, and the effect was almost exactly reversed for liberals.
A second similar study found broadly similar conclusions.
I want to stress the point - neither study found any evidence that people on the right are more prone to errors in logic. To quote Tom,
"Both Left-wingers and Right-wingers find it harder, to roughly the same degree, to make accurate judgments in the face of an ideological headwind."
The key lesson from this is that it is not enough to be vigilant for the biases of others: it is important to watch out for one's own.
Six unknown Holocaust victims laid to rest
Today, a week before Holocaust memorial day, six unknown victims of the Nazi holocaust were laid to rest before a congregation of a thousands people at a ceremony conducted by Britain's Chief Rabbi in Bushey, Hertfordshire.
"We must continue to challenge racism, anti-Semitism and bigotry and where hatred can lead."
The minister added that he hoped the funeral would bring people together and underline the message of
"never again, never forget and that none of us can simply stand by the side and allow this to happen".
The ceremony was also attended by survivors and relatives of victims who were murdered during the Holocaust, the leader of the Roman Catholic Church in England and Wales, Cardinal Vincent Nichols, the Israeli ambassador and the deputy German ambassador.
Chief Rabbi Ephraim Mirvis said hate speech "can easily be translated into hate crime" and the service was a reminder to confront all forms of racism.
He warned:
"When anti-Semitism is allowed to thrive, some people can do anything and some people can reach the lowest end of human conduct."
In his address, Rabbi Mirvis addressed the six victims. He said:
"We don't know who you are, we don't know if you're male or female, we don't know which country you're from, but one thing we do know; you were a Jewish and brutally murdered."
"You were let down badly at the time and now your remains have somehow come to the UK. And we have the opportunity of granting you the dignity and honour of a funeral service."
Previously the Chief Rabbi had said that the symbolism of the funeral service is enormous.
"We find exceptional poignancy in the fact that there are six souls that we are burying," he said.
"Each one stands for one million souls who perished. And interestingly enough there were just under five million who were adults and just over one million who were children."
Rabbi Mirvis added: "There were members of my family who perished in the Holocaust and we all related to this directly. Now we will have the opportunity to accord them some dignity and to give them a final resting place."
He said he hoped the site would become a place of pilgrimage for Jewish families, much like the tomb of the Unknown Soldier. But he also reflected on the memorial's timeliness for wider society, adding:
"We need a strong reminder such as this to let us know what can result, even within a democratic society, what can result if anti-Semitism, if racism and xenophobia, go unchecked."
The identities of the individuals concerned are not known beyond that they are believed to have been Jewish and that they were five adults and one child who died at Auschwitz. Their mortal remains were given to the Imperial War Museum as part of a large anonymous donation of artifacts relating to the Holocaust. The unknown victims were buried with earth from Israel.
James Brokenshire, the communities secretary, who attended the ceremony, said
"We must continue to challenge racism, anti-Semitism and bigotry and where hatred can lead."
The minister added that he hoped the funeral would bring people together and underline the message of
"never again, never forget and that none of us can simply stand by the side and allow this to happen".
The ceremony was also attended by survivors and relatives of victims who were murdered during the Holocaust, the leader of the Roman Catholic Church in England and Wales, Cardinal Vincent Nichols, the Israeli ambassador and the deputy German ambassador.
Chief Rabbi Ephraim Mirvis said hate speech "can easily be translated into hate crime" and the service was a reminder to confront all forms of racism.
He warned:
"When anti-Semitism is allowed to thrive, some people can do anything and some people can reach the lowest end of human conduct."
In his address, Rabbi Mirvis addressed the six victims. He said:
"We don't know who you are, we don't know if you're male or female, we don't know which country you're from, but one thing we do know; you were a Jewish and brutally murdered."
"You were let down badly at the time and now your remains have somehow come to the UK. And we have the opportunity of granting you the dignity and honour of a funeral service."
Previously the Chief Rabbi had said that the symbolism of the funeral service is enormous.
"We find exceptional poignancy in the fact that there are six souls that we are burying," he said.
"Each one stands for one million souls who perished. And interestingly enough there were just under five million who were adults and just over one million who were children."
Rabbi Mirvis added: "There were members of my family who perished in the Holocaust and we all related to this directly. Now we will have the opportunity to accord them some dignity and to give them a final resting place."
He said he hoped the site would become a place of pilgrimage for Jewish families, much like the tomb of the Unknown Soldier. But he also reflected on the memorial's timeliness for wider society, adding:
"We need a strong reminder such as this to let us know what can result, even within a democratic society, what can result if anti-Semitism, if racism and xenophobia, go unchecked."
Sunday music spot: Finale to Act 1 of "The Barber of Seville"
This is the conclusion to Act one of Rossini's opera "The Barber of Seville"
Just before this sequence it has been revealed who the main protagonists in the play actually are. There is another round of revelations left for the next play in Pierre Beaumarchais' Figaro trilogy, "The Marriage of Figaro," but the characters have just heard quite enough to leave them reeling in shock and questioning their sanity.
The lyrics of the chorus which ends the act, often performed while dashing round the stage as though in the grip of complete hysteria, can be translated into English as follows:
"My head seems to be in a fiery smithy,
the sound of the anvils, ceaseless and growing. deafens the ear.
Up and down, high and low, striking heavily,
the hammer makes the very walls resound with a barbarous harmony.
Thus our poor, bewildered brain, stunned, confounded, in confusion, without reason, is reduced to insanity."
Seemed rather appropriate music for a blog about British politics at the end of the week we've just had, don't you think?
Just before this sequence it has been revealed who the main protagonists in the play actually are. There is another round of revelations left for the next play in Pierre Beaumarchais' Figaro trilogy, "The Marriage of Figaro," but the characters have just heard quite enough to leave them reeling in shock and questioning their sanity.
The lyrics of the chorus which ends the act, often performed while dashing round the stage as though in the grip of complete hysteria, can be translated into English as follows:
"My head seems to be in a fiery smithy,
the sound of the anvils, ceaseless and growing. deafens the ear.
Up and down, high and low, striking heavily,
the hammer makes the very walls resound with a barbarous harmony.
Thus our poor, bewildered brain, stunned, confounded, in confusion, without reason, is reduced to insanity."
Seemed rather appropriate music for a blog about British politics at the end of the week we've just had, don't you think?
Saturday, January 19, 2019
Claiming a retrospective mandate
When you find points of agreement among both Brexit supporting and pro-remain columnists it often turns out that they are saying something insightful.
This week both a prominent Brexit supporting writer, Iain Martin, and a prominent Remain one, (Lord) Danny Finkelstein, wrote powerful pieces about how much more hardline views about Brexit have been getting. Finkelstein referred in The Times to the psychological concept of "Group polarisation" when people discuss politics primarily with other people who think as they do and are driven to ever more robust positions.
I think they are on to something, and they are calling out a process which is incredibly unhelpful. One of the thigs which has made the Brexit process so divisive and so hard to resolve is that many people on all sides have been taking increasingly hard-line positions.
Before about 2015 it was comparatively rare to find a senior Conservative who spoke openly of outright support for leaving the EU. Until that referendum was actually called most cabinet-level Conservative figures spoke simply of giving the electorate a choice in the form of a referendum.
Those whose positions have merely stood still have experienced the most extraordinary change in how they are perceived. For example, when Philip Hammond was appointed Foreign Secretary. the appointment of someone who had declined to rule out voting Leave to that position was seen as a major concession to the Eurosceptics. These days they regard the present Chancellor as a high priest of Remain - without much more evidence for that view than there was for the previous one.
People who before June 2016 would have defended a "Norway option" or EEA option as being better than continued membership of the EU now decry any such solution as "Brexit in name only."
The hardening of attitudes exists on both sides of the divide and is one of the reasons that assembling a parliamentary majority for any given course of action is proving so difficult.
It is also noticeable that people on both sides have a tendency to misremember what they were saying a couple of years ago to fit their present position.
Some other leave supporters such as Nigel Farage who indicated before the referendum that they would not accept a narrow defeat - Farage said in a Mirror interview in May 2016 that a 52:48 win for Remain would be "unfinished business" - now expect Remain supporters to respect a result which they would not have been prepared to abide by had it gone by a similar margin in the other direction, while many of those who are now most prominent among those calling for a fresh referendum had said before the June 2016 vote that everyone should honour the result of that one. (This was, one presumes, when they thought they were going to win.)
The fact that people are taking a much harder line now, and think that they have always taken such a hard line, becomes particularly difficult when people start claiming now that the 2016 vote was a mandate for positions which simply were not being articulated at the time.
Anyone who looks back at the posts I made on this blog in 2016 will find that on a number of occasions I complained bitterly at the time that the official Leave campaign had never sought to set out exactly what a "leave" vote would mean.
A representative example is the post I put up here on 26th May 2016 called
"Why the Leave campaign should have backed Flexcit,"
but there were plenty of others.
Does anyone remember a "Vote.Leave" leaflet saying that leaving the EU with no trade deal in place will do wonders for the economy?
This week both a prominent Brexit supporting writer, Iain Martin, and a prominent Remain one, (Lord) Danny Finkelstein, wrote powerful pieces about how much more hardline views about Brexit have been getting. Finkelstein referred in The Times to the psychological concept of "Group polarisation" when people discuss politics primarily with other people who think as they do and are driven to ever more robust positions.
I think they are on to something, and they are calling out a process which is incredibly unhelpful. One of the thigs which has made the Brexit process so divisive and so hard to resolve is that many people on all sides have been taking increasingly hard-line positions.
Before about 2015 it was comparatively rare to find a senior Conservative who spoke openly of outright support for leaving the EU. Until that referendum was actually called most cabinet-level Conservative figures spoke simply of giving the electorate a choice in the form of a referendum.
Those whose positions have merely stood still have experienced the most extraordinary change in how they are perceived. For example, when Philip Hammond was appointed Foreign Secretary. the appointment of someone who had declined to rule out voting Leave to that position was seen as a major concession to the Eurosceptics. These days they regard the present Chancellor as a high priest of Remain - without much more evidence for that view than there was for the previous one.
People who before June 2016 would have defended a "Norway option" or EEA option as being better than continued membership of the EU now decry any such solution as "Brexit in name only."
The hardening of attitudes exists on both sides of the divide and is one of the reasons that assembling a parliamentary majority for any given course of action is proving so difficult.
It is also noticeable that people on both sides have a tendency to misremember what they were saying a couple of years ago to fit their present position.
The classic example is the very different position taken by many people about how final the referendum result should be compared to what they said before the event when they often thought Remain would win it. The first major petition for another referendum, which attracted 3.7 million signatures from Remain supporters, was created by a Leave voter shortly before the referendum in the belief that his side would lose. He was horrified when it was "hi-jacked" by Remain supporters after leave won.
(In the words of the late Windsor Davies who sadly died this week.
"Oh dear, what a shame, never mind.")
The fact that people are taking a much harder line now, and think that they have always taken such a hard line, becomes particularly difficult when people start claiming now that the 2016 vote was a mandate for positions which simply were not being articulated at the time.
Anyone who looks back at the posts I made on this blog in 2016 will find that on a number of occasions I complained bitterly at the time that the official Leave campaign had never sought to set out exactly what a "leave" vote would mean.
A representative example is the post I put up here on 26th May 2016 called
"Why the Leave campaign should have backed Flexcit,"
but there were plenty of others.
The real problem which is making it harder to get a sensible decision about what form Brexit should take is that in the absence of any clear strategy having been set out by the official leave campaigns at the time of the referendum - unlike certain groups such as the Leave Alliance who put forward "Flexcit" - people are now trying to claim a retrospective mandate for things they believe now but certainly were not saying three years ago at the time of the referendum.
Does anyone remember a "Vote.Leave" leaflet saying that leaving the EU with no trade deal in place will do wonders for the economy?
No, because Leave was saying that getting a trade deal after Brexit will be easy because the German motor industry is desperate to sell cars to us so they will make sure the EU offers us a good deal.
As Danny Finkelstein puts it
""People who were once quite pragmatic about the sort of relationship we should have with the European Union after leaving have become more doctrinaire. Only the hardest Brexit is now real Brexit."
"These are people who once talked about how the EU was fine 'when it was a common market' or who said we might become members of the European Free Trade Association or be like Norway. People who argued that we would arrange tariff free trade with the EU. People who argued to remain in the customs union after Brexit."
"They haven't even noticed that they have shifted their position."
"They have spent so long knocking around with each other, egging each other on, setting each other purity tests, that they have drifted, drifted, drifted until we are in the ridiculous position where the Prime Minister negotiates to leave the EU and they turn it down."
"Forgetting, as they do, that they are being asked to compromise with positions that they publicly advocated not that long ago."
I think Danny has a point.
There is no easy route out of the position Britain is in now, and no way to avoid an outcome which millions of people will be horrified by.
In my humble opinion the only way to get a practical way forward which is in Britain's interests is going to be for those MPs who believe, as I do, that Britain must honour the referendum result by ceasing to be an EU member state, and who I believe to be in the majority, to reach a sensible compromise about how to deliver Brexit which can be passed by the House of Commons.
In my humble opinion the only way to get a practical way forward which is in Britain's interests is going to be for those MPs who believe, as I do, that Britain must honour the referendum result by ceasing to be an EU member state, and who I believe to be in the majority, to reach a sensible compromise about how to deliver Brexit which can be passed by the House of Commons.
Windsor Davies
Windsor Davies, a brilliant actor who appeared in many TV shows and films, died on Thursday at the age of 88. He is best remembered for his role as Battery Sergeant Major Williams from the comedy show "It Ain't Half Hot, Mum." I imagine that few people who watched the show will ever forget the way he could dismiss a complaint or concern with the words, delivered in an ironic tone,
"Oh dear; what a shame; never mind."
Davies was born in London to Welsh parents who returned to Wales at the start of WW2. He worked as a coal miner and as a schoolteacher before becoming an actor.
Apart from "It Ain't Half Hot Mum" his other TV and film parts included the comedy series "Never the Twain," two "Carry on" films, Doctor Who (in the episode "Evil of the Daleks,") Gormenghast, and he was the voice of Sergeant Major Zero in "Terrahawks."
He survived Eluned, his wife of 52 years, by four months. They had five children.
Rest in Peace.
"Oh dear; what a shame; never mind."
Davies was born in London to Welsh parents who returned to Wales at the start of WW2. He worked as a coal miner and as a schoolteacher before becoming an actor.
Apart from "It Ain't Half Hot Mum" his other TV and film parts included the comedy series "Never the Twain," two "Carry on" films, Doctor Who (in the episode "Evil of the Daleks,") Gormenghast, and he was the voice of Sergeant Major Zero in "Terrahawks."
He survived Eluned, his wife of 52 years, by four months. They had five children.
Rest in Peace.
Quote of the day 19th January 2019
"Not every cage is a prison:
not every loss is eternal."
(Line from the first episode of season two of "Star Trek Discovery" which was released on Netflix yesterday.)
not every loss is eternal."
(Line from the first episode of season two of "Star Trek Discovery" which was released on Netflix yesterday.)
Friday, January 18, 2019
Massive response to A595 consultation
Copeland MP Trudy Harrison organised a very constructive meeting today with Highways England and local county council officers and councillors about the A595.
Issues covered included the proposal for a Whitehaven Relief Road and the fact that repairs to what is currently the A595 will be necessary to deal with subsidence under the Moresby Viaduct.
Responses are still being analysed but one piece of information released today to the public domain is that there was a massive response to the consultation in late 2018 on the A595 in the Whitehaven area.
There were 850 responses which represents a very high response to a consultation of this kind.
Well done to everyone who took part.
Issues covered included the proposal for a Whitehaven Relief Road and the fact that repairs to what is currently the A595 will be necessary to deal with subsidence under the Moresby Viaduct.
Responses are still being analysed but one piece of information released today to the public domain is that there was a massive response to the consultation in late 2018 on the A595 in the Whitehaven area.
There were 850 responses which represents a very high response to a consultation of this kind.
Well done to everyone who took part.
UK inflation falls to 2.1% on latest CPI figures.
Figures released this week by the Office of National Statistics (ONS) suggest that the UK inflation rate fell to 2.1% in December, from 2.3% the previous month.
Inflation as measured by the Consumer Prices Index (CPI) was the lowest in nearly two years, The main downward driver on inflation was a fall in the price of petrol.
The figure is close to the Bank of England's target of 2% and probably makes any increase in interest rates in the near future less likely.
Average UK pay growth is now higher than inflation, suggesting a modest rise in real incomes, with the most recent available figures showing that wages excluding bonuses were up by 3.3% for the three months to October 2018.
Thursday, January 17, 2019
On calls to rule out "no deal"
There have been suggestions from a number of quarters that the Prime Minister should rule out what the people making the call refer to as a "No deal" Brexit and those who like the idea call a "WTO Brexit."
At the risk of annoying anyone from either of those groups who reads this, I don't think either is being reasonable.
You could have made a case for a properly managed exit from the EU in which Britain trades with the remaining EU countries on World Trade Organisation terms without a formal trade deal.
What you cannot do is leave without any agreement with France, Belgium on how we are going to manage trade across the Channel and not expect any disruption in Kent, at Eurostar and the channel ports.
Similarly, if Britain leaves the EU without a trade deal in place I don't believe that either side is going to erect a "hard border," e.g. put up checkpoints or any other form of high friction infrastructure along the border between Ireland and Northern Ireland.
What Article 50 will do on 29th March if it is not revoked or withdrawn and no other course of action is agreed isn't a properly managed WTO Brexit, it is crashing out without a deal.
Like those people who have been calling on the PM to rule out such a course of action I don't regard this as my preferred option. But it isn't up to me and it isn't up to her either.
Under Article 50, that's what happens unless a majority of the House of Commons, and the EU, agree something else by 29th March.
Mrs May did put forward something which would have prevented a "No Deal" Brexit this week, and the vast majority of the MPs who have been demanding that she rule out a "No Deal" Brexit were among those who voted her proposals down.
Those who want to avoid a "No Deal" Brexit need to work together to find a proposal which can both be agreed by the House of Commons and by the EU.
And for the avoidance of doubt, I believe that the referendum result should be respected and we need to find a form of Brexit which can pass the House of Commons.
At the risk of annoying anyone from either of those groups who reads this, I don't think either is being reasonable.
You could have made a case for a properly managed exit from the EU in which Britain trades with the remaining EU countries on World Trade Organisation terms without a formal trade deal.
What you cannot do is leave without any agreement with France, Belgium on how we are going to manage trade across the Channel and not expect any disruption in Kent, at Eurostar and the channel ports.
Similarly, if Britain leaves the EU without a trade deal in place I don't believe that either side is going to erect a "hard border," e.g. put up checkpoints or any other form of high friction infrastructure along the border between Ireland and Northern Ireland.
What you cannot do, however, is
- Leave the EU without any agreement on how we are going to manage the border in Ireland,
- not put up any infrastructure at the border, and
- still claim that Britain has "taken back control of our borders."
What Article 50 will do on 29th March if it is not revoked or withdrawn and no other course of action is agreed isn't a properly managed WTO Brexit, it is crashing out without a deal.
Like those people who have been calling on the PM to rule out such a course of action I don't regard this as my preferred option. But it isn't up to me and it isn't up to her either.
Under Article 50, that's what happens unless a majority of the House of Commons, and the EU, agree something else by 29th March.
Mrs May did put forward something which would have prevented a "No Deal" Brexit this week, and the vast majority of the MPs who have been demanding that she rule out a "No Deal" Brexit were among those who voted her proposals down.
Those who want to avoid a "No Deal" Brexit need to work together to find a proposal which can both be agreed by the House of Commons and by the EU.
And for the avoidance of doubt, I believe that the referendum result should be respected and we need to find a form of Brexit which can pass the House of Commons.
Stephen Pollard on Jeremy Corbyn's plans
Stephen Pollard is editor of the Jewish Chronicle and a former long-standing Labour party member and one time branch chairman.
He has an interesting take on what the Leader of the Opposition is playing at here.
He has an interesting take on what the Leader of the Opposition is playing at here.
Quote of the day 17th January 2019
"This is the problem. The entire day’s been filled with Corbynites and - to be fair - Labour moderates, demanding May opens talks. She does. At which point the evening’s filled with the same people scrabbling around for reasons why refusing to meet May is the right approach."
(Dan Hodges, former Labour and Tradue union official who is now a journalist)
(Dan Hodges, former Labour and Tradue union official who is now a journalist)
Wednesday, January 16, 2019
Government wins confidence vote by 325 to 306.
The government survived the "No confidence" vote in the House of Commons by 325 votes to 306.
Mrs May will be making a statement from Downing Street at around 2200 GMT.
The PM won the vote by a margin of 19, including 10 votes from the DUP.
Yes, it is a big of a turnaround from the government losing a vote by the largest majority in history and then being confirmed in office 24 hours later. Some people on social media are asking on social media how on earth more than a hundred MPs could vote so differently on consecutive days.
Actually this is not a difficult question to answer at all.
Try for a moment to imagine yourself in the place of a Conservative or DUP member of parliament who does not like the proposed Withdrawal Agreement but who also does not like
Mrs May will be making a statement from Downing Street at around 2200 GMT.
The PM won the vote by a margin of 19, including 10 votes from the DUP.
Yes, it is a big of a turnaround from the government losing a vote by the largest majority in history and then being confirmed in office 24 hours later. Some people on social media are asking on social media how on earth more than a hundred MPs could vote so differently on consecutive days.
Actually this is not a difficult question to answer at all.
Try for a moment to imagine yourself in the place of a Conservative or DUP member of parliament who does not like the proposed Withdrawal Agreement but who also does not like
- the IRA "armed struggle" (in which more than one or two of the people murdered were Conservative and DUP members of parliament,)
- Anti-Semitism
- Economic policies analogous to those of the present government of Venezuela
- Attempts to dismantle Britain's defences
Quote of the day 16th January 2019
"What are you playing at? What are you doing? You are not children in the playground, you are legislators. We are playing with people’s lives."
(Geoffrey Cox MP, solicitor general, to fellow MPs during the Withdrawal Agreement debate.)
(Geoffrey Cox MP, solicitor general, to fellow MPs during the Withdrawal Agreement debate.)
Tuesday, January 15, 2019
From the Copeland Local Committee
Long day today
Spent the morning at Copeland Local committee which I had booked as leave, then the rest of the day at the office, through to well into the evening.
Came home to the news of the vote.
Will probably post a longer report on the committee later but there was one particularly important point I should probably flag.
Spent the morning at Copeland Local committee which I had booked as leave, then the rest of the day at the office, through to well into the evening.
Came home to the news of the vote.
Will probably post a longer report on the committee later but there was one particularly important point I should probably flag.
One of the major items on the agenda was the Fire Service Integrated Risk Management Plan.
One of the proposals in this plan is to introduce "Rapid response vehicles" (RRVs) to replace some of the Cumbria Fire service current fleet of vehicles.
"Rapid response Vehicles" are about a third the size of a standard pump, can generally get to an incident more quickly but do not carry as many people or nearly as much equipment.
The committee was not opposed to the principle of having a greater range of vehicles and recognised that there may well be parts of a county where the use of RRVs as part of a balanced fleet would improve the service.
For example, Maryport currently has two pumps, one of which has not always been available. There is a proposal to keep one and replace the other with an RRV. This is in the Allerdale's area rather than Copeland so I'm not going to write anything which could be seen as telling my Allerdale colleagues what to do in their patch but I mention this part of the proposal to indicate that some of the proposals coming forward suggest a balanced fleet.
However, the one specific proposal in the Copeland are for Frizington, which is one of three fire stations in Cumbria which currently house a single standard large fire engine or "pump" and where the draft Integrated Risk Management Plan proposes to consider replacing it with a much smaller RRV.
The majority of the Copeland local committee did not consider that the case for replacing the current full-size pump with an RRV at Frizington had been made.
A number of the arguments for RRVs which are cited in the plan on issues like firefighter availability and which may apply at other stations are not applicable in Frizington, and the population of the area served by the Frizington station is much larger than that for the other areas where an equivalent proposal to replace a single full-size pump with an RRV has been put forward (including the area where it is planned to hold an RRV pilot.)
Accordingly the local committee voted to oppose the replacement of the Frizington fire engine with an RRV at this stage. (This was our input to the consultation on the plan, the final decision will be taken by full council.)
The vote today was seven to nil: there were ten councillors in the room at the time the vote was taken, and seven of us voted for a motion to indicate opposition to the replacement of the Frizington fire engine by an RRV.
If my memory is not playing tricks on me, and I don't think it is, the other three councillors did not raise their hands to vote for or against the proposal or to record an abstention.
What happens now?
The government response to the Brexit vote.
· The House of Commons has spoken and the Government will listen.
People, particularly EU citizens who have made their home here and UK citizens living in the EU, deserve clarity about what the House does support.
· So the Prime Minister has set out how we intend to proceed:
First, we need to confirm whether this Government still enjoys the confidence of the House. If it does, the PM will meet with Conservative colleagues, our Confidence and Supply partner the DUP, and senior Parliamentarians from across the House to identify what would be required to secure the backing of the House.
If these meetings yield ideas that are genuinely negotiable and have sufficient support in the House, the Government will then explore them with the EU.
· We ask Members of Parliament on all sides to listen to the British people, who want this issue settled, and to work with the Government to do just that.
Confirming whether this Government still enjoys the confidence of the House…
Holding meetings with Conservative colleagues, the DUP and senior Parliamentarians
· We aim to identify what would be required to secure the backing of the House. …
Exploring ideas that are genuinely negotiable and have sufficient support with the EU
· If these meetings yield ideas that are genuinely negotiable and have sufficient support in the House, the Government will then explore them with the EU.
Two reassurances:
· The House of Commons has spoken and the Government will listen.
People, particularly EU citizens who have made their home here and UK citizens living in the EU, deserve clarity about what the House does support.
· So the Prime Minister has set out how we intend to proceed:
First, we need to confirm whether this Government still enjoys the confidence of the House. If it does, the PM will meet with Conservative colleagues, our Confidence and Supply partner the DUP, and senior Parliamentarians from across the House to identify what would be required to secure the backing of the House.
If these meetings yield ideas that are genuinely negotiable and have sufficient support in the House, the Government will then explore them with the EU.
· We ask Members of Parliament on all sides to listen to the British people, who want this issue settled, and to work with the Government to do just that.
Confirming whether this Government still enjoys the confidence of the House…
- We believe it does – but given the scale and importance of tonight’s vote it is right that others have the chance to test that question if they wish to do so.
- If the Official Opposition table a confidence motion this evening in the form required by the Fixed Term Parliaments Act, we will make time to debate that motion tomorrow.
- If they decline to do so, we will – on this occasion – consider making time tomorrow to debate any motion in the form required from the other opposition parties.
Holding meetings with Conservative colleagues, the DUP and senior Parliamentarians
· We aim to identify what would be required to secure the backing of the House. …
Exploring ideas that are genuinely negotiable and have sufficient support with the EU
· If these meetings yield ideas that are genuinely negotiable and have sufficient support in the House, the Government will then explore them with the EU.
Two reassurances:
- The best way forward is to leave in an orderly way with a good deal. It is not our strategy to run down the clock to 29 March. We will therefore make a statement about the way forward and table an amendable motion by Monday.
- It is our duty to deliver on the instruction to leave the EU. The Prime Minister became PM just after the British people voted to leave the EU in the referendum. She believes it is her duty to deliver on their instruction.
Quote of the day 15th February 2019
For the avoidance of doubt I repeat Melbourne's quote this evening because the sense of frustration it conveys perfectly sums up the current state of Britain, not because this evening's vote in the House of Commons was a surprise.
Monday, January 14, 2019
Holocaust Memorial Day 2019
Holocaust Memorial Day 2019 will be held on Sunday 29th January, which is the 74th anniversary of the liberation of the Auschwitz-Birkenau Nazi death camp.
Themes to be remembered this year include "Torn From Home" which is about the refugees who had to flee their homes to avoid actual or threatened genocides, and it is also the 25th anniversary this year of the Rwandan genocide.
More details are given on the Holocaust Memorial Day Trust site here.
Themes to be remembered this year include "Torn From Home" which is about the refugees who had to flee their homes to avoid actual or threatened genocides, and it is also the 25th anniversary this year of the Rwandan genocide.
More details are given on the Holocaust Memorial Day Trust site here.
Tackling pollution
The Environment Secretary has launched a world leading plan to tackle air pollution, clean up our air and save lives.
Key facts:
The Clean Air Strategy 2019, which the World Health Organisation has described as ‘an example for the rest of the world to follow’, recognises that air pollution is one of the biggest threats to public health.
Why this matters:
Breathing dirty air is associated with a host of health problems, from asthma to cardiovascular disease and lung cancer, and all too often it is the most vulnerable – children, older people and those from poorer backgrounds – who are hit hardest. The action we are taking today will save lives and improve the health of the nation.
Key facts:
The Clean Air Strategy 2019, which the World Health Organisation has described as ‘an example for the rest of the world to follow’, recognises that air pollution is one of the biggest threats to public health.
- The measures set out in the Clean Air Strategy will cut the costs of air pollution to society by £1.7 billion every year by 2020, rising to £5.3 billion every year from 2030.
- The ambitious strategy includes new targets, new powers for local government and confirms that the forthcoming Environment Bill will include new primary legislation on air quality. The UK is the first major economy to adopt air quality goals based on WHO recommendations, going far beyond EU requirements.
- While air pollution may conjure images of traffic jams and exhaust fumes, transport is only one part of the story and the new strategy sets out the important role all of us – across all sectors of work and society – can play in reducing emissions and cleaning up our air to protect our health.
Why this matters:
Breathing dirty air is associated with a host of health problems, from asthma to cardiovascular disease and lung cancer, and all too often it is the most vulnerable – children, older people and those from poorer backgrounds – who are hit hardest. The action we are taking today will save lives and improve the health of the nation.
Sunday, January 13, 2019
Saturday, January 12, 2019
Churchill's grandson on the Withdrawal agreement
Sir Nicholas Soames MP, grandson of Sir Winston Churchill, made this speech in the House of Commons yesterday.
He stressed the need for "Dignity, reason and calm" in the Brexit debate and suggested that people on all sides should treat those of different views with respect. Despite having voted Remain he said that it is the duty of the House of Commons to respect the result of the referendum and that calling another one would be a very bad idea. He added that he has the impression that "the country is fed up with this debate and desperate for us to come to an agreement."
I think he is absolutely right.
In my humble opinion recommend the speech above by Sir Nicholas is well with listening to, and I also recomment this speech by Nick Herbert MP as well worth reading.
He stressed the need for "Dignity, reason and calm" in the Brexit debate and suggested that people on all sides should treat those of different views with respect. Despite having voted Remain he said that it is the duty of the House of Commons to respect the result of the referendum and that calling another one would be a very bad idea. He added that he has the impression that "the country is fed up with this debate and desperate for us to come to an agreement."
I think he is absolutely right.
In my humble opinion recommend the speech above by Sir Nicholas is well with listening to, and I also recomment this speech by Nick Herbert MP as well worth reading.
The 1984 playbook: Putin airbrushes history just as Stalin did
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it," George Santayana once wrote.
Which is why a common practice of both totalitarian regimes like those of Stalin or Hitler, or authoritarian ones like Vladimir Putin's today, is a propensity to try to airbrush embarrassing events out of history. The tactic was satirised in extreme form by George Orwell in the book 1984.
In terms of current events, the age of the internet and social media makes it virtually impossible to censor an event out of the current consciousness, so the purveyors of Russian propaganda today tend to work by broadcasting multiple conspiracy theories and attacks on the integrity of any of their critics or sources of an independent point of view (at its worst this led to the attempted extermination of the "White Helmets" civil defence organisation in Syria) with the result that people give up attempting to work out which explanation is true.
But where events of the past are concerned, the Putin regime reverts to the Stalinist tactic of removing references to events they don't want people to remember.
There is an article by John Sweeney on the CAPX site about the way four important events in recent Russian history were conveniently excised from the "Russia: My History" event in Moscow and how events which might show Stalin in a bad light or the west in a good one do not get much attention in Russian school history books today, which you can read here.
Which is why a common practice of both totalitarian regimes like those of Stalin or Hitler, or authoritarian ones like Vladimir Putin's today, is a propensity to try to airbrush embarrassing events out of history. The tactic was satirised in extreme form by George Orwell in the book 1984.
In terms of current events, the age of the internet and social media makes it virtually impossible to censor an event out of the current consciousness, so the purveyors of Russian propaganda today tend to work by broadcasting multiple conspiracy theories and attacks on the integrity of any of their critics or sources of an independent point of view (at its worst this led to the attempted extermination of the "White Helmets" civil defence organisation in Syria) with the result that people give up attempting to work out which explanation is true.
But where events of the past are concerned, the Putin regime reverts to the Stalinist tactic of removing references to events they don't want people to remember.
There is an article by John Sweeney on the CAPX site about the way four important events in recent Russian history were conveniently excised from the "Russia: My History" event in Moscow and how events which might show Stalin in a bad light or the west in a good one do not get much attention in Russian school history books today, which you can read here.
Quote of the day 12th January 2019
“It’s a very sad state of affairs that you have to be brave to call out anti-Semitism.”
(Countdown presenter/mathematician Rachel Riley on the abuse she has received for standing up against anti-Jewish racism. You can read more about the context of this quote here.)
Friday, January 11, 2019
Universal Credit
Today, the Work and Pensions Secretary has announced changes to Universal Credit to ensure it is flexible enough to adapt to personal circumstances, recognising the needs of the most vulnerable.
Key facts:
This is a continuation of the test and learn approach we have always taken, and follows the £4.5 billion package of changes announced at the Budget last year.
By rolling out Universal Credit gradually and sensibly, we can ensure our welfare system is better for those who need it, while helping people into work so that people can lead fulfilling lives
Key facts:
This is a continuation of the test and learn approach we have always taken, and follows the £4.5 billion package of changes announced at the Budget last year.
- Universal Credit is working for the vast majority of people, but to truly work for everyone, it has to be flexible enough to adapt to personal circumstances, recognising the needs of the most vulnerable.
- To do this, we are investing an extra £250 million to deliver the two-child policy fairly – ensuring parents who made decisions about their family size when the previous system was in place are supported by Universal Credit. This is restoring the original intent of the two-child policy, which is that parents receiving benefits face the same choices as those in work.
- We will pilot the next stage of rolling out Universal Credit for 10,000 claimants to learn how to provide the best support. We fully complete the roll out as planned by 2023.
By rolling out Universal Credit gradually and sensibly, we can ensure our welfare system is better for those who need it, while helping people into work so that people can lead fulfilling lives
Quote of the day 11th January 2019
“Stepping beyond your competence can be like stepping off a cliff. Too many people with brilliance and talent within some field do not realize how ignorant—or, worse yet, misinformed—they are when talking like philosopher-kings about other things.”
(Thomas Sowell, American Economist)
(Thomas Sowell, American Economist)
Thursday, January 10, 2019
Britain and Japan
The Prime Minister met her Japanese counterpart, Shinzo Abe, today in Downing Street to forge a new alliance on medical research, robotics, data and trade – boosting innovation across Britain as we leave the EU.
Key facts:
The two leaders will set out an ambitious programme – and £30 million of initial funding – for projects to tackle the Grand Challenges in our modern Industrial Strategy such as:
Why this matters:
As we prepare to leave the EU, we raise our horizons towards the rest of the world. By agreeing to forge a new, dynamic partnership with Japan, we not only back some of the most cutting-edge sectors in our economy, but will also improve people’s lives and shape the 21st century for the better.
Key facts:
The two leaders will set out an ambitious programme – and £30 million of initial funding – for projects to tackle the Grand Challenges in our modern Industrial Strategy such as:
- Designing robotic systems to allow our ageing populations to live independently in their own home for longer, finding new treatments for chronic conditions, and new forms of greener transport and energy storing. These could create 175,000 new jobs and will boost the UK manufacturing sector by £455 billion over the next decade.
- Japan will also scrap the existing ban on British beef and lamb exports which has been in place since 1996 and is worth £127 million to British farmers over five years – reiterating our commitment to an ambitious bilateral trading relationship.
- In addition, we will build on our Joint Declaration that stepped up our defence and security partnership by increasing combined exercises between our defence forces and strengthening maritime co-operation.
Why this matters:
As we prepare to leave the EU, we raise our horizons towards the rest of the world. By agreeing to forge a new, dynamic partnership with Japan, we not only back some of the most cutting-edge sectors in our economy, but will also improve people’s lives and shape the 21st century for the better.
Stephen Bush on Westminster's four Brexit factions
Stephen Bush of the New Statesman had a good piece yesterday on the four factions, three of them cross-party, supporting four different outcomes for Brexit.
(I'm not counting those who want another referendum or another election - these are process methods which people are putting forward, or pretending to put forward, as a means of getting to their preferred outcome. Some of these are pretty much belied by their actions.)
Realistically there are only four options now, and the four factions who support them are
1) The ERG and anyone else who actually wants a "No Deal" Brexit.
3) Those who want to cancel or delay Brexit
4) Supporters of some form of EEA or "Norway" option
The first is that not many MPs see "Norway plus" as their first choice even though many would see it as a fall back if their first choice falls. Logically most Leave supporters and a good many Remain supporters ought to prefer the May deal to EEA membership - the charge of "Brexit in name only" which leave supporters have thrown at the May deal is far more true of this option, especially if it is intended to be a permanent solution and not a staging post to a Canada - style trade deal in the longer term as was proposed under Flexcit.
The second problem is that "Norway plus" would need to be agreed both the EU and with Norway, and time to do so is running out.
When MPs in the previous parliament voted by about two-to-one to trigger Article 50 in early 2017, they should have been aware that when the government of the day reached a draft agreement with Brussels we would be in this situation - agree it or we get a No-Deal Brexit.
I suspect that many of them had not anticipated the situation in which the House of Commons has splintered into four factions, none of them commanding a majority, while opinions hardened greatly in each of those creating a serious danger of "No Deal" happening by default not because it has support but because there was no majority for anything else.
I don't think those who support what they call a "WTO Brexit" (e.g. No Deal) have thought through how unmanageable British politics may become if an outcome which only about one in ten MPs want is inflicted on the country by default because nobody quite managed to assemble a majority in the House of Commons for any of several competing alternative options all of which had much more support.
You can read Stephen's article in full here.
(I'm not counting those who want another referendum or another election - these are process methods which people are putting forward, or pretending to put forward, as a means of getting to their preferred outcome. Some of these are pretty much belied by their actions.)
Realistically there are only four options now, and the four factions who support them are
1) The ERG and anyone else who actually wants a "No Deal" Brexit.
- appears to be the smallest of the four factions in the House of Commons although I have strongly suspected since his failure to move a real "no confidence" motion that this may be the secretly preferred outcome which which Jeremy Corbyn and his inner circle actually want as long as they are not blamed for it. Despite their lack of numbers this group have a huge advantage because Article 50 makes their objective the default option - it stipulates that unless an alternative course of action can get agreement from both parliament and the EU by 29th March, these guys win by default. It could very well happen.
- (including those who are hoping against that they can get it improved and those who don't like it but privately think that it is the least worst option.)
3) Those who want to cancel or delay Brexit
- "Paranoids have enemies too" and the Brexiteers are probably right that there is a significant faction in parliament and the establishment who have always been determined to stop Brexit. I do not believe that a majority of MPs will or should dare defy the electorate by openly voting to halt the entire Brexit process. But if that appeared to be the only way to stop a "no deal" Brexit I might be wrong.
4) Supporters of some form of EEA or "Norway" option
- There are some MPs in both the Conservative and Labour parties who want to see a "soft Brexit" which would probably involve amending the "political declaration" to work towards Britain joining the European Economic Area. That would mean a close economic relationship which, formally involves leaving the EU and would keep the UK outside “ever closer union” and also reclaims a small degree of political sovereignty.
The first is that not many MPs see "Norway plus" as their first choice even though many would see it as a fall back if their first choice falls. Logically most Leave supporters and a good many Remain supporters ought to prefer the May deal to EEA membership - the charge of "Brexit in name only" which leave supporters have thrown at the May deal is far more true of this option, especially if it is intended to be a permanent solution and not a staging post to a Canada - style trade deal in the longer term as was proposed under Flexcit.
The second problem is that "Norway plus" would need to be agreed both the EU and with Norway, and time to do so is running out.
When MPs in the previous parliament voted by about two-to-one to trigger Article 50 in early 2017, they should have been aware that when the government of the day reached a draft agreement with Brussels we would be in this situation - agree it or we get a No-Deal Brexit.
I suspect that many of them had not anticipated the situation in which the House of Commons has splintered into four factions, none of them commanding a majority, while opinions hardened greatly in each of those creating a serious danger of "No Deal" happening by default not because it has support but because there was no majority for anything else.
I don't think those who support what they call a "WTO Brexit" (e.g. No Deal) have thought through how unmanageable British politics may become if an outcome which only about one in ten MPs want is inflicted on the country by default because nobody quite managed to assemble a majority in the House of Commons for any of several competing alternative options all of which had much more support.
You can read Stephen's article in full here.
Thatcher's Blame
Doctor Madsen Pirie, founder and current President of the Adam Smith Institute, published a highly entertaining and very useful book in 1985 called
"The Book of the Fallacy - a training manual for intellectual subversives."
which is a masterly guide to the different tricks which people can use to make their argument sound much stronger than it really is, how to spot them, and what the holes in their logic are.
Pirie listed many of the most commonly encountered logical fallacies and traps which, by accident or design, can lead people to support false conclusions.
Unfortunately, as Madsen Pirie points out, knowing why the argument you are listening to is wrong does not always make it easy to defeat the person advancing it. Arguments "ad baculum" (by threat of force) do not go away if you prove the person making the threat to be wrong, irrelevant humour, if it is funny enough, can carry away a valid argument on a gale of laughter, and emotional appeals can be extremely hard to stop with mere logic.
Nevertheless, to be able to understand why an argument is wrong is a useful start - if you don't know yourself you have little chance of persuading anyone else. And this book is really helpful at showing you how to see where faulty logic is in play. Sadly the original version with it's highly entertaining cartoons is no longer in print though one can sometimes get second-hand copies on Amazon, but a second edition of the book was published in 2006 with a new title
"How to Win Every Argument - the use and abuse of logic."
The text is about 95% common, although the new version has a few updated concepts.
One of these is called "Thatcher's Blame."
This is Madsen's twist on a concept also known as "Damned if you do, damned if you don't" but he gives a particular example of the way some people on the left always manage to make things Mrs Thatcher's fault.
If the country was going through a period of austerity and poverty, any misbehaviour was blamed on Mrs Thatcher on the grounds that people who don't have enough money are rioting / mugging / stealing / getting drunk to drown their sorrows because they are suffering as they don't have enough money, and this is destroying the fabric of society.
When the economy was growing at an incredible rate and people had much more money (and some of the people caught rioting or looting turned out to be in well-paid jobs) the same journalists and politicians who had advanced the argument in the above paragraph said that the misbehaviour was all Mrs Thatcher's fault because she had encouraged them to worship material success and think that all that mattered was to have "loadsamoney," which led to moral decay / rioting / mugging / stealing / getting drunk to celebrate or get even more money and that this is destroying the fabric of society.
So all the evils of society are Mrs Thatcher's fault because people have too much money or not enough money.
This year will see the thirtieth anniversary of Mrs Thatcher's fall from power and at the first full council meeting of the year in Cumbria today we had -you've guessed it - the Leader of the council blaming things on Mrs Thatcher.
When asked by my colleague Ben Shirley whether the council could do more to improve the effectiveness of bus services, the first response of Labour councillor Stuart Young was to blame the problems with bus services in Cumbria in 2019 on Mrs Thatcher's bus deregulation of the 1980's.
The fact that his party had been in power for thirteen of the intervening thirty years and either of the two Labour Prime Ministers at that time could easily have reversed the decision had they thought the case for re-regulating buses was so overwhelming did not seem to be of interest to him.
"The Book of the Fallacy - a training manual for intellectual subversives."
which is a masterly guide to the different tricks which people can use to make their argument sound much stronger than it really is, how to spot them, and what the holes in their logic are.
Pirie listed many of the most commonly encountered logical fallacies and traps which, by accident or design, can lead people to support false conclusions.
Unfortunately, as Madsen Pirie points out, knowing why the argument you are listening to is wrong does not always make it easy to defeat the person advancing it. Arguments "ad baculum" (by threat of force) do not go away if you prove the person making the threat to be wrong, irrelevant humour, if it is funny enough, can carry away a valid argument on a gale of laughter, and emotional appeals can be extremely hard to stop with mere logic.
Nevertheless, to be able to understand why an argument is wrong is a useful start - if you don't know yourself you have little chance of persuading anyone else. And this book is really helpful at showing you how to see where faulty logic is in play. Sadly the original version with it's highly entertaining cartoons is no longer in print though one can sometimes get second-hand copies on Amazon, but a second edition of the book was published in 2006 with a new title
"How to Win Every Argument - the use and abuse of logic."
The text is about 95% common, although the new version has a few updated concepts.
One of these is called "Thatcher's Blame."
This is Madsen's twist on a concept also known as "Damned if you do, damned if you don't" but he gives a particular example of the way some people on the left always manage to make things Mrs Thatcher's fault.
If the country was going through a period of austerity and poverty, any misbehaviour was blamed on Mrs Thatcher on the grounds that people who don't have enough money are rioting / mugging / stealing / getting drunk to drown their sorrows because they are suffering as they don't have enough money, and this is destroying the fabric of society.
When the economy was growing at an incredible rate and people had much more money (and some of the people caught rioting or looting turned out to be in well-paid jobs) the same journalists and politicians who had advanced the argument in the above paragraph said that the misbehaviour was all Mrs Thatcher's fault because she had encouraged them to worship material success and think that all that mattered was to have "loadsamoney," which led to moral decay / rioting / mugging / stealing / getting drunk to celebrate or get even more money and that this is destroying the fabric of society.
So all the evils of society are Mrs Thatcher's fault because people have too much money or not enough money.
This year will see the thirtieth anniversary of Mrs Thatcher's fall from power and at the first full council meeting of the year in Cumbria today we had -you've guessed it - the Leader of the council blaming things on Mrs Thatcher.
When asked by my colleague Ben Shirley whether the council could do more to improve the effectiveness of bus services, the first response of Labour councillor Stuart Young was to blame the problems with bus services in Cumbria in 2019 on Mrs Thatcher's bus deregulation of the 1980's.
The fact that his party had been in power for thirteen of the intervening thirty years and either of the two Labour Prime Ministers at that time could easily have reversed the decision had they thought the case for re-regulating buses was so overwhelming did not seem to be of interest to him.
Quote of the day 10th January 2019
"The tragedy of John Bercow’s behaviour is that even when he goes, the chair will never fully recover its reputation for impartiality."
(James Forsyth)
"Sadly, it is in the nature of Governments that they tend to push the boundaries, or even flatten conventions outright when given the chance. Administrations of all stripes have done so over the last 20 or more years.
It is an important role of Parliament, and particularly of the Speaker, to try to resist those efforts. So yes, John Bercow has a responsibility to defend the legislature from excesses of the executive – but as a guardian of the constitution he also has an especially important responsibility to obey it himself."
"Now he has duly intervened, contrary to the expert advice of the Clerks and in breach of their interpretation of Standing Orders, in order to allow a particular amendment that he likes. Other potential amendments were not given an equal privilege."
"By shattering convention in this way, Bercow has not just indulged himself, he has given license to future Speakers to do the same – and inspired MPs to permanently fear the prospect that they will do so. In the absence of faith in the true impartiality of the Chair, the obvious alternative is for both parties to ditch the next convention down the list, the respectful alternation of which party provides the Speaker, and instead compete to put in place Speakers whom they openly expect to be their partisan servants.
Even if you like his actions today, or happen to believe the amendment itself to be positive for Parliament, it is important to consider what the permanent cost will be.
Not only would the business of the Commons suffer from a move to more openly partisan, biased Speakers, but Parliament itself will lose out from such a change.
A strong Speaker, respected on all sides due to their even-handed pursuit of the role and defence of the rules, is in a better position to defend Parliament’s privileges when they are threatened by the executive. If it becomes acceptable for MPs to simply put in place a Speaker with whom the majority of them agree politically, and to expect that Speaker will use the office to serve their politics, then we risk replacing a bulwark of the legislature with simply another tool of the government of the day."
(Mark Wallace, extracts from an article on Conservative Home about Speaker Bercow's decision to rule that the Grieve Amendment could be accepted while allowing his officials to reject at least one other amendment. The full article can be read here.)
Wednesday, January 09, 2019
Here we go again
Despite having voted Remain and not regarding a "No deal" Brexit as either the best option for Britain or required by the referendum, I wasn't impressed by the Cooper amendment passed in the House of Commons which was presented as a vote against leaving the EU without a deal.
I'm afraid I regard this vote as a pointless exercise in virtue signalling.
It doesn't do anything about the fact that if MPs can't agree on anything else, we automatically leave the EU without a deal.
What it does is require that if there actually is a "No deal" Brexit, the provisions which have already been put into law enabling the government to spend money to mitigate the effects can only be put into effect it parliament approves them.
If the MPs who voted for this intended the government to take it as a serious threat, I agree with various people on Twitter such as Robert Colvile (@rcolvile) who wrote that
"The logic is essentially
‘We disapprove of fires, so we’re banning sprinkler systems to make everyone think really carefully about using matches’"
But do these MPs really expect anyone to believe that if a "No Deal" Brexit had already taken place they would deliberately vote to make it more damaging to prove a point?
MPs have voted for an awful lot of things in the recent past which I thought were pretty stupid - the Cooper amendment itself being a case in point - but I don't believe they are that stupid.
I'm afraid I regard this vote as a pointless exercise in virtue signalling.
It doesn't do anything about the fact that if MPs can't agree on anything else, we automatically leave the EU without a deal.
What it does is require that if there actually is a "No deal" Brexit, the provisions which have already been put into law enabling the government to spend money to mitigate the effects can only be put into effect it parliament approves them.
If the MPs who voted for this intended the government to take it as a serious threat, I agree with various people on Twitter such as Robert Colvile (@rcolvile) who wrote that
"The logic is essentially
‘We disapprove of fires, so we’re banning sprinkler systems to make everyone think really carefully about using matches’"
But do these MPs really expect anyone to believe that if a "No Deal" Brexit had already taken place they would deliberately vote to make it more damaging to prove a point?
MPs have voted for an awful lot of things in the recent past which I thought were pretty stupid - the Cooper amendment itself being a case in point - but I don't believe they are that stupid.
Social Housing for veterans
Today, the Communities Secretary announced plans to prioritise social housing for veterans suffering from mental health conditions, ensuring our armed forces get the help they need.
Key facts:
Former service personnel suffering from Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder or other mental illnesses will be prioritised for social housing under proposals published for consultation
by Communities Secretary.
·
Our plans will mean all applicants for social housing will be asked if they have served in the Forces to make sure our armed forces receive the help they need.
·
Under the proposals from our eight-week consultation, those with Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder and other mental illnesses could be treated in the same way as
those with physical injuries, and get the priority they deserve.
·
We are also publishing new guidance which will encourage councils to waive the residency rules, so that people who split from a partner in the Forces are not denied
social housing as a result of not being resident in their local area long enough. This should particularly support those who have been victims of domestic abuse.
Why this matters:
While the vast majority of veterans thrive in civilian life, we have a responsibility to ensure that any who do struggle as a result of their service – whether finding a job,
getting on the property ladder or with mental health issues – get the support they need.
Quote of the day 9th January 2019
"It isn’t enough for Parliament to vote against a no deal exit – it has to vote for something to have in its place, whether that is another referendum, an early election, the withdrawal agreement as currently written or the withdrawal agreement following revisions to the political declaration, or simply to revoke Article 50 without a referendum."
(Stephen Bush, writing in the New Statesman, in an article called
"Parliament can agree that it doesn't want a no deal Brexit, but that's it"
in which he suggests that the narrow margin of victory for the Yvette Copper amendment suggests that although a majority of MPs are strongly committed to avoiding a "No deal" Brexit, there does not at the moment appear to be a majority for any specific alternative path.)
(Stephen Bush, writing in the New Statesman, in an article called
"Parliament can agree that it doesn't want a no deal Brexit, but that's it"
in which he suggests that the narrow margin of victory for the Yvette Copper amendment suggests that although a majority of MPs are strongly committed to avoiding a "No deal" Brexit, there does not at the moment appear to be a majority for any specific alternative path.)
Tuesday, January 08, 2019
January meeting of Cumbria County Council's local committee for Copeland.
Cumbria County Council's local committee for Copeland will meet next week at 10.15 am on Tuesday, 15th January 2019 at Cleator Moor Civic Hall and Masonic Centre, Jacktrees Rd, Cleator Moor CA25 5AU.
The meeting will be open to the public.
The agenda and supporting documents can be found here.
The meeting will be open to the public.
The agenda and supporting documents can be found here.
Quote of the day 8th January 2019
Guardian journalist Yasmin Alibhai-Brown had a go at some prominent BME Conservative politicians this week on twitter for no clearly specified reason. I was reminded of some wise words from Thomas Sowell:
Monday, January 07, 2019
Of honest politics and the reverse, IDS and the National Living Wage.
All governments make mistakes.
All governments which have been in office for any material length of time when the country is going through financially challenging times - for example, if it has to deal with the sort of mess that the Conservative-led coalition inherited from Labour in 2010 - will have had to make some tough choices which not everyone will like.
Any remotely competent supporter of an opposition party who wishes to criticise a governing party which has been in office for more than the shortest period of time - eight years, say - should be able to find plenty of serious criticisms without the need to tells lies.
Let alone really obvious lies.
One of the more memorable images broadcast in TV reports of George Osborne's 2015 budget was the sight of Iain Duncan Smith (IDS) cheering when the then chancellor introduced the National Living Wage - effectively a rebranding and big increase in the minimum wage.
There are - if you take a free market position - genuine arguments for and against a minimum wage as I explained at the time in an article called the minimum wage balancing act.
This balancing act is that for a minimum wage floor to be successful in reducing poverty it must be high enough to make sure we reward work, not so high as to bankrupt small employers and price people back onto the dole queue.
I discussed the real arguments for and against a minimum wage in great detail here but they are not relevant to this article about honest politics because the people who have been dishonestly using film of IDS cheering the announcement of the National Living wage to attack him neither believe nor pretend to believe in the free market arguments against the minimum wage. They are supporters of a minimum wage floor and indeed think it should be even higher.
IDS has a long and controversial record in government and there are plenty of things he has done which an honest socialist would disagree with and could use to criticise him without the need to lie about his record.
Which is why it says something interesting about some Corbyn supporters that both in 2016 and again this week they have been sharing the image of IDS cheering the announcement of the National Living Wage and lying about it.
Anyone who reads this blog regularly will probably have noticed that I usually bend over backwards to avoid accusing people who say something I disagree with of lying but this time there is really no other word for it.
As the Independent reported in 2016 here, Corbyn supporters shared the image of Ian Duncan Smith cheering the NLW and said that it showed him celebrating, quote "screwing the poor."
In the newspaper's words,
"He was, of course, celebrating the proposed rise in the minimum wage to £9/hour as set out by George Osborne in the post-election Budget in July last year. Which many probably wouldn't see as 'screwing the poor'."
This week some Corbynistas have been spreading a similar lie on social media again, circulating the same gif on social media and claiming that it showed IDS cheering "government policies that leave people choosing to heat or eat, having to go to Foodbanks & live in poverty!"
Nonsense. And it is not just that he was actually cheering a policy which make it less necessary for millions of the poorest-paid workers to do any of those things: the Resolution Foundation published a report arguing that the National Living Wage caused the biggest improvement in low wages for 40 years.
It's not only a lie, but a stupid lie because enough people remember that image of IDS cheering and that he was cheering the NLW that the lie was always going to be called out.
If Momentum were confident that they could win by telling the truth they would not need to resort to dishonest tactics like this one.
All governments which have been in office for any material length of time when the country is going through financially challenging times - for example, if it has to deal with the sort of mess that the Conservative-led coalition inherited from Labour in 2010 - will have had to make some tough choices which not everyone will like.
Any remotely competent supporter of an opposition party who wishes to criticise a governing party which has been in office for more than the shortest period of time - eight years, say - should be able to find plenty of serious criticisms without the need to tells lies.
Let alone really obvious lies.
One of the more memorable images broadcast in TV reports of George Osborne's 2015 budget was the sight of Iain Duncan Smith (IDS) cheering when the then chancellor introduced the National Living Wage - effectively a rebranding and big increase in the minimum wage.
There are - if you take a free market position - genuine arguments for and against a minimum wage as I explained at the time in an article called the minimum wage balancing act.
This balancing act is that for a minimum wage floor to be successful in reducing poverty it must be high enough to make sure we reward work, not so high as to bankrupt small employers and price people back onto the dole queue.
I discussed the real arguments for and against a minimum wage in great detail here but they are not relevant to this article about honest politics because the people who have been dishonestly using film of IDS cheering the announcement of the National Living wage to attack him neither believe nor pretend to believe in the free market arguments against the minimum wage. They are supporters of a minimum wage floor and indeed think it should be even higher.
IDS has a long and controversial record in government and there are plenty of things he has done which an honest socialist would disagree with and could use to criticise him without the need to lie about his record.
Which is why it says something interesting about some Corbyn supporters that both in 2016 and again this week they have been sharing the image of IDS cheering the announcement of the National Living Wage and lying about it.
Anyone who reads this blog regularly will probably have noticed that I usually bend over backwards to avoid accusing people who say something I disagree with of lying but this time there is really no other word for it.
As the Independent reported in 2016 here, Corbyn supporters shared the image of Ian Duncan Smith cheering the NLW and said that it showed him celebrating, quote "screwing the poor."
In the newspaper's words,
"He was, of course, celebrating the proposed rise in the minimum wage to £9/hour as set out by George Osborne in the post-election Budget in July last year. Which many probably wouldn't see as 'screwing the poor'."
This week some Corbynistas have been spreading a similar lie on social media again, circulating the same gif on social media and claiming that it showed IDS cheering "government policies that leave people choosing to heat or eat, having to go to Foodbanks & live in poverty!"
Nonsense. And it is not just that he was actually cheering a policy which make it less necessary for millions of the poorest-paid workers to do any of those things: the Resolution Foundation published a report arguing that the National Living Wage caused the biggest improvement in low wages for 40 years.
It's not only a lie, but a stupid lie because enough people remember that image of IDS cheering and that he was cheering the NLW that the lie was always going to be called out.
If Momentum were confident that they could win by telling the truth they would not need to resort to dishonest tactics like this one.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)