_2.jpg)
Friends, the revolving door that is the British premiership has temporarily elevated Andy Burnham to be head of government in the U.K. A few months ago he wasn't even a member of Parliament...and now he's head honcho. Makes a ton of sense, right? Well, it does if you're a Labour backbencher, and you're prepared to role as many dice as it takes to revive the fortunes of your moribund party. Presumably, Burnham won't change the substantive policies of the Labour government much, but he will govern with a bit more style and panache than poor Sir Keir. The Reform Party is licking its chops, hoping that Labour's new leader, and the country's new P.M., will flop, and then a general election will be called. Nigel Farage and Reform are under furious attack by the establishment, so it's not clear how well they would perform in an election...but there's only one way to find out. If Labour gets its way, we never will.
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c4gjz907pppo
In other news, not content to bomb Iran indefinitely, DJT seems to be angling for a secondary conflict with...Canada? He's pushing a new set of tariffs against our neighbor to the north. He says Canada isn't playing fair on trade. Well, maybe, but don't we have broadly even trade, i.e. a relatively small trade deficit with Canada? Why give China a pass when it's a much worse offender in terms of protectionism and intellectual property theft? Personally, I think Trump has a grudge of sorts against Canada, and I'm not at all sure that that's a rational basis for tariffs. Oh well. The chances that Canada will invade us in response are low. Perhaps this is just more gamesmanship with an eye to getting a better "deal" out of trade negotiations, rather a serious move towards a trade war. I hope so.
Dr. Waddy: The issues most controversial in the UK now; environmentalist obstruction of the use of North Sea Oil; absurd deference being paid to violent criminals and the invasion of often illegal and often antiBritish immigrants are not easily or quickly solvable. Anyway,Labour is doctrinally committed to continuing to advance them and that may further infuriate the electorate against them.
ReplyDeleteA PM Farage might be able to do as President Trump did in closing the border but there would remain the problem of many foreigners already resident and loath to assimilate into British civilization. Some of them even openly declare support for a hostile takeover of the UK by peoples from cultures inimical to British tradition. There would be so much reform, retraction and redemption for Reform to do and Labour dreads it as much as our Marxists dreaded and now gracelessly suffer the tenure of a common sense American President.
Burnham may move with great haste to get as much done before Reform arrives at the gate .
If Labour was to win a national election now, then "woe, woe for England.! " Having unexpectedly survived Reform's intention to marginalize them , their already much open and assertive Marxism would be terribly intensified. They would see it as their call to take permanent dictatorial power.
Dr. Waddy: Utterly counterintuitive wokeness has been forced on the necessarily practical Brits and I think they may be fed up with it. Its perpetrators are typical radical perfectionists who will never cease trying to bring, well. . . PERFECTION to any civilization they curse with their presumptuous totalitarianism. Human perfection has been attempted already in this hard world ,with incalculably catastrophic results and the British polity may well recognize in Burnham's stubbornly and unapologetically even ever more incipient far left convictions, after a lamentable try by pathetic Sir Keir, just what avoidable subjugation could be in store for them should they fail to stand up against it.
ReplyDeleteReform and Farage: that's the real Britain which has so advanced world civilization.
Dr. Wady: I think we have a great President but dang it, I wish he'd stop antagonizing good ol' Canada eh? I do respect his conviction that he must be fair minded in his reactions to countries he believes take unfair advantage of us. I don't think there has ever been a country which, since it grew up in the 20th century , has rendered the world more benefit, often at some cost to itself. Yes , we have always prioritized our national interests, as do all nations in this still dangerous world. But somehow our interests seem so often to redound to the favor of countries we engage, even in war.
ReplyDeleteIn Canada, liberals dominate despite the presence of heavily conservative nether regions in their Midwest and West. No skin off our noses ,I think. Ehh, lets give them a "play", a pass, and lets recognize that they are a highly civilized country right on our border.
I grew up in Buffalo, right across the river from Canada. Canadians are good folks. They came ashore with our boys at Normandy and they've shown they are people with whom we can negotiate .Imagine if we had an enemy right on our flanks! This ain't 1812 and that was our fault anyway.
If Canada is doing us economic wrong, I cannot believe it is attributable to very bad will toward us , though it may stem in part from some bemused still persistent old world style disdain for our still perceived provincial naivete.
Things could get serious if China or Russia move to dominate the Arctic. Then the US/Canada relationship could become exceedingly important. My guess is that Canada and a common sense guided UK would side with us if it gets to cases.
Dr. Waddy: Well, Fox reports today that AOC tops a poll seeking to predict the results of the New Hampshire Primary in 2028.
ReplyDeleteSure its a bit premature and New Hampshire"s is no longer the first primary since Carter pioneered the use of the Iowa Caucases.
However, she is developing into a powerful demagogue and we must take her potential seriously. I do not use this analog lightly because the looney far left does do that casually and presumptuously but what:? A destitute eccentric Vienna painter; why not a mouthy, far left NY bar tender? Sure, there are many dissimilarities. The painter loved his country in his monstrous way. AOC is an outspoken America hater; her DSA membership affirms this. Her sure to become increasingly disingenuous statements to the contrary as her electoral credibility grows, she IS sure, should she acquire the power to do so, to go all out for forced Marxist "fundamental transformation" of a country she loaths. Oh the Obamas dreamed of doing this but the voluptuary perks of office seduced them soon enough. AOC is made of stuff grim enough to exceed the vindictive rage Hillary would have brought to the Presidency.
The painter was fueled by rage at his beloved Germany supposedly having been betrayed in WWI , so intense that he directed then unthinkable murderous oppression to satisfy it. His only equal was Stalin, whose portraits no doubt grace the hives of the DSA, along with those of Mao and groovy "Che".
Would an AOC or any DSA stalwart in the Presidency - the painter was, after all, elected into commanding office by solid Germans who thought him to be of good will - do their best to destroy prosperous free America? They WOULD thrive to destroy America, the engine of the most astonishing and redeeming material well being for almost all who lead constructive and positive lives, to clear the way for their historically condemned Marxist dreams. Why? Because they are perfectionists who believe future human perfection is reachable and who have way too much time and luxury on their hands.
Dr. Waddy: Is it at all credible that they could triumph? I remember the DSA of 2024 and before as a marginal and eccentric bunch which parroted Marxist - Leninist garbage in their publications . But now . . . ..Also, we do not have the ravages of a near communist revolution ,astronomical rates of inflation and the continuing shame of having been beaten in an unimaginably catastrophic World War which tormented Germans in the 1920s and '30s.
ReplyDeleteStill, who can say what relative domestic hardship could result from the Iran War?Who can say what influence might accrue to a widely college indoctrinated 30 something generation reacting vindictively to the straitened economic opportunities they perceive ? The door to power could, if we do not dare to assert our credible fears about the future in an America plagued by unattainable Marxist promises of "justice" and "prosperity" and "freedom",could be opened just far enough to admit the true, grimly purposefully Marxist leadership and cadre, with their certain totalitarian intent. What would it take to convince common sense America that yes, it could happen?! A second Civil War?.
Dr. Waddy, quoted below is a real conversation I had with a British businessman just this week. It reinforces your point about the political mess Great Britain has become. He wrote, after I admitted the USA wasn't a perfect place:
ReplyDelete“Would never worry about anyone’s views of where you come from - have worked all around Europe, out to Asia and every country has its issues and challenges! I’m a proud Brit but just embarrassed that we’re on our seventh Prime Minister in 10 years and most of them were never elected! There’s democracy for you!”
That says a great deal. Even proud Britons recognize the instability and embarrassment created by a political establishment that repeatedly changes leaders while continuing down essentially the same non-conservative path. Britain’s problem is no longer simply who occupies Downing Street—it is a political system increasingly disconnected from the people it supposedly represents.
I think it also underscores the absolute priority it should be for us to get our election integrity issues fixed!!
Jack, it would be most interesting (and exciting) if Labour were to call a snap election. It would be a big risk, as you say, with Reform "at the gates". I doubt very much they will take it.
ReplyDeleteJack, I agree: we have nothing to gain by antagonizing Canada, and they really don't deserve the abuse that they often receive from us. It's hard to imagine a less objectionable neighbor than Canada. Let's leave them be!
Jack, I wouldn't put much stock in any poll predicting support for prospective presidential candidates in 2028. The results I've seen, on both sides, have been wildly inconsistent. Much depends on polling methodology. But I don't dismiss AOC's chances either. This is a remarkably evenly divided country, and a truly dreadful candidate on either side could prevail, if the competition was even weaker, or if the stars aligned (say by gracing the Dems with a recession or a depression). We must be vigilant!
Richie, thank you for giving us those insights. Part of Britain's problem is that its system empowers parties, rather than individual leaders, much more than ours does. In the UK, one doesn't vote for a P.M. One votes for a local M.P., and he/she may have loyalties that shift very quickly. It is up to the British people, in any case, to repudiate the parties that ignore their values and priorities -- and to elevate the parties that affirm them. Of course, to do that, there would need to be an election, and Labour and the Tories have every reason to drag their feet on that...
Dr. Waddy and Richie et al: Of course Churchill once opined "democracy is the worst form of government until you consider all the other ones". In my Problems of Democracy class in high school the teacher described the concept of the "democratic wager". I think it meant that despite its many drawbacks, its worth sticking with democracy because its likelihood of probably manifesting reasonably favorable consequences is better than all the other solutions demonstrated by history, especially far left totalitarianism.
ReplyDeleteIt was astonishing that democracy had the decisive effect it did in May 1940 in the decision not to negotiate with Hitler. Halifax and Chamberlain could have brought down Churchill's government by resigning from the War Cabinet and triggering a no confidence vote in Parliament. That would have been a democratically pursued process. In most countries force might well have been used against Churchill, probably with incalculably catastrophic consequences we know now. That Halifax and Chamberlain chose not to was also a move appropriate for a democracy. In that most vitally fateful moment for Britain,democracy guided the conduct of Britain's leaders in making that dread decision.
I think the UK is an essentially and organically democratic society. The unredeeming spectacle of musical chairs at 10 Downing St , being coincident, could be described as a byproduct of the counterintuitive woke policies increasingly regarded as having fostered governmental and societal dysfunction. The Brits may well consequently be in a "reforming mien". Well, the vehicle for sweeping and right headed reform is available for democratic empowerment.And if it prevails, the continuing British "democratic wager" will have been won again.
Dr. Waddy and Richie et al: Of course in making that memorable quote, Churchill was speaking of true and tested democracy, not the cynical cuckooing of the term and even some of its essentials (elections)so often seen in nations which "front" the term.
ReplyDeleteDr. Wady: What I understand to be the role of the Whip, both as a person and a declaration of policy, in the UK Parliament might tend to keep members consistent. I've read that there are three levels of a Whip message to party members. The lowest urges them to vote a certain way; the highest says "vote this way or your career is over". The party discipline this enables might encourage an MP to stay true to his or her electorate. Of course, wouldn't you know it, Churchill crossed the aisle twice. But he, by his own admission to his valet, was a great man.
ReplyDeleteJack, I would say democracy has had a very good run for the last, oh, 250 years, but that doesn't necessarily prove its superiority. Monarchy is the most time-tested and stable political system out there, although it has plenty of downsides too. Note that democracy only tends to flourish when it's planted in favorable soil, i.e. when the local culture is amenable to it. P.S. I'm not entirely convinced that Churchill's accession to power was "democratic", since the people never voted for it (in 1940), but it was, in my eyes, more a consequence of the exhaustion and feebleness of the "peace" faction in the face of Germany's advances and its seeming beastliness. Had there been a plebiscite on continuing the war, prior to the onset of the Blitz, I'm not sure what the people would have decided...
ReplyDelete