Questions Of The Day (Politics)

[Mick Harper]

There's a well known adage, 'The perfect is the enemy of the good', which is often applied to manufacturing problems. But it is of general application and was illustrated quite well in the Kavanaugh hearings. If K had admitted to being 'sloppy drunk' during his youth, this would have rather strengthened the apparent veracity of his testimony without really impinging on the main issue since sloppy drunks don't normally go round attacking women, or at any rate would remember doing so if they did. However, because his defence was tantamount to saying, "I'm perfect", he is now going to be hoist for merely being good, but by no means perfect.

[Mick Harper]

Kavanaugh attacked UB40! It's war.

[Mick Harper]

Jacob Rees-Mogg denied he was a cannibal on Newsnight. I'm not saying he is, I'm not saying he isn't. I just don't know. But he does live in Somerset.

[Mick Harper]

So presumably this Kavanaugh business will now close down with his appointment to the bench. ‘Presumably’ because we will still have an interlude of “the mid-terms will wreak a horrible revenge”, “the battle lines have been drawn for a generation”, “American politics will never be the same” etc etc. What though should AE-ists conclude from it all?

Nothing. That is they should conclude that it is a simple application of “what is is what was”. Let’s take the apparent central issue – the balance of the Supreme Court -- and the central issue of that, Roe v Wade, whether abortion is a fundamental right for American women. Now as it happens that dates from 1973 which is just a few years after our own abortion entitlement laws of 1967. Britain and America tend to mirror and leapfrog one another in these matters. Just normal everyday zeitgeist.

However, since those heady days of liberal enlightenment (a technical description, not an AE view), the two countries have tended to go in different political directions and for unexplained reasons. Britain has remained on trend, America has been moving in the reactionary direction (a technical description, not an AE view).

more later

[Mick Harper]

In both countries abortion rights have been hedged around with more and more restrictions on a continuing basis. There is, as far as I am aware, no instance in either country of abortion rights being further liberalised at any stage, or of the new restrictions being reversed. Clearly then we are in zeitgest land: that is, abortion was granted pretty much on demand in the liberal heyday and second thoughts have been expressed ever since.

This too is normal, it’s called the Pelasgain Cycle as per Burgess’ Wanting Seed. It cannot be argued that the rights of pregnant women conflict with the rights of the foetus so it is always, ostensibly, a question of whose rights should prevail. On this issue – there is no obvious overall reason – the woman is the liberal standard bearer, the foetus is the totem of the right.

The AE position is always to remove the ‘moral factor’ because moral arguments are those that are deployed when real ones run out. We would probably say, “Look, we have good historical evidence that women will seek abortions whether they are legal or not, it is better for all concerned they are legal.” However, it also cannot be argued that more abortions occur when they are legal so this is de facto support for the liberal position. Yes, true, AE can adopt the liberal position when the question is either/or, and there can only be two positions, but clearly something else needs to be put into the mix.

It may be that the present position – abortion entitlement hedged around with restrictions – is the most practical solution and therefore the AE solution but now we have Judge Kavanaugh the US may be entering new territory – no abortion entitlement except under restricted conditions. When I say ‘new’ this is of course the ‘old’ pre-1973, 1967 position but what is new is a state re-introducing the old. Or rather of a well-established democracy re-introducing the old -- various non-democratic and non-established democratic regimes have done it. But we shall see whether this actually happens. For all its faults, America is still an established democracy. Ah but...

[Hatty]

Is it only Christianity that forbids, or disapproves 'morally' of, abortion? In Judaism and, I think, Islam, the foetus has no legal rights because it's not a person until something like sixteen weeks and even after that period abortion is not expressly forbidden (it's not mentioned in the OT or Qu'ran). The mother's life has priority, in practical terms. Is America becoming more Christian?

[Mick Harper]

That is interesting. Fundamentalist Islam as the standard bearer of progressive values. But is it Christian or Catholic? If the Old Testament permits however tacitly abortion on demand, I suppose it is unlikely that the New Testament expressly forbids it. So why has it become such a very Catholic shibboleth and why has it been taken up by those very unCatholic Americans in the Bible Belt? They haven't done it with contraception, except a bit. Some facts would be handy!

[Hatty]

Abortion isn't an issue even in the NT. The anti-abortion Christian groups are always portrayed as Fundamentalist or Evangelical, or whatever denomination, who interpret the bible's silence as condemnation. Some Protestant groups are just as opposed to abortion as Catholics and historically just as, if not more, opposed to sexual licence. Presumably abortion on demand could never be approved by such Protestant churches because it would implicitly be giving sexual licence, perhaps more sinful than termination in their eyes?

The chosen stance appears to be essentially a political decision, Conservative vs Liberal, without religious significance apart from the old 'God's on our side' argument.

[Wile E. Coyote]

What have John Major, Gordon Brown, Owen Jones and Frank Field have in common?

They all believe that Universal Credit is as disastrous as the Poll Tax.

It's the new normal, except surprisingly the Citizens Advice, who have up to now produced report after report criticising UC, have just accepted 39 Million from the DWP to help roll it out.......it's an ill wind.....

The fact is from its announcement the Poll Tax (as it was named by its enemies) was seen to be a crap tax as it was based on the notion that everyone, however poor, should pay. We like the principle, said the politicos...wiser folks pointed out that you had bugger all chance of collecting it. With UC, the politicos told us that rolling 5 benefits into 1 was simpler and transparent, and could be achieved digitally thus freeing up massive savings. Wiser heads were shook saying that every big government IT project was overtime, over budget....

WE are now into 8 years in, that's two years longer than it took us (err) to win world war 2.... and we reach the most difficult phase of UC whereby the majority of claimants have to reapply for the new benefit, as (oops) it turns out that there is no way of electronically transferring them to the new system. It's about 65000 claimants a month for the next 5 years, all going well. The cost to administer each claim is pretty staggering, still, never mind, when it's finished large theoretical savings are predicted.

The National audit office is not impressed.

[Mick Harper]

I have to say, as an intermittent but life-long recipient of all these benefits, I was puzzled at the time how they could be 'rolled into one'. I have watched, with you, the travails of both givers and takers ever since. Nonetheless I have been slightly impressed by people whose expertise I trust that UC is in fact better. Their argument, that the changeover has been near-fatally flawed by the contemporaneous (but not otherwise connected) cuts in benefits generally, is a sound one.

These kinds of large scale social changes are always nearly fatally flawed for a different reason. There will always be winners and losers, but only the losers get featured on Panorama.

[Wile E. Coyote]

It seems to me the problem is that for years these departments get slated for overspending.

Along comes an ideologue (IDS)

The politicos like the idea, the old nag is knackered, we need a dancing pony.

Suddenly govt cash is found.

The IT companies over promise the bureaucrats.

The bureaucrats over promise the politicos.

The pony don't dance. There is outrage. A dancing pony was promised. The pony must dance. The IT bods blame the bureaucrats, the bureaucrats blame the IT bods. The IT bods advise a dancing pony can be had with more lucre. The treasury bods advise the pony is getting expensive, cuts will need to be found.

What is to be done. The answer is simple and obvious.

THE PONY MUST BE MADE TO DANCE.

[Mick Harper]

[Mick Harper]

Two significant spy developments this week:

1. The news that Russia tolerates its own nationals operating on its own soil outing its own spies (these two cyberagencies that identified the Salisbury Two). I am not sure we would be quite so tolerant and the USA actually has a law against it -- and has sent two people to prison for doing so.

2. The Turks revealing that they bugged the Saudi consulate in Istanbul, apparently as a matter of routine. This is illegal under various conventions signed up to by Turkey, and while everybody does it, this is the first time as far as I know that anyone has admitted doing it. After duffing up the Saudis presumably the international community will turn on Turkey. Or not, as the case will be.

[Mick Harper]

Late breaking news

Apparently the video and sound evidence came from Kashoggi's own Apple watch thingy and picked up by his fiancee waiting in the car outside. Very Dick Tracy. Me, if I made such elaborate arrangements to record what might happen to me going into somewhere, I probably wouldn't go into the somewhere. But then I'm not a journalist. I'm only reporting the facts, ma'am.

[Wile E. Coyote]

Some folks claim a deal has been done.

Everyone else is trying to show they are all ready for No Deal as a means of strengthening their bargaining position..

Good Luck trying to pretend the Italians have it all in hand, for No Deal Mr Barnier.