Events, dear boy, events.
Jun. 20th, 2011 01:53 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
peterbirksThe International Monetary Fund, in a rare display of perceptiveness that differed from its normal "Why can't you all be like Germany?" line, has said that the current crisis is entering its "political phase" – an observation, perhaps, that just because a solution is the "right" one according to economic tenets, that isn't much use if the populus will rise up as a result and hang the males among you upside-down from lampposts with your balls cut off.
However, the IMF attitude had a slightly more aggressive tone about it. In a sense, it was saying "we've done our bit, now it's the politicians' turn to do theirs", once again showing that economists fail to realize that there are limits to what politicians can do. This is finally being evidenced in Greece, where with all the will in the world the politicians are not going to be able to get the Greek people to come face to face with reality.
But what the IMF should be saying is "economics, like politics, has to become a bit of an art of compromise". This is not the same as the current politicial solution, which is to do nothing apart from postpone the fateful day to an ever-dearer date in the future. That's not a compromise -- that's a failure to reach a compromise leading to a postponement. Before too long the politicians (and I include the ECB and the bank lobyists in this group) will, I suspect, realize that there is no solution within their own parameters. The sooner they realize this and come to an agreement that is a long-term solution, the less likely it is that southern Europe will once again become a home for dictators rather than democrats.
I was pondering these rather important democratic matters when reading Michael White in The Guardian on Saturday, where he was writing about Parliamentary Question Time (PMQ) and why we should keep it.
PMQ is, in my oipinion, representative of all that is bad in British democracy. It does none of what its defenders claim it does, and does much to reduce the significance of what is going on to a silly game of points-scoring and debating-chamber rhetoric. It's something loved by political junkies and hated by people who wish politicians would spend their valuable time solving the shit that we find ourself in.
But White is an insider. He doesn't get it. How much is he an insider? Well, in defending PMQ, he writes:
White then quotes leaders of the parties as support for his argument (including Thatcher). But a party leader has been brought up in the political game. A party leader is, by definition, an insider, someone who will see it as important to "win" at PMQ. Just because all monks say that they believe in God, that is not evidence in supporting the existence of God, because they would have most likely had to believe in God to become monks in the first place. All one is saying is that people who believe in God are likely to say that they believe in God. Prime ministers don't attempt to curtail PMQ because they think it unimportant. They tend to do so because, by their own parameters, it is very important.
In fact, none of the White article justifies PMQ at all, to my mind, although it spends a lot of time stating why politicians and leaders take it seriously. But that does not make them right. PMQ is in a way the apotheosis of the parliamentary and political debating game. But that doesn't make it worthwhile. White's claim that Thatcher lost her position because she lost her authority at PMQ is pure gibberish. She lost her position because the men in suits (and the whips) knew that the game was up. They would have known that with or without PMQ.
Indeed, if one wants to talk of "decisive moments" in parliament over the past 100 years (of which there are very few), none of them have come at PMQ. The moment for Thatcher was Geoffrey Howe's speech, prequelled by the resignation of Lawson and Heseltine. Heseltine, remember, used TV rather than parliament to quit. He knew what mattered, and what mattered was Sky News, not the Parliament Channel.
Two moments that changed governments did not start in PMQ; they were started by votes of confidence. Leo Amery's destruction of Chamberlain ("In the name of God, Go!") didn't happen in PMQ. And Callaghan's loss of power was caused by simple numbers. If you want a devastating example of the futility of PMQ, just look at Suez -- not at the deception of parliament at the time (and the lack of opposition at PMQ), but at the failure of any PMQs subsequently to achieve an inquiry. As Peter J Beck put it in the Historical Review, talking of parliamentary demands for either an inquiry or an Official History:
Michael White happens to like PMQ, probably because he has "gone native" and sees the whole thing as a game of points scoring. Take this White quote on an Ed Miliband performance (citing Letts and Hoggart, two other insiders).
The point that interests me is that the subject matter was deemed irrelevant. This wasn't about cancer patients, it was about how well Miliband projected himself. Even the "important quotes" from White are nothing to do with policy; they are about people. About who "wins".
Currently we are in a dangerous situation where the people don't matter. I don't give a shit whether Balls is plotting against Miliband or Osborne is disagreeing with Cameron about Laws. But this is what White cares about; it's what Hoggart cares about. And in all of this what actually matters -- that the economy of the developed world is in deep fucking shit and that we could be heading for a Lehman-squared type of financial seizure -- is used as part of the points-scoring career-enhancing process.
When the shit does actually hit the fan (see, for example, that weekend in 2008 when RBS was on the verge of having to turn off the ATMs, or the Irish crisis at the same time that led to the suicidal guaranteeing of all Irish bank debts) what is interesting is how all of these "major differences" between politicians disappear. Suddenly they all pull as one (a point that Fine Gael quietly forgot in the run-up to the recent election). Because, of course, the theatre of PMQ, the theatre of Jeremy Paxman and the theatre of TV's Question Time all depend on the differences being exaggerated as part of the points-scoring game. What does it need for these people to realize that the real world out there is gradually getting into a more and more serious mess, and when the next Lehman Brothers disaster strikes, there won't be any government back-ups, because it will be the governments that are insolvent, rather than the investment banks?
____________________
However, the IMF attitude had a slightly more aggressive tone about it. In a sense, it was saying "we've done our bit, now it's the politicians' turn to do theirs", once again showing that economists fail to realize that there are limits to what politicians can do. This is finally being evidenced in Greece, where with all the will in the world the politicians are not going to be able to get the Greek people to come face to face with reality.
But what the IMF should be saying is "economics, like politics, has to become a bit of an art of compromise". This is not the same as the current politicial solution, which is to do nothing apart from postpone the fateful day to an ever-dearer date in the future. That's not a compromise -- that's a failure to reach a compromise leading to a postponement. Before too long the politicians (and I include the ECB and the bank lobyists in this group) will, I suspect, realize that there is no solution within their own parameters. The sooner they realize this and come to an agreement that is a long-term solution, the less likely it is that southern Europe will once again become a home for dictators rather than democrats.
I was pondering these rather important democratic matters when reading Michael White in The Guardian on Saturday, where he was writing about Parliamentary Question Time (PMQ) and why we should keep it.
PMQ is, in my oipinion, representative of all that is bad in British democracy. It does none of what its defenders claim it does, and does much to reduce the significance of what is going on to a silly game of points-scoring and debating-chamber rhetoric. It's something loved by political junkies and hated by people who wish politicians would spend their valuable time solving the shit that we find ourself in.
But White is an insider. He doesn't get it. How much is he an insider? Well, in defending PMQ, he writes:
"Everyone remembers Cameron's opening salvo against Blair in December 2005: 'You were the future once'".Well, no, sorry Michael, but I didn't remember it. That you do is fine, but that you assume that everyone else does says more about you than 5,000 words on the "importance" of PMQ ever could.
White then quotes leaders of the parties as support for his argument (including Thatcher). But a party leader has been brought up in the political game. A party leader is, by definition, an insider, someone who will see it as important to "win" at PMQ. Just because all monks say that they believe in God, that is not evidence in supporting the existence of God, because they would have most likely had to believe in God to become monks in the first place. All one is saying is that people who believe in God are likely to say that they believe in God. Prime ministers don't attempt to curtail PMQ because they think it unimportant. They tend to do so because, by their own parameters, it is very important.
In fact, none of the White article justifies PMQ at all, to my mind, although it spends a lot of time stating why politicians and leaders take it seriously. But that does not make them right. PMQ is in a way the apotheosis of the parliamentary and political debating game. But that doesn't make it worthwhile. White's claim that Thatcher lost her position because she lost her authority at PMQ is pure gibberish. She lost her position because the men in suits (and the whips) knew that the game was up. They would have known that with or without PMQ.
Indeed, if one wants to talk of "decisive moments" in parliament over the past 100 years (of which there are very few), none of them have come at PMQ. The moment for Thatcher was Geoffrey Howe's speech, prequelled by the resignation of Lawson and Heseltine. Heseltine, remember, used TV rather than parliament to quit. He knew what mattered, and what mattered was Sky News, not the Parliament Channel.
Two moments that changed governments did not start in PMQ; they were started by votes of confidence. Leo Amery's destruction of Chamberlain ("In the name of God, Go!") didn't happen in PMQ. And Callaghan's loss of power was caused by simple numbers. If you want a devastating example of the futility of PMQ, just look at Suez -- not at the deception of parliament at the time (and the lack of opposition at PMQ), but at the failure of any PMQs subsequently to achieve an inquiry. As Peter J Beck put it in the Historical Review, talking of parliamentary demands for either an inquiry or an Official History:
Between 1956 and 1964 successive Conservative Governments rejected such demands, given the involvement of several ministers in the Eden government. Despite fostering expectations of a change of course, the 1964-70 Labour governments merely followed the position taken by their Conservative predecessors, particularly given the continuities in official advice pointing to the adverse domestic and foreign policy consequences of commissioning either a public inquiry or official history about Suez".
Michael White happens to like PMQ, probably because he has "gone native" and sees the whole thing as a game of points scoring. Take this White quote on an Ed Miliband performance (citing Letts and Hoggart, two other insiders).
Miliband thus recovered on Wednesday ("a score draw" – Quentin Letts, Daily Mail) by wrong-footing Cameron ("he switched quickly to abuse, which he does when he knows he's got it wrong" – Simon Hoggart, Guardian) over the impact of coalition benefit cuts on recovering cancer patients.
The point that interests me is that the subject matter was deemed irrelevant. This wasn't about cancer patients, it was about how well Miliband projected himself. Even the "important quotes" from White are nothing to do with policy; they are about people. About who "wins".
Currently we are in a dangerous situation where the people don't matter. I don't give a shit whether Balls is plotting against Miliband or Osborne is disagreeing with Cameron about Laws. But this is what White cares about; it's what Hoggart cares about. And in all of this what actually matters -- that the economy of the developed world is in deep fucking shit and that we could be heading for a Lehman-squared type of financial seizure -- is used as part of the points-scoring career-enhancing process.
When the shit does actually hit the fan (see, for example, that weekend in 2008 when RBS was on the verge of having to turn off the ATMs, or the Irish crisis at the same time that led to the suicidal guaranteeing of all Irish bank debts) what is interesting is how all of these "major differences" between politicians disappear. Suddenly they all pull as one (a point that Fine Gael quietly forgot in the run-up to the recent election). Because, of course, the theatre of PMQ, the theatre of Jeremy Paxman and the theatre of TV's Question Time all depend on the differences being exaggerated as part of the points-scoring game. What does it need for these people to realize that the real world out there is gradually getting into a more and more serious mess, and when the next Lehman Brothers disaster strikes, there won't be any government back-ups, because it will be the governments that are insolvent, rather than the investment banks?
____________________
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2011-06-20 03:20 pm (UTC)PMQ is the public face of the adversarial system that may have been useful at some point in the past but seems to me to serve little purpose now.
no subject
Date: 2011-06-21 08:14 am (UTC)Let's face it, default damages the Greek citizen, the Greek banking system and the Greek government far less than it damages the European financial system, and to pretend otherwise is disingenuous. If I were a Greek politician now I would be saying: "look at Russia, look at Argentina. They defaulted and did not suffer any worse fate than we will have to suffer if we agree to the IMF's terms". If it causes Eurozone meltdown, how would we be any worse off than we would be anyway?"
This is a powerful argument, and hard to gainsay unless it is in your interests to remain friendly with the rest of Europe over the next five years. Much of the Greek leadership (and those running the Greek banking system) do want this (it's no fun being an the leaders of an economic pariah), but that does not mean that, for the Greek banking system and Greek governments of the future (both under new executive control) that default is not the better option.
PJ
no subject
Date: 2011-06-21 09:23 pm (UTC)I have a strong suspicion that you could probably improve on that article somehow, but not sure how!
no subject
Date: 2011-06-20 07:10 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-06-21 08:08 am (UTC)But I agree, if you are a politician and are clashing with another politician, it would be nice to know if this was because of fundamental policy differences, a personality clash or (more usually), just naked ambition to get to the top of the greasy pole and never mind what policies are needed to achieve it.
no subject
Date: 2011-06-21 09:26 pm (UTC)blended
Date: 2011-06-21 05:33 am (UTC)PMQs
Date: 2011-06-21 08:47 pm (UTC)When (less frequently) Miliband successfully gets over the point that Cameron is an over-privileged product of public school elitism with no grasp of what its like to be unemployed, underprivileged or poor, then that too trickles down.
Blair was brilliant at achieving this in respect of IDS and Michael Howard and Brown was appalling. But then he always did understand the importance of form over content.
Re: PMQs
Date: 2011-06-21 08:53 pm (UTC)PJ
Re: PMQs
Date: 2011-06-21 08:58 pm (UTC)Re: PMQs
Date: 2011-06-21 09:32 pm (UTC)Is there a great unmet demand for oratory these days, or is Have I Got News For You? a sufficient approximation for most people's tastes?
Grr argh grumble. I mostly just agree with you.
Re: PMQs
Date: 2011-06-22 12:29 pm (UTC)In response to Geoff, White's headline was not so much on "why PMQ is important", but "why we should cherish it".
Would media keep focusing on the trivia? A good question. Quite possibly. That's not an argument for keeping PMQ, but it's an interesting point to be considered. Modern media is trivia city.
PJ
Re: PMQs
Date: 2011-06-22 10:42 pm (UTC)And to rant on why is it that the House can only accommodate about 420 MPs when there are 630 plus of them ? And why do they have to traipse through a lobby and be manually counted on a vote ? If you look at the purpose built Welsh and Scottish assemblies (and indeed the NI set-up) they are a lot more conducive to good behaviour and some surroundings that might encourage sensible debate. Its the worst sort of bollocks I've ever come across. Mother of Parliaments, my arse. MPs spent years complaining about how out-of-date British industry was, but frankly this lot are still in the 1860s. And I've not even mentioned the Queen's Speech, the Lords and all that flummery.
Hope you have got over the jet lag and are back into the daily grind after your jolly !!
Need help finding Escort Service In Israel
Date: 2011-06-25 03:42 am (UTC)Now i'm planning a vacation to Israel this summer and i wondered what's the scene like when it comes to escort service in Israel? I've read numerous threads all over the web but i didn't find much information on the subject. Anyways, are there any strip clubs? are there any escort girls in Israel whatsoever? any kind of ideas finding escort service in Israel?
[b]UPDATE:[/b]
I've stumbled upon this escort angecy that offer [b][url=http://0503500010.com]Escort Service In Israel[/url][/b], however i dont know if the images are real? what is your opinion, any advice?
[url=http://www.0503500010.com][img]http://0503500010.com/images/promo/maya-0503500010.jpg[/img][/url]