Happy May Day! 1^st May is celebrated in lots of countries around the world, to commemorate and celebrate the efforts and achievements of workers. It’s the only public holiday in the UK specifically dedicated to ordinary people. But, of course, this being Britain, it’s usually euphemistically dressed up as the “Early Spring Bank Holiday” to avoid offence to the establishment.

Mayday is also, of course, the internationally recognised maritime distress call, “help me” or “m’aidez”. This blog post is also a distress call, an alarm warning against the impending catastrophe of the forthcoming, and entirely unnecessary, general election. All opinion polls show a large lead for the Conservative Party, leading to a forecast of a massive Tory majority in the Commons. In that event, it will be only a matter of time before a cry of “mayday” will be heard from progressives and from a large majority of ordinary people.

Strong and Stable? No Way!

There’s a (not particularly funny) joke doing the rounds in Westminster that all Tory MPs have been fitted with a brain chip to make them say the words “strong and stable” every 18 seconds. This is no more than a reflection of the vacuous nature of the Tory election campaign so far. The mantra (a repeat of the one used by David Cameron in the 2015 election campaign) is designed to make people fearful of Labour and other dissenting voices and to run for cover to the “safety” of May’s Conservatives.  As I said in my recent post, Hatred and Humanity, this mantra is the last refuge of anti-democratic tyrants and would-be dictators.

May would have us believe that the only way we can have “strong and stable” leadership is by re-electing her as Prime Minister with an increased Parliamentary majority. I believe this is the reverse of the truth, as I explain below.

Strong? No, Stubborn!

May asserts that she will provide “strong” leadership in our EU exit negotiations, further asserting that this is essential in our “battle” with the 27 other member nations. This could be seen as a good thing only if the future negotiations are seen in purely adversarial “win/lose” terms.

In Anglo-Saxon societies, there seems to be a cultural bias towards this adversarial approach, whilst much of mainland Europe is more used to a consensus, or compromise-based approach. I cite two examples.

Firstly, our first past the post, winner takes all voting system tends to lead to a binary two-party alternating system of government, often with considerable lurches in policy, often negating the previous government’s approach. Education policy in the UK and the stark contrast between Obama and Trump in the USA are typical examples. Continental Europe often has voting systems which lead to long, often continuous, periods of coalition government, with negotiation and compromise the norm. Fans of the BBC4 Danish drama series Borgen a few years ago will be familiar with this approach.

Secondly, our legal systems often differ, In the UK and USA, an adversarial approach, with two parties cross-examining witnesses, is designed to lead to the truth via some gladiatorial approach between sharp-tongued lawyers. In mainland Europe, it is common to find an inquisitorial approach where neutral third party investigators aim to seek out the truth with their investigatory skills.

Many of the comments, from the EU and other countries’ politicians, speaking of British “delusions” and May’s “living in another galaxy” stem, in part, from these differences of approach. This bodes ill for the negotiations.

A further cause for concern follows a remark I heard from a very well informed source at the Cambridge Literary Festival. He said that the German government is basically predisposed to finding a favourable outcome for the EU and the UK in the negotiations. There concerns were this: Theresa May, in their view, is totally ignorant of European history. This means that arguments and disagreements flare up because she has a tin ear about concerns and sensitivities based upon mainland Europe’s past experiences. This makes May particularly ill-suited to lead negotiations where goodwill between parties plays an important part.

I have written in the past about May’s instincts towards autocracy. Her “reason” for calling the election after only 2 years, although untrue, contained one insight into her thinking. She dislikes it when people disagree with her: there are numerous on-camera episodes where her irritation shows when anyone questions her thinking. The result is that she is a poor listener: extra dangerous given the risk mentioned above of annoying her EU counterparts through ignorance of what really concerns them.

So, forget “strong”. “Stubborn” would describe it better.

Stable? No, Straight – Over the Cliff!

May’s second assertion is that she will provide “stable” government. But surely the events of the past two years give the lie to that. Cameron promised stability in 2015. And what did we get? An ill-considered referendum in an attempt to manage internal Tory Party conflict. A spectacularly destabilising referendum result – the largest since WWII and in my lifetime – all unnecessary and definitely not “in the national interest”. A PM resigns. A palace coup with May becoming leader – and so PM – without a vote, either in the Tory Party or in the country. Bloodletting within the cabinet. Appointment of highly destabilising figures to key posts: Johnson, Fox, Davis. And, above all, May’s stubborn insistence on pressing for the most destructive terms for Britain’s exit from the EU, by giving supremacy to immigration control above all else – including reasoned arguments against and the wishes of the 48% of us who voted Remain. Do you call that “stable” government? I don’t.

I liken the UK’s present predicament to a car ride, with May at the wheel. She holds on to the steering wheel for all it’s worth, her eyes fixed firmly ahead. Despite the cries and screams from her fellow passengers to change course, she holds the wheel firm. Straight ahead is a clifftop: the so-called “hard Brexit” she appears to insist upon.

The only thing “stable” about this are the speed and direction of travel. The fact that this will lead inevitably to a car-crash of instability is never mentioned. Instead we get platitude after platitude, vague generalism after vague generalism. That’s treating us voters with contempt, as 8 year-olds.

So, forget “stable”. It’s “straight” over the cliff.

Hideaway Until Mayday

Finally, there is the abject cowardice of May’s approach to electioneering. She refused to appear in TV debates, as she will not risk having her absence of any coherent plan exposed on live TV. Her election “rallies” are all stage-managed in front of the party faithful. Videos of her sneaking in the back door of village halls. Fear of revealing what the booking is for, lest opponents gather, by booking sessions as a “children’s party”. Meeting in a factory after all the workers have gone home and party workers shipped in in their place.

My fear is that all this will succeed, that June 8^th will be the next May Day. Only this time, this will be one decisive step on the journey to when we all cry “Mayday!”

Our dog eats shit. My wife and I were not pleased to discover, a few weeks ago, that our 21-month old Labrador has acquired a new habit of eating poo. It’s dog poo mainly, plus the occasional droppings from horses and cows. He seems to have really developed a liking for the stuff. We have asked friends and consulted the internet about what causes this new behaviour and what we can do to stop, or at least to discourage, it. The information and advice has been inconclusive and contradictory.

But a by-product of this research has been that we’ve found the technical term for such behaviour: coprophagia. The word comes from the Greek: kopros, meaning faeces and phagein, to eat. This led my mind to consider related words and, in particular, this one: coprocracy.

The Brave New World of Coprocracy

I was much struck by this thought, that this new (to me) word was just the right one for our times. Coprocracy, in its fullest sense, has clearly already arrived in the USA. The word can be used to describe the leader of the movement, in this case the Trump creature as kopros personified. Kopros can also be applied to the fake news or “alternative facts” that pour out from Trump and his acolytes. Closer to home, any number of coprocratic individuals spring immediately to mind. The more obvious would include the leaders of the EU Leave campaign: Johnson, Gove and Farage. But it can easily be applied to those wielding current power: Johnson (again!), Fox and their media cheerleaders in the “usual suspects” press. Theresa May, for reasons of internal party politics, is slowly turning into a coprocrat.

Further symptoms of creeping coprocracy are seen regularly in press statements by government departments in response to some controversy. A good recent example was the (allegedly legally unsound) reason given for the Government’s further delay in publishing a proper plan to clean up the illegal, polluted air in our cities. It’s obvious the person who wrote the statement didn’t have their heart in it. I can imagine their mood swinging between the hope that that early retirement package may come through and the despairing wish that the ground might swallow them up. Shovelling shit wasn’t part of the career plan.

I feel nothing but sympathy for the long-serving civil servants who get posted to the press office of a government department. I can practically see their dead eyes staring into space as their fingers on the keyboard can barely get to the end of another flat, deadpan sentence “justifying” government policy. This phenomenon was particularly noticeable during Gove’s sojourn at the head of the Department for Education. But examples are seen almost daily in the press statements from other departments, including the Home Office, Cabinet Office and Department of Health.

Coprocracy and Corpocracy

I must give due acknowledgement to the QI Elves, who succinctly explained the difference between the easily-confused terms corpocracy and coprocracy. The former is “rule by corporations” and the latter “rule by shits”.

Corpocracy was, of course, the guiding principle of government policy in the years 2010 to 2016. But trends towards this state of affairs were evident during the Thatcher, Major, Blair and (to a lesser extent) Brown years. (There was, I believe, clear evidence that Brown was beginning to lead world political opinion away from the failed economic policies in the years following the 2007-8 global financial crash. One day, I must write my take on the tragedy of the failed opportunity for saner economic policy when Brown lost the 2010 election.) But there is a danger, too, that Britain is sliding towards coprocracy. A landslide win for May will only hasten the trend and must be avoided at all costs.

Let’s Hear It For Coprocracy!

But enough of this, and back, for a moment, to our shit-eating dog. The only solution in the short term is to keep him on a lead and to watch him like a hawk during his walks. Similarly, we can only hope that the famous “checks and balances” of the US Constitution, coupled with constant vigilance, will keep Trump on a “short lead” and curb his worst excesses until saner government can be restored.

In the meantime, let the rest of us call out shit policy and shit leaders every time they transgress normal moral decency – which is often. So let’s hear more about coprocracy. The word is derived from classical Greek, so lends the speaker an air of authority. It’s also a bit of a tongue-twister, so care is needed to get it right, aiding clear diction. And its similarity to corpocracy is a reminder of the close similarity of the two political systems.

So I want a lot more coprocracy: the word – as a warning to us all – and not the policy!! So, repeat after me: coprocracy, coprocracy, coprocracy…

As I left home this morning, the sky was grey and overcast. It had just stopped raining, but there were occasional periods of intermittent drizzle: you know, the kind of “will it, won’t it” weather only too familiar in Britain. The weather matched my mood exactly. On the day the UK Government’s letter triggering Article 50 reaches Brussels, the weight of history hung over me like an oppressive dark grey cloud hanging low in the sky.

My thoughts were as gloomy as the portentous weather. How will future generations ever forgive us for an act that Michael Heseltine called “the worst peace-time decision taken by any modern post-war government”. Quite.  (Things must have reached a spectacularly low point when I’m quoting Thatcher’s former Defence Secretary in support of my argument!)

The death of the liberal Britain that I have been comfortable to call my own will be a slow and agonizingly drawn-out process. The delusional fantasies of the implacable Europhobes (including those in the Cabinet) will soon hit the immovable object of 27 other countries’ demands and those of the EU institutions. The shits will hit – not the fan, exactly – but the rock of opposition. What will follow won’t be pretty. It’s probably only a matter of months before the hardcore Leavers will start to look around for someone else to blame. So, too, will those who believed – or colluded with – their lies.

Add to this the EU-hating press. The drip-drip poison from the pages of the Mail, Express, Sun and Telegraph will grow into a steady and corrosive flow of bile and invective. Public discourse – which already hit rock-bottom during the referendum campaign – will sink to even lower levels. Social media and the Twittersphere will become even more of a sewer of hatred. Expect a further increase in hate crime. The pound and the economy will take a dive – those who predicted this would happen already were wrong, but these are unprecedented times. It’s a matter of when, not if. Staff shortages, particularly in the NHS and in agriculture, will add to the pressure of NHS spending cuts and supermarkets’ abuse of their bargaining power against the farmers.

And, of course, it will be the poor and vulnerable who will take brunt of the fallout from all this. Keir Starmer has said some sensible things about Labour’s “red lines” in relation to workers’ rights and living standards. Other than that, I don’t see anyone coming to their rescue. On the contrary, it creates scope for opportunist populists to wreak further mischief. None of which is an endearing prospect.

On this day, Prime Minister May has called for the whole country to unite. To be fair to her, she has signed a letter to President Tusk that is reasoned and fair-minded in tone and content. But to unite behind this ragbag bunch of intellectual pigmies, moral cowards and deluded fantasists masquerading as the UK government? No way, May. No way. It would take a far, far greater person than you are, or will ever be, to make me unite behind that.

The European Union is 60 years old today. Happy Birthday! On 25^th March 1957, the six founding nations – Belgium, France, Germany, Italy, Luxembourg and the Netherlands – signed the treaty of Rome. The EEC, as it was originally, has become the European Union and grown considerably, to 28 nations today. 27 of those 28 nations are gathered together today in Rome to celebrate the anniversary. The 28^th, i.e. the UK, is staying away and skulking at home, ashamed to show its face – and deservedly so. We all know why.

Progress

The EEC /EU has developed from being a trading bloc to a wider union with a single market allowing tariff- and hassle-free flow of goods and services between all its member states. The EU is the world’s largest trading bloc. The shared values and democratic principles of the western European nations were a beacon of principle to inspire countries of the former Soviet bloc to democratize and join the Union. Europe has enjoyed the longest period of unbroken peace in modern history.

The EU has used its size and trading weight to take on anti-competitive behaviour of large multinationals such as Microsoft. It has led to practical consumer benefits such as ending the rip-off by mobile phone companies of roaming charges within the EU. The Erasmus programme has inspired generations of schoolchildren and students to work collaboratively across Europe, to mutual benefit and understanding. It has enabled the free flow of ideas and culture between its nations. Here in the UK, our eating habits have become much more Europeanized and varied. A significant proportion of Europe’s youth sees itself as European first and their national identities second.

Flawed

But let’s not get too carried away. Even its best friends, including me, realise that the EU is a flawed institution. Its ways can seem frustratingly arcane. The euro is a project whereby the politics of the case trumped the economics. Politically, it’s a good idea to bind countries further together in a currency union that makes armed conflict between members unthinkable. But the economic strains on yoking the very different economies of northern and southern Europe has led to much real pain – not least for the Greek people.

The EU can appear extremely bureaucratic. Ask anyone who has tried to fill out an EU funding application form! The need for simultaneous translation in its formal sessions slows down discussion and adds to costs. And yet the total EU budget is small – less than that of Birmingham City Council for a union of over 300 million people. And as for the frustrations: I’m almost embarrassed to repeat the old chestnut that it was Winston Churchill who said it was better to “jaw, jaw, not war, war”.

The EU has struggled to cope with major challenges in the past decade. The shock caused by the global collapse of the economic order in 2007-8 and the failure to come up with a more effective alternative has led to ten years of low growth and real economic pain for individuals and families. The unprecedented level of migrant flows resulting from the chaos in the Middle East has strained, to the limit, compassionate and liberal attitudes towards vulnerable migrants. Exploitation by the far right and populists of the fears aroused by these forces poses an existential threat to the EU. A lot of us have our fingers crossed that the centre – and decency – will hold.

So when the EU needs to be concentrating on its challenges and agreeing a common view on the way forward, energy and effort need to be diverted into negotiating with the one who wants to leave: the UK.

The Future?

The EU commission has produced a White Paper outlining five scenarios for discussion amongst the 27 other member countries. The UK government is threatening to turn our country into some devil-take-the hindmost, lowest-common denominator, race-to-the-bottom, low tax and low skills rogue state if we don’t get what Theresa May thinks Britain wants from the exit negotiations. It’s easy to imagine some future scenario when the UK becomes a pariah state.

Freed from the constraints of the UK’s strong rear-guard action to prevent stronger EU-wide regulation of financial services, I can see the EU collectively enacting rules that prevent some of the more obviously risky “smoke and mirror” City practices. Add to that the City’s role as the hub in a network of Crown Dependencies who are offshore tax havens facilitating money-laundering and tax evasion. (See also my earlier blog post: The City: Paragon or Parasite?) And you get a situation where the UK is out in the cold, with trade sanctions and a permanently damaged global reputation.

So, Happy 60^th Birthday, EU! May you prosper and continue to set an example of freedom, democracy and civilized values. It’s a tragedy – especially for our children and grandchildren – that we won’t be there with you.

Viewsnight is BBC Newsnight’s recently created, visually gimmicky, slot to present a wide range of opinions from individuals, often themselves mavericks or non-mainstream, to provoke debate about current topics. It’s a welcome initiative (apart from the gimmicks).

Thursday night’s slot was given to Richard Dawkins on the subject of “Brexit” – his word, not mine. In two minutes, Dawkins is able to demolish the whole EU referendum process and I agree strongly with everything he said. Er, except, perhaps one thing – see below. But first, see for yourself:

Click here to view video

Dawkins makes a concise case about the dangers of referendums and the need for safeguards to be built into any well-designed constitution for a country. This is because of the long-lasting effect of constitutional change, compared to a normal election, where the decision can be reversed a few years later. Neither David Cameron nor the UK Parliament saw fit to build any such safeguards into the EU referendum process last summer. And to cap this, the British public were lied to on an unprecedented scale during the pre-vote campaign. Dawkins rightly condemns David Cameron’s stupidity in running scared of UKIP and the lies told in the run-up to the vote.

He similarly, and rightly, condemns the bullshit along the lines that “the British people have spoken” in the May government’s line ever since. The idea that a small majority of votes in a simple binary choice, in the absence of factual information, represents the enduring wisdom of a nation is palpable nonsense. Similarly, the outright bullying since by the usual rabid sections of the anti-EU press has no place in a modern liberal democracy.

Condemn the Act, Not the Person

But now I come to the one problem I have with Dawkins’ piece. About 20 seconds from the end, he refers to the “ignorant and misled public”. Whilst both epithets may be literally true, he loses sympathy with much of his audience at this point. Referring to the public as “ignorant” is politically unwise: playing the man, not the ball.

A reasonable analogy would be in the upbringing of children. Parents and professionals such as teachers are told, when a child is naughty, to criticise the act, not the child. Just because a child has done something bad doesn’t make that child a bad person.

The same is true for stupidity. We’ve all done things in our lives that we regret as being stupid. That doesn’t necessarily make us stupid people. David Cameron was stupid to cave in to his more rabid backbenchers by announcing an EU referendum after 40 years plus of lies and misrepresentations, by politicians and the media, about the EU. That stupid decision doesn’t mean I think that Cameron is stupid: weak, certainly, but not stupid.

Similarly, May’s desire to give parliament and the people no further say in whatever deal her government is able to negotiate does not appear to be the result of May’s stupidity. But it does reinforce my impression of May as someone with very strong authoritarian instincts and a determination to get her own way, come what may. That’s more sinister than stupid.

Meanwhile, back to Richard Dawkins and his video. The man has a reputation of getting up people’s noses – even of those who agree with him. It’s a shame he does this again in the Viewsnight video. Because on this topic, as on may others, he’s absolutely right.

Theresa May appears to have taken her gloves off in her approach to consulting the Scottish Government over the terms of the UK’s exit from the EU. The more conciliatory tone she used in her early days as PM has given way to something altogether more aggressive. The word “obsession” caught my eye from May’s speech to the Scottish Tories’ conference yesterday.

Obsession was what she accused Scottish First Minister Nicola Sturgeon and her Government of. Obsession, that is, with a drive for independence for Scotland. It strikes me that this term misses a glaringly obvious point. Sturgeon leads a government whose ruling party is the Scottish Nationalist Party. Pardon me, but its name is a bit of a giveaway. Its principal raison d’être is, by definition, to strive for Scottish independence. It’s a bit like criticising UKIP for banging on about leaving the EU. Or the Suffragettes obsessing about votes for women.

May’s Own Obsession

In a recent post, I spoke of Theresa May’s own obsession: immigration. Her choice to place control of immigration above all factors will, if carried through, lead to the most economically and socially damaging form of our exit from the EU. The economic case has been made repeatedly and I won’t repeat it here. But there are lots of examples in the media to illustrate the point, such as this tale of the Mini’s camshaft manufacture.

The list of heart-rending tales of inhamanity dished out regularly by the Home Office on both EU and non-EU citizens in their residency applications grows longer almost daily:

• The Dutch woman of 24 years residency, with two British children, who was told to make preparations to leave – even though she has residency rights as an EU worker at least until Britain actually leaves the EU;
• EU citizens denied UK residency for various technical problems, including failure to provide proof of having medical insurance;
• A 32 year-old German national who was born in the UK was refused UK permanent residence for failure to supply documents from 1982 to the Home Office because the Revenue & Customs don’t keep records going back that far;
• A Zimbabwean asylum seeker who fears for his life if returned to Zimbabwe has been told he will be deported – he bravely rescued two children from a neighbour’s house 3weeks ago.

And so on and so on. As the man in the last case said: “someone should have a heart”. May ran the Home Office for six years, during which the bureaucratic nightmare of its handling of immigration issues steadily hardened. Setting the tone from the top of that Department, it’s clear May doesn’t “have a heart”. That’s made all the clearer by May’s stated intention of overturning the Lords amendment to the Article 50 bill guaranteeing rights for existing EU residents in the UK. She plans to ensure 3 million EU nationals and 1 million Brits living elsewhere in the EU are political pawns in the exit negotiations. No “heart” then, for the uncertainty and anxiety caused to 4 million people.

No Heart

From her track record at the Home Office, disrespect for the democratically elected government of Scotland and disregard for the wishes of its people, May’s authoritarian streak shows more and more. I get the impression of a woman who has led a sheltered, middle-class life with narrow, socially conservative ideas and (as I said) an authoritarian streak. She shows no curiosity to actually find out or empathise what impact her government policies have on those who lead very different lives from her own circle. May’s words of concern for the “just about managing” are just that: words. There are no discernible actions or policies yet to back them up. The words stem from a cold-hearted political calculation, not from the heart.

It’s ironic that it was May herself who warned the Tory Party conference in 2002 about their party’s image as the Nasty Party. In recent years, it seems she is the one above all who is reinforcing that image. With the Conservatives almost 20% ahead in the polls, May’s hubris continues to rise higher. As today’s Guardian says: “Mrs May subordinated economic policy to the pursuit of a myth of cultural indigenousness. History shows that leads to a spiral of ever more aggressive nativism.” It ends: “Mrs May, be warned: this won’t end well.” But, sadly, millions of the more vulnerable of us will suffer before she does.

Nasty Party, nasty woman in charge.

… brings shame on us, too

Theresa the Appeaser, she was called in parliament. Strong words, with powerful historic resonances – but about right, too. “Events, dear boy, events” said PM Harold Macmillan, when questioned about his likely greatest challenges as Prime Minister.

Well, events she got last week, in quick succession:

Event 1: She undertakes an ill-advised dash across the Atlantic to meet Donald Trump, just seven days after his inauguration and a week of highly controversial and divisive executive orders.

Event 2: She makes an over-hasty offer to Trump of a state visit to the UK this year, an offer never previously made to a US President in his first year of office.

Event 3: journalists capture a photograph of May and Trump holding hands in the White House. Whatever the explanation (and there have been several), it just looks creepy.

Event 4: just hours after May leaves, Trump announces his most reviled executive order banning refugees and travellers from seven mainly Muslim countries. The order is widely condemned by other world leaders, political opponents, civil rights campaigners – and anyone with any concept of basic, civilized values.

(Non-) Event 5: May fails to condemn Trump’s banning order four times on the Andrew Marr show and has failed to offer anything but the weakest of comments since.

To continue…

The above half-finished post has been delayed for reasons outside my direct control. Since then, May’s government has tried to bury bad news, by sneaking out one announcement under the cover of the Commons Article 50 vote. That was the abandonment of the so-called “Dubs amendment” of giving safe haven to unaccompanied refugee children after only 200 children have been helped, with a final 150 in process. Campaigners had expected around 3000 children a year. “Mean-spirited” is wholly inadequate to describe the decision.

These appalling catalogue of misjudgements presents a picture of a narrow-minded, mean-spirited, introspective  government and, by inference, the same for our country. Britain once boasted of “punching above its weight” in international affairs. But that depended in no small part, on the moral standing we held in the world. Well, goodbye to all that.

Let’s face it: May is turning out to be a first-class disaster as Prime Minister. The real tragedy is that there is no realistic scenario in prospect where she could be replaced by anyone who isn’t even worse. With a mentally unstable, narcissistic sociopath – and one who wants to bring down the existing order of international law – as our only friend, Britain now inhabits a very lonely and dangerous place. And one full of shame.

Shame on you, May, for bringing us to this pass. And we all share in our collective shame as a once-proud country. Be very afraid.