Whose Dogs?

September 25, 2019

Trying to make the desire and the motivation and the action generally to become seen as base and unacceptable, I have heard a good number of times in national public media the statement (it’s not an argument) “The such and such person or party is only doing, saying, desiring, this statement or argument or action, because this same such and such wants us not to leave the European Union”

I have also heard many times an appeal to ‘The sovereign will of the people.” This being the bedrock and baseline beyond which no further negotiation is allowed, is able to be moved.

It is clear that there is no talk of a Second Referendum come from, coming from, (nor will come from?) the parties who presently hold the field as a result of the earlier referendum.

They hold the field and see no need for another fight.  They would have a risk of losing their ground.  They I think therefore fear a Second Referendum.

The sovereign will of the people they fear will give a different result to the first referendum result.  Then where would they be?

Theresa May showed in an overstaying one’s welcome Premiership that merely by staying put in times of uncertainty and crisis, there is no means of removing a PM when the ruling party cannot bring itself to do so. The persistence of the stubborn

This lesson was not lost on the present tribe in power. The code is to sit tight and deny all that your enemies say, and contradict all statements which are said so as to tell against you.  The lesson is at bottom sanctioned by the power of crowds.

Sit tight and wait for your support amongst the people to buoy you up; even after you have broken the law.

Feed this support among the people with a sunny disposition, gross outlandish optimism, simple slogan-like messages, frequent repetition of plain statements, without source, without authority, without validity, so long as they answer whatever is presently your ephemeral case

Feel free to change your mind, or to say you will or will not do something, and then turn about and change tack. Say such things at such times and situations as are convenient to you, to be your in-the-moment escape route; or a comfort blanket to a nation uneasy.

I heard this evening, and I have heard before now, on public media such a leader praised for his ‘integrity’.  This is the present way with words, attributions sowing false conviction.

Conviction - the person did something which has been ruled beyond legal dispute here to have been illegal. The person acted illegally. The person broke the law. The person is a criminal. Where are the police? When is the court case?

Further the person says he respects the law, but ‘disagrees strongly’ with the ruling. I belive Nicola Sturgeon of the Scottish National Party agrees with me that such a statement is a terrible example to the country, to the people; and for a PM to say ‘I disagree strongly’ with the highest court, comes at a time in when its impact could not be more terribly damaging.

The chief political figure in the land is an acknowledged criminal and able to contest ‘strongly’ that status of criminal.  An example which will not be lost on the morning papers (rags) whose headlines will be spilling out to readers poisonous underminings of legal authority.

For a number of years, and before the Internet, pre Twitter, and Facebook, and Instagram, and Whatsapp; these same papers (rags) supplied their readers the kind of statements, and simple brazen messages, which were supporting and embedding-deeper those outlooks and casually-come-to attitudes and feelings on national issues that their readers liked to feel their own.

Part-condescension, part-weasel words, always cuing-up outlooks and attitudes ready for responses by readers at the poling booth, or in popular protests, or in nudging social manners, or in consolidating consensual attitudes.

Twitter, Facebook, Istagram, Whatsapp; all learned their trades throughout these former days and by way of the papers (rags).  Torrents of unbecoming words and behaviours online are then the fruit borne by the scholars of the schools of (certain of) the press of the past 50 years.

New is the uptake by, the name given to them is, politicians, and they have learned this, their daily papers (rags) trade, at the first from those special advisors hired to drive a tank for them through the opposition and into government.

Again simple blunt coarse messages; deprecating, non-evidence based, non-sourced, non-verifiable, and non-authoritative digs. Enough to whet an appetite which cares nothing for enquiry, for balancing experience with a situation, for something more toned down but less canine and incisive, whether or not justified, no matter.

Billboards, sides of buses, broad urban exposures, of curt catchy messages, maybe just the right side of libel, often without foundation, often simply dismissive and pejorative for the sake of it - these became unbecomingly our campaigns.

Easy-peasy -a child could pick it up – to call it a method is too far – children do and have picked it up, from their parents; a way of dealing with people out of hand with whom you disagree, whom you want to damage in the eye of a society or group.

Now this child’s-play is mainstream politics – here and across the sea with our special allies.  It comprises most of the political discourse we hear and read about in these days.  Monty Python five-minute arguments which cheat you of your money’s worth by being only contradiction.

Our PM - is his crime sedition? Treason?  He has misled our monarch. He has abused criminally his office.  The sovereign will of the people, where is this when the people’s elected representatives are unlawfully silenced?  Where is the sovereign will of the people in proroguing – at a stroke, to use a politician’s phrase – and decree shutdown of democratic process?

There are perhaps a dozen or two basic and crude ‘lines of argument’ bandied by parties around the area of Brexit. Most of them lead nowhere and fall off a cliff if tried to.  Many are interchangeable by whose side one is on, according to what route of attack you want to take or to quash.

Both sides say the same words in a widely divergent disagreement more or less polarised.  They defend opposite positions though.

Our Opposition party has its special advisors too. Either these and/or their Leader are hell bent on nothing less than Premiership (not the soccer) – the reins of government.  Rome burns but Nero wants still to be Caesar.

The position is on the fence. The position is don’t rock the boat. The position is force the other side to make a mistake. The position is that to act is a risk so let the other side act.  Keep your powder dry. The barbarians are invading but we need our guns for the coup.

I believe, and I think and hope it’s possible, given that we get a General Election before we exit the European Union, these two parties, governing and opposition, can be and may well be wholly discomfited at the polls; and that a broad coalition of parties who affirm a definite position, parties which are presently considered also-rans, the SNP, the LibDems, and others, will find enough support in aggregate across the nation, for them be endorsed to scotch this mess and liberate us from these two fancy-footwork power-play parties whose clumsy dance this is presently.