British politics is in a post-liberal era.

For those of us who value freedom, the last few years have been a terrible time. Nationalism and authoritarianism are ascendant, and liberalism is in retreat. The latter used to be seen as the philosophy of the future in the post-Soviet era, but is now increasingly viewed as the preserve of wealthy multinational elites, who hold the values and economic interests of the working man in contempt. Along with most of the developed (and virtually all of the developing) world, British public opinion is now distinctly post-liberal. The British government cannot be blamed for this trend. But it must be held responsible for how it responds to it. The government must listen to the people, but it must also listen to its conscience. It has a duty to defend and preserve the values that made the country great, even if the cry of the mob would suggest otherwise. There are three areas in particular, in which the government has abandoned the principles of liberal democracy, in order to satisfy the desires of an imagined majority.

The first is the refugee crisis. Britain is a relatively wealthy country with low unemployment, reasonably high wages and a surprisingly low cost of living (houses in London notwithstanding.) Contrary to popular perception, it is not overcrowded, as only 9% of its land area is built up. It also already accepts a fairly high number of economic migrants, with little to no impact on overall employment levels, and a positive impact on wages due to increased economic activity in the country. So there’s no reason not to accept a mere 3000 refugee children, who are fleeing for their lives from the destruction wrecked by Assad, Putin and ISIS. Many of the neighbouring countries like Lebanon and Turkey are already overwhelmed, so we ought to be kind and help them.

But apparently for the government, 3000 is too many. It will now accept only 350 refugee children. Then our doors will be closed. This is simply unforgivable. The government has chosen to condemn thousands of children to a probable lifetime of suffering, and will save a minuscule quantity of resources as a result. But sadly, there is no public outcry. The Archbishop of Canterbury and a few MPs have spoken out. But that’s almost it. The Conservatives retain an enormous lead in the polls. Very few of the most popular newspapers have condemned the government. No donors have stopped funding the Tories, nor has any organisation withdrawn their support. Having said that, just because the government seemingly can get away with it, doesn’t mean they should. Theresa May should do the compassionate thing and allow the children to come, regardless of any backlash.

The second issue is the government’s grovelling to Donald Trump. Now I’m all in favour of a cordial relationship with the world’s only superpower. The US is an important ally and trading power, no matter who is president. The nations of Europe recognise this and act accordingly. But Britain has gone a step further. Unlike say Germany or France, Britain refuses to condemn Trump’s xenophobia, sexism and contempt for the Muslim world. It remains silent in the hope of a good trade deal following Brexit. Such a strategy is wishful thinking. Trump is fundamentally a protectionist at heart. He is unlikely to open up American business to intense competition from Britain. His zero-sum mentality in which there must always be a loser means that any deal is likely to be massively lopsided in favour of the US, to the degree in which it may not be worth signing at all. And even if a favourable deal is struck, it is not worth being complicit in the actions of an authoritarian demagogue to achieve it. Its also worth pointing out that trade and services with the EU is far greater to Britain than trade and services with the US. We ought not to  alienate our largest customer by siding with a temperamental narcissist.

The third (and often overlooked) issue is the status of foreign students, who are not immigrants because they aren’t here to stay permanently and don’t work full time. Foreign students contribute vast amounts of money to the higher education industry, allowing for investment in new facilities, the hiring of more academics,  and the funding of additional research. Non-EU students in particular, are vital because they aren’t subject to the British fee cap. Although the recently-scrapped overall cap on student numbers made sense because it prevented universities from sacrificing the quality of teaching and living for a short-term profit, there’s no need for a significant targeted reduction in foreign students. The government wrongly includes them in the net migration figures, then tries to reduce them so they can say that immigration has come down. But unlike even refugees, there is virtually no public opposition to foreign students. So cutting their numbers will only hurt the economy, and would do nothing to appease right wing populism.

Overall, I accept many of the failures of today’s so-called ‘liberals.’ A healthy scepticism of nationalism and the nation-states has resulted in an excessive faith in international institutions, which have made many mistakes and haven’t been held to account. The wealthy elites in the financial sector, who were partly responsible for the 2008 crash, have largely been left unharmed. Across the developed world, income and wealth inequality remains needlessly high. Social mobility has declined. Within nations, there are many gaps between regions, such as the American gap between the coasts and the Rust Belt, the Italian gap between North and South, the German gap between West and East, and the British gap between the South-East and everywhere else. All of this has resulted in a class of ‘left-behind’ voters, who are understandably distrustful of any self-identified ‘liberal’, and so place their trust in charismatic nationalists who promise a return to a better age.

However, liberals are not without reason to hope. The younger generation are highly socially progressive. As the right wing populists begin to gain power, their false promises become apparent. Liberals are beginning to learn from their mistakes. Science and technology will improve lives even as politics hurts them. Never underestimate the human capacity for self-renewal and persistence, whatever the odds.

 

 

Should German judges ban the neo-Nazi National Democratic party?

 Germany’s Constitutional Court has refused to ban the neo-Nazi National Democratic Party. A bid to get it outlawed was rejected by the court in 2003; and now a new bid – launched after a series of racist murders in recent years was found to be the work of a neo-Nazi terror cell, and backed by all 16 German states – has been turned down too. The judges argued that the far-right NPD doesn’t pose a big enough threat to warrant suppression, as it has no MPs and enjoys barely 5% electoral support. No doubt they were scared of being challenged in the Court of Human Rights, in Strasbourg, which takes a dim view of political bans. But needlessly so: given Germany’s recent history, it’s most unlikely Strasbourg would have objected to suppressing a party that has caused so much destruction. As for it not being much of a threat today – do the judges really want to wait for its support to grow, when to then ban it would look like a desperate measure to suppress the popular will? In these times of aggressive right-wing populism, an immediate ban would have been a wake-up call, a warning that democracy is under threat and is ready to defend itself; that we can’t afford to tolerate a party bent on destroying the democratic order, let alone keep funding it with taxpayers’ money; and that nobody is allowed to spout hate speech with impunity.  (Heribert Prantl, Süddeutsche Zeitung, Munich)

German politicians are desperate to avoid the appearance of high-handed behaviour by government, and rightly so.  There are people still alive who lived through the attempt by the establishment to tolerate Hitler, thinking it could tame and civilise him, once elected.  Alas, the weak but well-meaning government was swept away by a bunch of ruthless , anti-democratic bullies and murderers. I think Mr. Prantl has it absolutely right: to wait until the NDP is bigger is a recipe for disaster and will simply encourage more members .  Were Court of Human Rights to condemn the ban it would be shameful.  We need no more Nazis, thank you.  Anywhere.

Trash is trashing the environment

Researchers studied e-waste generation over five years in 12 Asian countries including China, which saw the amount of e-waste it produced more than double. From 2010 to 2015, the volume of electronic waste generated in East and South-East Asia rose 63 per cent, according to a report from the United Nations University.  The rise is big but not unexpected for nations seeing rapid economic growth, says Jason Linnell, who leads US non-profit body the National Center for Electronics Recycling.

Electrical or electronic devices are not always properly recycled or disposed of. Instead, such e-waste is often burned or washed in acid to extract the valuable metals inside. This can pollute water and air, and lead to cancers and fertility problems in workers exposed to the fumes.  Although Asia generates the highest volume of e-waste as a continent, Europe and the Americas generate about four times as much per capita – and much of this waste is exported to poorer countries that lack the infrastructure to safely recycle it.

Gadgets and toys with plugs and/or batteries are proliferating and there seems to be no organised way or place to recycle them.  Where I live no one will accept old batteries for recycling, and one has to dispose of them in the household trash, which I hate doing.  One can take computers and such to the government dump on specific days, usually one Saturday a month, but what happens to it after that I have no idea, except that  almost certainly ends up in a landfill on some continent or other  I myself even wash and re-use shrink-wrap film used in the kitchen to reduce the amount of non-biodegradable stuff we throw out – but I am almost certainly regarded as eccentric.

 

 

 

The roots of fascism

In her book called Origins of Totalitarianism, published in 1951, Hannah Arendt wrote the following about Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini and Franco:

“In an ever-changing, incomprehensible world the masses had reached a point where they would, at the same time, believe everything and nothing, think that everything was possible and nothing was true….The totalitarian mass leaders based their propaganda on the correct psychological assumption that, under such conditions, one could make people believe the most fantastic statements one day, and trust that if the next day they were given irrefutable proof of their falsehood they would take refuge in cynicism; instead of deserting their leaders who had lied to them, they would protest that they had known all along that the statement was a lie and would admire the leaders for their superior tactical cleverness”.

The minions, time-servers and yes-men who serve the boss, made to repeat the outrageous falsehoods, are bound to the leader by shame and complicity.  To make a subordinate repeat a lie in public with a straight face is a display of power, and renders that subordinate powerless.  “The essential conviction shared by all ranks,” Arendt concluded, is that politics is a game of cheating, and is as necessary for the conduct of world politics as rules of military discipline are for war”.

The relevance to the current day is obvious.  If we are not careful the lie will become so commonplace that no one think a moment about it.  Epicurus, a very smart man, instinctively knew this, and inveighed against politics and against war because he could see before him the literal and moral harm both can do in the hands of the unscrupulous.

 

 

Wind power overtakes coal!

Last year, for the first time, Britain generated more electricity from wind turbines than from coal. According to Carbon Brief, a website that tracks developments in energy policy, coal accounted for 9.2% of the UK’s output in 2016, down from 22.6% the previous year; while wind accounted for 11.5%. As recently as 2013, coal accounted for more than 35% of the electricity supply in the UK, but the industry has been in rapid decline in the last few years, and the Government intends to close the country’s last coal-fired power plants by 2025. Last year’s drop in coal output was largely made up for by an increase in gas-generated power, which was up by around 50% from its 2015 level. Gas produces fewer carbon emissions than coal, and as a result of this switch, the UK’s CO2 emissions from power generation were 20% lower in 2016 than in 2015 ( Financial Times).

This movement towards clean energy now seems unstoppable.  Meanwhile, in the Great Oligarchy, pipelines, carrying dirty crude oil from Canada, are being resurrected in an assault on anything that looks as if it is countering climate change. The weasel words “I agree the climate is warming , but there is no agreement as to how much this is due to human activity” are being used to damn future generations to catastrophic weather patterns, food shortages, mass migration, numbers of simultaneous wars such as the world has never seen before,  and the extinction of hosts of animals. These shortsighted, profit-now-or- die, know- nothing, selfish deniers Are not even concerned about their own grandchildren.  Why care? They won’t be there to suffer with them.

May I at least suggest that each of us make some permanent note of the names and jobs of the people involved , leave the lists enclosed with our wills, to be handed down so that future generations will know who the people  were who have helped make miserable the lives of our descendants?  Maybe we could organise an Epicurean Great Wall of Shame?