The Bewilderness

Zimwatch: Does a Watched Frog Ever Boil?

The situation in Zimbabwe gets worse month after month. Inflation rises, poverty increases and the tattered remains of a former civil society may no longer fear the weakening grip of the state.

It is always difficult to gauge the level of resistance that  institutions will  take against ZANU-PF. however, the Zimbabwe Coalition of Trade Unions is calling for strike action in order to protect its members. Does their willingness to withdraw their labour signal the desperation of workers in Zimbabwe or does it represent the slo-mo collapse of the state structures? There is probably an element of both factors in this signal.

THE Zimbabwe Congress of Trade Unions (ZCTU) yesterday resolved to stage crippling mass protests if employers fail to award workers salaries above the Poverty Datum Line (PDL).

The resolution was adopted at the labour union's sixth Ordinary Congress, which ended in Harare last night.

ZCTU chairman, Lovemore Matombo, said: "We will take to the streets to force employers to award their workers minimum salaries that tally with the Poverty Datum Line."

Restrictions on protest and liberty may start to prove ineffective, as economic immiserisation takes hold. As ever, with Zimbabwe, predictions of Mugabe's downfall are the optimistic reading of a Rorschach blot.

From Roadmap to Cul-de-Sac

The period of reflection on the European Constitution continues. Yet, neither the European Commission nor the Council have offered any meaning ful reform of the document.  The  legal  process of  ratification continues and  the question of how to negotiate those Member States who have not signed up has not been discussed.

There may be moves afoot to adopt some of the goals as part of the integrationist agenda within Brussels, an interim measure favoured by the French and their acolyte, Belgium. They wish to pursue integration amongst an avant-garde, to avoid tumbling off the bicycle of integration. This has not prevented the cheerleaders of the Constitution, especially Germany, from preventing the discussion of alternative structures. The Constitution was designed as a roadmap and is now a political cul-de-sac. This is due to the obdurate support of those who have signed up to the process.

Now, the dregs of realism are beginning to shine through. Juncker, the Prime Minister of Luxembourg, does not expect to see a breakthrough in institutional reform before 2009 or 2010. The 'period of reflection' will become a moniker for a 'do-nothing' approach.

An end to the EU's institutional crisis is not yet in sight, Luxembourg's prime minister Jean-Claude Juncker has warned, dashing hopes by the European Commission and the German chancellor for an upcoming revival of the EU constitution.

The "reflection period" on the future of Europe - agreed by EU leaders last year after French and Dutch voters rejected the constitution – will last at least until 2009 or 2010, the Luxembourgish leader predicted.

This paralysis reflects the fatigue that has accompanied all things European, its waning popularity, and the unwillingness of any leader to invest political capital in further integration. Bound by the bureaucratic horizons of their committees and the necessity of acting in lockstep, all seem quite happy to hunker down in the present structures and gradually work through further integration, as appropriate.

For the short-term, the EU project edges forward,  becoming more protectionist and  illiberal as it reacts to the slow  erosion of economic competitiveness.  Will  the structures, as reinterpreted by the Treaty of Nice, bed down and maintain the slow reaction to particular economic and social crises?
The Member States and the Commission are happy with this  status  quo but all forget that  the EU  is vulnerable to a crisis in any single country. If one of the larger Member States  faces a crisis of savage proportion, they will take all steps necessary to resolve their  problems, including the repatriation of powers from the EU. As soon as one takes that step, confidence in the supranational structures may rapidly crumble, as the advantages of remaining in an unravelling single market are outweighed by the economic costs.

The demographic problems, the everrising tide of competition from Asia and the tensions between the liberals and the mercantilists within Europe favour such a crisis, with Italy, France or Britain as possible candidates.

Replacement Bus Service

If there are three words that can strike gloom into the heart of any traveller within the bounds of London, it is the title above. The art of getting from here to there is complicated by the dusty ejection from train or tube onto the road, where one is placed at the mercy of the traffic jams and Livingstone's nightmarish road policy. Worse, the replacement bus must follow the path of the railway or underground, twisting and turning back upon itself, prolonging what was expected to be a straightforward and swift journey.

Such journeys are tolerable if there is time to relax and alternative routes prove just as long. But, if it is the last train or tube, and the only alternative is the night bus, then you are well and truly screwed. You will be a long time getting home.

The Singularity Summit

The Singularity Summit was held at Stanford University on the 13th May: a gathering aiming to explore the contemporary ramifications of the Singularity  Summit. There were three or four bloggers at the meeting, who provide a  general consensus on the speakers and the audience reaction.

Mike Treder of Responsible Technology liveblogged the event. He concluded that the audience preferred the non-transhumanist speakers, with the most applause given to the "most reactionary speakers". the organisation of the summit was reasonable, but there is no consensus on the singularity or its appearance. Possibly this century?

Renee Blodgett was enthusiastic and got a splendid photo of Bill McKibben as a teleported ghost talking to the summit. Like Treder, she was unimpressed by McKibben's contribution, which appeared to rely upon platitudes  more than skilled rebuttals to the claims of the singularitarians.

Dan Farber at ZDnet covered the event in depth and noted that the summit attracted an audience of a 1,000. Most of the talks were rehashing academic and popular arguments published elsewhere. The most interesting take, was from Hofstadter, who remains sceptical of the concept, accepts that it holds water, but wishes for further debate within the scientific community itself.

Hofstader proclaimed that he was less skeptical than those he discussed the topic with, but said that the ideas said in book marred by blurring with too much science fiction, calling it "wild beyond any speculation I am willing to accept."

"I see large a number of things that are partially true, blurry," Hofstader continued. "I can't put a finger on where it's wrong, but when multiply them together, you get down to small number…maybe 1 in 1000 of what Ray is talking about taking place." 

"When listening to Ray, I feel like I am listening to one side of a divorce…I would like to hear serious scientist giving it a serious response. It's all to Ray's credit…he raised important issues. We are about to be transformed in incredible ways, and have to take these ideas seriously."

A successful summit, in terms of dissemination and the exchange of views. Let us hope that  the outcome is further debate amongst scientists, philosophers and singularitarians.

A Tory Stem Cell

The Conservative Party has established a taskforce under former science minister, Ian Taylor, to consider the importance of Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics. To kickstart and publicise the taskforce, the four disciplines were collectivised under the acronym, STEM (not to be confused with stem cells!). This will form part of the Economic Competitive Policy Working Group.

Although this acquired an article on the BBC, the announcement was not important to merit a press release, from my exploration of the  Tories website, except on Ian Taylor's personal ensemble. It is not one of the six Big Challenges.

Accordingly, I have assembled in the Task-force a team of people from different backgrounds but with a wide range of experience. We shall work together to analyse ideas and evidence with a view to putting forward a set of priorities and actions for an incoming Conservative Government.

We anticipate that over the next few months the Task-force will receive evidence from individuals, universities, professional bodies and companies. We shall conduct our own enquiries, hearings and visits. We shall publish our interim report around the end of this year.

It is not transparent, as the members are unpublicised and invitations for submissions appear to be selective. Just an impression. As science is an open-door and open-source system, it behoves the Tory party to allow wider access to these groups, as they may acquire a few more members amongst the inevitable cranks and loonies. At present, it is still the charmed circle. (Hat tip: Conservative Home)

A Level 2: Return of the Essay

With a monopolistic provider, divided into a number of exam boards, and facing the requirement of meeting the targets set by the government, the A-level is no longer perceived as the de facto 'gold standard'. Now that the anecdotal tales of remedial lessons in grammar for first year students, and bullet point answers, private schools are searching for alternatives:

One of the most damning criticisms is that pupils can gain top grades in the exams by providing only "bite-sized" paragraphs of information or bullet points.

A grade has risen to 22.8 per cent, up from 11.9 per cent in 1991.

Some questions even tell candidates what they should mention in their answer. For instance, an English literature A-level question from a 2003 paper, in which pupils are asked to comment on a passage in Othello, goes on to say "in the course of your answer, look closely at the language, tone and imagery of the dialogue and comment on what the passage suggests about attitudes to Othello."

A group of private schools and Cambridge Universities International Examinations are constructing a new exam, based upon stronger syllabi and ensuring academic rigour through the teaching of essay techniques. The centralised state sector is unable to innovate and set up a new examination system due to the demands of the government for greater control over the education system. They can prevent students stuck with state schooling from participating in dangerous 'improvements':

While the Pre-U will be available to state schools, they will effectively be barred from taking it up because it is unlikely to be included on the Government's list of accredited qualifications.

Some state schools already complain bitterly that they cannot offer international GCSEs, which many believe are superior to normal GCSEs because they do not include coursework.

However, this new examination has stirred the civil servants to lift a pencil:

The criticism has led the Government to consider including tougher questions in A-level papers as part of its secondary education reforms, from 2008.

Would it not be a fitting amendment for the Tory party to champion the freedom to choose examinations, either at a parental or at school level? Perhaps, if the majority of parents vote for the 'Pre-U' or International GCSEs, the school should be forced to honour their wishes.

London's leading chavs

The President of the Republic of Venezuela will be lunching with London's leading chavs.

Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez will continue his two-day visit to London with a lunch hosted by Ken Livingstone....

They will be joined at the lunch by figures from the worlds of culture, finance and fashion as well as trade unionists and MPs.

Guests include playwright Harold Pinter, Bianca Jagger, Peter Voser, Chief Financial Officer of Shell International, fashion designer Katherine Hamnett and Michael Lynch, director of the South Bank Centre.

MPs expected to attend include Tony Lloyd, Jon Cruddas, Diane Abbott, Colin Burgon, Dawn Butler and Jon Trickett.

Chav is shorthand for the supporters of Hugo Chavez, the chavistas.

The Chavs admire a President who presides over curbs on the freedom of expression, the harassment and imprisonment of political opponents and human rights NGOs, and violent corrupt police forces. Perhaps it is the doe-eyed admiration of a Left-wing caudillo.

The Lord Speaker

One of the changes wrought by the Constitutional Reform Act of 2005 is coming into effect. Now that the Lord Chancellor no longer sits on the Woolsack in the House of Lords, the chairing role will be taken by 'Lord Speaker', a non-partisan, apolitical role.  The Lord Speaker will be elected for five years and  the functions of the office are  detailed here (pdf file). The elections, based on the Alternative Voting System, will take place in late June, after the candidates have been registered, and the final announcement on the appointment is scheduled for the  4th July (pdf file).

The role of Lord Speaker is structured to maintain the self-regulation that the House of Lords has developed to police debate and improve scrutiny. A visiting delegation from Canada noted that the role fitted well with the objectives of the House:

The delegation was impressed at how well the House of Lords functions through self-regulation and understood how important it was to maintaining the historical work-methods of the Lords that there not be a Speaker with powers to adjudicate points of order or render prima facie decisions on questions of privilege. Creating such an office could encourage procedural disputes. The delegation noted that the Report of the Speakership of the House of Lords was provisional as it depends on whether the position of the Lord Chancellor will be abolished.

This forms part of the constitutional changes that transformed the Lord Chancellor into a Secretary of State for Legal Affairs. despite a kerfuffle over the salary, it is not clear if this role will prove successful or impotent.

How to Centralise Power

Identify subject to be centralised:

Senhor Barroso said that he would ask heads of government to “transfer to the Community a large number of the decisions in the fields of justice, freedom and security that can be dealt with more effectively at European level than at national level”.

Effectiveness means removing such matters from the unproductive checks and balances of democratic oversight in national parliaments.

Legitimate demand with Bonapartist quackery, by stating that the people wish all matters concerning the police and the courts to be decided by Brussels. They are rioting in Trafalgar Square, even as I write:

He insisted that the policy would have a huge amount of public support. “The most effective response in the field of security is the European response,” he said. “People are asking for ‘more Europe’ in order to combat terrorism and organised crime. It is our duty to respond to this appeal, with or without a constitution.”

Note the circularity of the explanation. They demand that Europe take up these powers, and this means that the policy will have public support.

Next question: what else will they cock up?

The Revolutionary Red-Tape Reform

Am I on the same planet as Angela Merkel? Presumably an alternate history where the Lisbon agenda was successfully implemented. Saying it does not make it real...

"We must put citizens first" said the chancellor adding that it must be clear to them "that Europe makes things better" she said pointing to Europe's success at being economically dynamic, socially responsible and at safeguarding jobs.

How will Merkel ensure that the EU succeeds at these tasks? That's right: bring back the Constitution. Still: her one good move is that she wishes to get rid of red tape. Will someone remind her that civil servants don't sack themselves and that deregulation campaigns end up expanding the  army of jobsworths.

In her first major speech on Europe to the German parliament, the chancellor said promoting the fight against bureaucracy, encouraging growth and employment, was the best way for the EU to reclaim support from overwhelmingly sceptical citizens.

“It has to be possible to reduce the overall bureaucratic burden by 25 per cent” in Europe and Germany, she said. She also cited the anti-red tape initiative of José Manuel Barroso, the European Commission’s president, calling it “revolutionary”.

Yes, deregulation could only be viewed as 'revolutionary' by a European politician. Not exactly a German Thatcher.