The Bewilderness

Disarmed by their own critique

The Eurozone is in crisis. It is a crisis that will last several years, unless you are a blind decrepit Europhile. Stating the obvious should be commended in a politician, even it if it is Cameron. This description, seen in most British newspapers, has been condemned by Lords Ashdown and Oakeshott, with lurid images of diplomatic arson, sabotage and distraction. 

But the good Lords did not proffer their own description of events: a deflating balloon perhaps, a mere bagatelle, or sensible policies of unemployment and immiserisation, undermined by pesky democrats. Alas, they are silent.... 

Singularity Society

The Royal Society issued a report recently on overpopulation and resources. An unwelcome sequel to the Limits to Growth, the authors managed to confuse economics, ignore technology and subscribe to the anti-humanist authoritarianism of the green movement.

Every new mouth is a burden. Everny new mind is a curse. Extra people should be discouraged. And then we have the Singularity University:

"He [Peter Diamandis] talks about "three billion new minds coming online" in the next few years, Silicon Valley-speak for "being born". These minds are an opportunity, he insists, because "the rate of innovation is a function of the number of people actually communicating and this is growing explosively with the internet". 

Ironic that the article on the Singularity University appears in the Guardian. Not a newspaper renowned for its techno-progressivism. But progress is marching forward all the time: and it looks like the Greens are wrong every time. The tsunami of progress should overwhelm their Cnut like ways.

Perhaps the Singularity University could take over the Royal Society, since it appears to have taken on the role that the oldest scientific association has abandoned...

Left hand saved by the right hand in France

The financial crisis is spawning political surprises. The hard left did less well than expected in the first round of the French presidential campaign. The drift from communism to National Front was the clear winner, driving Marianne Le Pen to third place.

Unless Sarkozy can draw on the reservoir on far right voters (deemed very unlikely), Hollande and the Socialists will win the vote. The Left is saved by the Right. The Eurozone is tipping towards the Latins.

Still walking the digital paradigm

A further examination of the augmented reality market provides indicators for when the technology will hit the market. Unsurprisingly, the military is a follower of head up displays and DARPA has contracted with Innovega for 'AR' contact lenses to be available by 2014. Innovega is viewed as providing the tools for enhancing the information available in training and on the battlefield, allowing soldiers to focus on objects both near and far to the viewer.

The marketplace is being worked upon. The aim is to achieve a seamless marriage of data and reality with constant updates, tagging and manipulation serving the needs of the fyborg. Such a transition, with the attendant wearables, remains some years away:

Today we update our status, favorite a tweet, check into a place we like and really are out to set or make any preferences that make our life more enjoyable. The day of tomorrow will be when our experiences will be more embedded into the real world rather than in this digital life form as they are now.

Why an augmented reality? Our usage of the Internet and these apps will reach a breaking point, and before or right when that happens, we will want all of these technology to be in the background — or at least these major technology companies will want augmented reality to truly be a reality.

Until we see these come to market, we remain focused on tablets, smartphones, apps and the current digital paradigm.

Will I be a fyborg by fifty?

Wearables, 'mediated reality', 'augmented reality' or whatever phrase is used is beginning to move swiftly from activist experimentation to commercial reality. The path has taken thirty years, from bulky headsets to slim glasses. Even if available, it is not clear if people will don a visual complement to their smartphones:

With technology finally catching up to mainstream ambitions, the next challenge is convincing the public that wearables are something they might want to, well, wear. 

When and if they do arrive, such devices will enrich the accessible platform that people utilise through their communications medium. Possibilities will be rapidly enhanced by the strong network of developers, applications and software enhancement. If wearables proves popular, one could foresee a rapid fyborgisation amongst certain communities.

And it will be cool to wear glasses again 

The stanks bubble away....

The tsunami of liquidity that the European Central Bank released in November and February to stave off an incipient 'credit crunch' no longer hides the inability of Member States to pay back their debt. Greece, Portugal and Ireland all remain mired in depression and austerity with no hope of recovery. Yields have begun to rise precipitously again in Spain and Italy.

There is no map for plotting the duration of this crisis: slow, slow, quick, slow. The gathering pace of European leaders towards the cliff edge will become far quicker when the first of the 'too big to bail' countries enters an antechamber of default. For this will be a moment of decision: integration or disintegration!

As Ken Rogoff again lists, the Eurozone does not meet the basic criteria for an optimal currency union: political legitimacy, labour mobility, a lender of last resort for bates and stanks (bank owned states and state owned banks) and a shared debt. When the crisis reaches its full fury, will some or all of the Eurozone leap headfirst into union?

This is unknowable, though all Eurozone leaders have urged greater rather than lesser integration. The current strategy of austerilty through liquidity runs the risk of political rejection after a period of time (depending upon the tolerance of the countries affected). After that, it is a matter of the Eurozone grappling with its strongest flaw: Germany.

Poet, peace activist, seeks controversy

Would Israel have been better off if the country had decided to ignore the controversy surrounding Gunter Grass's new poem? Or does the report of a poem that feeds into the extreme critiques of what such amoralists call the 'Zionist entity' lead to a reaction, especially when the poet is a self-confessed member of the Waffen SS? I have not read the poem though its contents, if reported accurately, are unsurprising and fit the prejudices of the anti-Zionist left.

Perhaps, at 84, Grass is no longer able to assert a moral independence from Left or Right. If a strong voice could provide an independent counterweight to the alliance between extreme left and anti-semitism, now would have been the time. There is plenty of ammunition to criticise Israel without aligning yourself with eliminationists. That is the rhetoric of Iran. That is not the rhetoric of Israel.

"It is unacceptable," said Willi van Ooyen, a spokesman for a group that organises the traditional peace marches held each year on Easter weekend in Germany since 1960.

"Threats and preparations for war poison the political climate," said Ooyen, referring to concerns that Israel might launch a strike against Iran's nuclear facilities to stop a suspected weapons programme.

Israel will not be listening to this German peace activist soon. His paean of defenceless prostration before barbarism does not carry a voice in Israel (Talk often with a visibly big stick!)

But, as voices in Israel attest, the shrieks of disapproval have been fanned by a political class that wished to make an example of a left-wing Nobel prize winner, whose reputation was tarnished by a revelation of Nazi participation. Their actions were framed for domestic and US consumption: banning an author for equating Israel with a second holocaust. Grass's search for notoriety through poetic cliche may have strengthened the Israeli government, an outcome he would not have encouraged.

Yet, as war rolls closer, the Palestinians may have already lost their hold on the pedestal for victims. The height of international interest in this conflict has been reached, and fundamentalist intransigence leaves this local difficulty as an aside to the Iran/Israel tango.

 

Give the Lords back their veto

Part of the journey of conservatism is to maintain or restore the natural balances within the Constitution. One of the greatest of these was a bicameral system, whereby a second chamber could overrule the first, if deemed appropriate. Bicameralism was abandoned during the constitutional crisis of 1910 to 1912 when peers threatened to veto the budget, overruling the elected government of the day. At the dawn of mass politics, this diehard reaction was viewed as the spasm of a landed class opposed to redsitributive taxation.

Yet, a second chamber that merely advises or delays is a hundred years old. The Parliament Act served as a statute to enshrine unicameral supremacy within Britain by augmenting the Commons. Such overweening power was last taken upon themselves by the revolutionaries in 1649. 

The Diehards, as the peers who wished to retain their veto were called, offered a model of a second chamber in 1910. The peers would elect 100 members, the Prime Minister would appoint 100 members and a final tranch of 100 would be directly elected. The retention of the veto was directly linked to the democratisation of the chamber. 

With the reforms proposed, democratisation would be achieved in a diluted and anodyne measure. Lords would be elected with little power, and only the most mediocre of party apparatchiks would desire to end their career in those halls. Public service as a motivation would be overshadowed by placemen, sinecures and cronies; we have seen enough of this pollution under New Labour.

To overcome the power of patronage and appointment, the triumph of the party machine and weak part-timers flattened by the Commons juggernaut, we should look at Lords reform afresh. A balance of tradition, appointment and democracy, infused with the power of veto, would spell deadlock or balance. Best that representation holds the edge over the other two elements, but overturn this dangerous innovation that has lasted a century and return to the bicameral system that fully expresses the genius of our antient constitution.

Volatility and unpopularity in the polls

All three mainstream leaders are now suffering from low ratings. All that has changed is that Cameron now joins Clegg and Miliband. Perhaps it was only a matter of time and adverse publicity. As Mike Smithson points out it is unprecedented for all three leaders to suffer from such disillusionment on the part of the electorate.

Yet, this may prove most dangerous for Miliband. With a Labour lead in the polls and an unpopular leader, the temptation to look for a more popular candidate will increase. An unpopular budget and a week that undermined notions of competence have wounded the Coalition. None of these indicate that we have faced a change in polling or a swing to Labour, when Galloway's victory points to increased volatility.

Labour's leader declares the momentous 'Miliband moment'

In his interview with 'The Observer' today, Ed Miliband, the Labour party leader, capitalises upon the misfortunes of the government. In strategic terms, this is an interview designed to set an agenda: a redescription of media perceptions (with public following) in Labour's favour. Could one even view this as an unholy alliance between Miliband, an opportunistic camp follower of Gordon Brown, and Rupert Murdoch, whose press, after the demise of the 'News of the World' is directed with fervour against the Tory party?

Miliband argues that the Coalition (though he never mentions the Liberal Democrats) or, the Tory government, will only last for one term and that Labour will rule thereafter. This is stated with such force as a political prediction. He also hails the end of the "Cameron project", a unity of purpose, plan and principle that flatters his opponent.

Where Miliband's judgement rings with a true note is the unique victory of George Galloway in Bradford, caused mainly by anti-tactical voting against Labour, as Tory voters switched to Respect. Yet, he must ask himself why was there a tactical vote in this manner: a reverse from the anti-tactical vote against the Tories from 1997 onwards? This by-election may yet hold nasty surprises yet.

Miliband faces his own weaknesses and his triumphalism at others' incompetence may yet be premature. In his interview, he does not mention the Liberal Democrats: a silence that confirms he is not confident of gaining a majority at the next General Election and anticipates a coalition with the Liberal Democrats. Nor did he reference the London mayoral election, as Ken is no shoo-in.

Miliband's Achilles heel may have been obscured by Francis Maude's public relations disaster, but the unions will act in a radical fashion as cuts in public exepnditure begin to bite. The more that they campaign and strike, to the silence of the Labour leadership, the more that question marks over Miliband's leadership will emerge. Just as Cameron reached a high point in December with the EU 'veto', so Miliband gains strength over the torrid week and a poorly presented budget. The jury is still out as to whether this is a permanent turn against the Coalition or another high mark or low mark (depending upon perceptions) in a volatile time, as the electorate views all political parties as a plague. George Galloway's victory suggests the latter.

UPDATE: Further reflections on Miliband's interview only highlighted his omissions. Where were his thoughts and ideas on the London mayoral election, Scottish independence and European changes? Any mention of these changes could potentially topple the thin veneer of control that he projected to his chosen audience. 

With the number of potential disruptions that could adversely affect Labour's electoral advantages, Miliband's public silence disguises private misgivings (at best), and more likely, palpitations.