I write programs for a living. I've got an opinion on everything. Unfortunately.
4493 stories
·
10 followers

Trump’s Corruption: The Definitive List

1 Comment and 2 Shares
President Trump, his family and many of the people he has hired are profiting from his presidency.

Read the whole story
tedgould
20 days ago
reply
Not sure we'll ever have a definitive list, the scope is too large, but good to remember how corrupt this president is.
Texas, USA
zippy72
16 days ago
reply
FourSquare, qv
Share this story
Delete

history has its eyes on you

4 Shares

In today’s Washington Post, Dana Millbank published an op-ed titled We have no excuses now. Our eyes are wide open. He closes by saying:

On Tuesday, voters will make a decision in what is the purest midterm referendum on a sitting president in modern times:
Will we take a step, even a small one, back from the ugliness and the race-baiting that has engulfed our country?
Or will we affirm that we are really the intolerant and frightened people Donald Trump has made us out to be?
If we choose the latter, 2018 will in some ways be more difficult to take than 2016. This time, we don’t have the luxury of saying we didn’t really know what Trump would do.

Our eyes are wide open.

I keep saying this: history doesn’t just happen. The world isn’t a story that someone tells, and we all ride along inside the narrative, unable to affect it in any meaningful way.

I am 46. I was raised in an America that claimed to be The Land of Opportunity, a place where all people are equal under the law, and anyone who was willing to do the work could make something special for themselves and their families.

That is painfully not the America we are living in now, and that didn’t just happen. This America, this country that is so xenophobic, so profoundly unequal, which treats nonwhite lives like they are disposable, which is currently lead by the most despicable, dishonest, openly racist and misogynist man to ever hold the presidency … this America didn’t just happen. This America was slowly and deliberately built by people like Ronald Reagan, John Bolton, Dick Cheney, George Bush and his idiot son, Newt Gingrich, The Koch Brothers, The Mercers, Fox News, Stephen Miller, and their malignant voice of hate and fear, Donald Trump.

Taking a look at my 46 years in America, it starts to become clear that, at least at the national political level, presidents like Barack Obama and Jimmy Carter are not our norm, as much as I wish they were. Looking at just the last 25 years, we see two presidents who were not elected by the majority of Americans, and we see a Senate that continually and gleefully abuses its anti-Democratic power to keep shaping America further and further away from the ideals of freedom and equality and opportunity that America at least claimed to stand for when I was a child.

What we are witnessing now is a fight for not just the future of America, but for her present, and for the rest of my life. Will America continue her march toward open civil war between the revanchist, paranoid, bigoted army of racists who make up the incredibly small but powerful Republican base, and the majority of Americans who are not bigots, anti-Semites, white nationalists, and misogynists? OR will we send a clear message that our voices, which are the overwhelming majority, will not be silenced, and we will not allow ourselves to be governed by Trump and people who support him?

Dana Milbank is correct in his column and in his assessment: our eyes are wide open now, and we know exactly what we get when Republicans are in power.

This election is powerfully and unambiguously clear: you are with us, or you are against us. You are with Trump and his hateful, violent, paranoid, racist values, or you are against him. This is the reality in which we are living, and you have to choose a side.

History doesn’t just happen. Every election matters and every election helps decide what our country is going to look like not just for us, but for our children and for the future. And though it isn’t just this election, (because we aren’t going to undo thirty years of right wing paranoia, voter suppression, and assaults on basic human and civil rights with just a single election any more than the Kochs and Adelsons and Mercers corrupted America’s free and fair elections in a single election) this is the first nationwide, congressional election of the Trump era. This is the first election since the Republicans stopped winking and dogwhistling and giving themselves plausible deniability, and openly embraced racism, bigotry, xenophobia, violence, and started proudly and stridently embracing the most deplorable ideas and beliefs in American politics since the Confederacy.

Put simply: if they can hold onto the House, if they can consolidate their power after they have made their intentions and beliefs crystal clear and without any doubts, they will be empowered to go even further toward taking civil and human rights away from people, because that’s what they’ve been promising to do since Trump’s election. History doesn’t just happen by accident, and what’s acceptable in America doesn’t just happen. In America, elections and the people they elect decide what history will be written, and by whom. In the past, a person could make the case with winks and nods and dogwhistles, and a voter could credibly claim that they were voting on the economy, for example. This election is different. This is the first election in my lifetime where openly racist, antisemitic, white nationalists are telling you exactly who they are and exactly what they will do if you vote for them.

It may seem like one vote doesn’t matter, or one election doesn’t matter. It may seem like “they’re all the same” or “there’s no difference between the parties” but I want you to consider that there is one main group of politicians in America (and their supporters) who don’t have a problem tearing a child away from its parents, who claim to be good, honorable, God fearing moral Christians, yet whose deeds consistently hurt the poor, the marginalized, people of color, and immigrants. There is one main group of politicians in America (and their supporters) who are appalled and revolted by the abuse of children and the destruction of any family, regardless of that family’s nation of origin. They believe that women’s rights are human rights. They believe that healthcare is a right. They believe that workers should have rights and protections, that the air we breathe and the water we drink should be clean and safe, that we can do more together than we can when we’re divided, and that all people, regardless of their gender, who they love, where they were born, who their parents are, how they pray (if they pray), and how much money they earn, deserve to live their lives in safety and prosperity.

Every election in America is a choice between these two parties. I know it shouldn’t be that way. I know that we should have more nuanced choices. But the reality is, we don’t. We can choose between a party that will tell nonwhites that they don’t matter and don’t have basic, fundamental, human rights (that are also their Constitutional rights, by the way), and a party that says their lives and their rights and their families matter. That’s the choice. In the past, they muddied things up with fear and economics, but this time is different. This time our eyes are open and we know exactly what this election is about, because they have told us what this election is about.

History doesn’t just happen. Elections have consequences. If Republicans hold on to power or — god forbid — expand it, they will make good on their antisemitic, misogynist, bigoted promises, because their voters will have told them that’s what they want.

On Tuesday, we all vote with our eyes wide open, and we have a chance to grab the pen that’s writing our history. Don’t let anyone tell you that your vote and your voice doesn’t matter, because history has its eyes on you.

Read the whole story
zippy72
16 days ago
reply
FourSquare, qv
angelchrys
17 days ago
reply
Overland Park, KS
Share this story
Delete

We’re witnessing a massive surge in far-right violence. It’s unlikely to end soon.

1 Comment and 3 Shares

A far-right mob brutally beating counter-protesters while yelling “faggot.” A series of pipe bombs mailed to the prominent liberals who are most featured in right-wing conspiracies. A white supremacist murder of two black senior citizens in a Kentucky grocery store. The mass shooting of eleven worshipers at a synagogue in what is described as the worst anti-Semitic attack in U.S. history.

All these events have happened in just over a fortnight. More crucially, they all bear hallmarks of violent, far-right bigotry, which President Donald Trump still refuses to call out and denounce.

Proud Boys’ attacks

Events started spiraling on Oct. 12 after the Proud Boys, a “Western chauvinist” group who frequently ally with other far-right groups, left a talk at the Metropolitan Republican Club in New York City. Their leader, Gavin McInnes, had taken part in a “lecture” at the club in which he re-enacted the murder of a Japanese socialist politician. When the Proud Boys were confronted by counter-protesters, they violently attacked them, yelling “Do you feel brave now, faggot?”

One day later, a “Flash Mob for Law and Order” in Portland, Ore., in which the Proud Boys took part in also descended into violence.

Soon after the New York attack, the NYPD announced it was seeking charges of riot and assault against nine members of Proud Boys. So far, five men affiliated with the group have been charged, and a sixth man was arrested on Friday. Among those charged, at least two were also members of prominent skinhead gangs. One of them was part of a far-right organization linked to the brutal beating of two grad students in 2017; another attended last year’s Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville, Va.

Attempted pipe bombings

On Oct. 22 police were called to investigate after a crude explosive device was delivered to George Soros, the billionaire and prominent liberal philanthropist. Soros is routinely the central figure in far-right conspiracy theories, which mainstream Republicans have now picked up. The most recent conspiracy theory about Soros, also parroted by “mainstream” conservatives, including elected officials, claims Soros is covertly funding the migrant caravan in Mexico headed towards the U.S. border.

One bomb quickly turned into a cascade. Over the next three days pipe bombs were discovered to have been sent to prominent Democrats, including the Hillary and President Bill Clinton, President Barack Obama, former Attorney General Eric Holder, the offices of CNN, and others. On Friday, officials arrested Cesar Sayoc, a Trump devotee who frequently attended rallies and who had engaged with far-right conspiracy theories online.

Kentucky hate crime

In the midst of the panic over the pipe bombings, a hate crime in Kentucky initially flew under the radar. Gregory Bush, 51, entered the Kroger supermarket in Louisville, Ky. and shot two elderly African-Americans before being arrested. According to police, Bush initially tried to enter an African-American church, as white-supremacist mass murderer Dylann Roof had done in 2015.

According to one witness, Bush engaged in a brief standoff within the supermarket with a white bystander who was armed. “Don’t shoot me and I won’t shoot you,” Bush was reported to have said. “Whites don’t kill whites.”

Synagogue mass shooting

On Saturday, as authorities were still piecing together Cesar Sayoc’s motives, another attack unfolded. A gunman had entered the Tree of Life synagogue in Pittsburgh, Penn. and killed eleven worshipers — most of them elderly — before engaging in a gun battle with police. He was taken into custody and will be charged with 29 criminal counts, including charges related to hate crimes.

Pittsburgh Public Safety Director Wendell Hissrich called the crime scene “one of the worst I’ve ever seen.”

It emerged that the shooter, Robert Bowers, was a rabid anti-Semite. He’d repeatedly aired extreme, hateful views on Gab, a far-right-friendly social media site, and told a SWAT officer in the aftermath of the attack that “all Jews must die.” Federal prosecutors have now filed hate-crime charges against him. Gab, meanwhile, is rapidly being “deplatformed.”

It’s not hard to the common thread between the suspects or attackers in these cases. An embrace of the conspiracy theories which have now become popularized by the GOP, clues to online radicalization that could have been picked up earlier by tech companies hosting that hate speech, and, of course, a hatred and targeting of minorities.

If these attacks were carried out by anyone else — ISIS, MS-13, Hezbollah or any other of the perpetual conservative boogeymen — there would be ear-splitting outrage from the GOP. But as it is, and despite the “domestic terror” warnings of law enforcement agencies like the FBI, the attacks are treated as separate, isolated incidents from whom the Trump administration can absolve blame, and place on others.

There’s little reason to expect there won’t be more incidents: the president himself has doubled down on blaming the media for the recent wave of violence.

“There is great anger in our Country caused in part by inaccurate, and even fraudulent, reporting of the news,” Trump tweeted on Monday morning. “The Fake News Media, the true Enemy of the People, must stop the open & obvious hostility & report the news accurately & fairly.”




Read the whole story
zippy72
16 days ago
reply
FourSquare, qv
angelchrys
22 days ago
reply
Overland Park, KS
Share this story
Delete

The business and economic effects of Brexit matter: ask Brexiters

2 Shares
As the politics of Brexit continues to go round in circles, there is an increasing atmosphere of concern, possibly even desperation, amongst British businesses. The latest CBI Industrial Trends survey, published this week, showed new manufacturing domestic and export orders falling at the fastest pace for three years and optimism regarding export prospects falling at the fastest pace for six years. Meanwhile, concerns about access to skills and labour are the highest they have been since 1974, and manufacturing investment is set to fall at the fastest rate since the financial crisis.

A separate new CBI survey, of both large and small businesses’ Brexit preparedness, shows some even more alarming trends. These include that 80% of firms surveyed said Brexit has had a negative effect on their investment plans (up from 36% a year ago). Of course Tory Brexit Ultras such as Steve Baker have, in a rather extraordinary about-turn considering the historic link between the Conservatives and the CBI, nowadays written off the business group as a “grave menace”, whilst Boris Johnson’s view of business concerns about Brexit is well known.

In another new set of figures, the Society for Motor Manufacturers and Traders (SMMT) has announced a 16.8% fall in UK car manufacturing in September, the fourth consecutive month in which output has fallen. This comes amid ever-louder warnings from the industry of the damage Brexit could cause, the most recent being a very unusual public intervention from the global President of Toyota.

Brexiters dismiss business concerns

Again none of this matters to hardcore Brexiters. A dismissive article by Iain Duncan Smith the other day (cheered on by pro-Brexit economist Ruth Lea) railed against the car industry’s “prophets of doom” suggesting that the industry was of little account anyway. Strangely, the overwhelming importance they ascribe to the German car industry is not matched in Brexiters' regard for that of their own country. But apart from the disdain shown by this former leader of what was formerly called the party of business, the article contained at least two howlers.

One was the observation that UK auto manufacturing had been greatly “rejuvenated by the arrival of the Japanese under Lady Thatcher” – apparently in ignorance of the fact that she attracted them by virtue of British membership of the EU and the single market. The other was an apparent failure to understand the difference between global supply chains and regional just in time supply chains. Duncan Smith appears to think that since car makers source parts from outside of the EU single market and customs union, this must be through the same technique as those sourced from within. Thus he is able to conclude that all those car firm bosses don’t, in fact, understand their businesses in the way he does.

Duncan Smith calls on Anthony Bamford of JCB to pray in aid for his analysis, but he’d do better to look to James Dyson, the second of the triumvirate of businessmen invariably called upon by Brexiters (the third being Tim Martin. In passing, these three feature so regularly because there are so very few pro-Brexit business people – Duncan Smith also invokes the CFO of Aston Martin for the less than ringing endorsement that “Brexit doesn’t materially impact our plans”).

Dyson is relevant here in relation to his announcement this week that he would build his electric car in Singapore. The main discussion about this has been whether or not that is hypocritical in view of his pro-Brexit stance. But that isn’t really the key issue. Rather, it is his stated reason for doing so: “the decision of where to build our car is complex, based on supply chains, access to markets, and the availability of expertise …”. In other words, precisely those matters that UK car makers keep trying, unsuccessfully, to get Duncan Smith and the other Brexit Ultras to understand.

In any case, even if the car industry were as insignificant as the article imagines – and, apart from the fact that it actually employs about 1 million people directly or indirectly and accounts for 12% of UK goods exports, it’s important to consider the strategic significance of the industry as an R&D intensive (£3.65billion per year), high skill hub of the wider economy – it is hardly the case that it is the only one issuing “dire warnings”. Aerospace, pharmaceuticals, financial services … well, why bother to list them: it’s difficult to think of any sector of business, either in manufacturing or in services which is not issuing ever-greater cries of alarm. Brexiters write each individual one of them off, and in the process write off the greater part of the collective voice of business.

The paradox of Brexiters’ economic analysis

The most striking thing of all, though, is the wayin which they do so. A few – a very few – Brexiters are quite open in saying that they are advocating and pursuing a policy which will cause considerable economic damage, but judge it to be worthwhile, normally on grounds of sovereignty. A much larger number of Brexiters – and no small number of bien-pensant remainers– chide the remain cause and especially its referendum campaign for over-focussing on economics and on dry analysis, thus misunderstanding what motivated leave voters. Yet, in fact, most Brexiters are at pains to try to make, precisely, economic arguments for what they are doing. Duncan Smith’s article, is replete with such arguments.

So too was a recent piece in the Daily Express by Jacob Rees-Mogg, claiming Brexit would bring about a leap in prosperity. Just as Brexiters always turn to the same tiny minority of business leaders, so too do they look to a similarly small group of economists. In the case of the Rees-Mogg article it won’t be a surprise to learn that, yet again, Patrick Minford and the Economists for Free Trade (EFT, formerly called Economists for Brexit) are cited for the evidence (as they are in Duncan Smith’s piece).

This time it was their recent ‘Budget for Brexit’ report, which had already been comprehensively taken to pieces by trade expert Frances Coppola, whilst former Chief Economist at the Cabinet Office, Jonathan Portes tweeted that it “contained fantasy numbers” and was “an insult to the intelligence of its readers” (this, interestingly, in relation to a specific claim about the small size of the auto industry, which is apparently the Brexiter meme de jour).

None of this should be a surprise: the underlying basis of the EFT’s analysis of Brexit has been discredited over and over again (see a previous post for links to several examples). Moreover, whilst Rees-Mogg correctly acknowledges that Minford’s is a minority view, he is surely wrong to say it should be given attention because of his “remarkable record” of successful forecasting, as – to take one of many examples - this chart from Chris Giles, Economics Editor of the FT, shows.

Of course, no matter how often this is pointed out and whoever does so it will make no difference. But it reveals again the fact that the Brexiter case is very much based on economics and that they are more than happy – indeed seek – to bolster that case by appealing to expert authority. Contrary to what seems to be the received wisdom on all sides of the debate, the question of whether Brexit will or will not make people worse off is still a key battleground. One of the achievements of the Brexiters is to continue to fight on that ground whilst, paradoxically, arguing with some success that it is not the ground that actually matters.

The enduring importance of economics

Yet it is clear that the reason both remain and leave advocates continue to discuss Brexit in economic terms is because it is a key dividing line amongst remain and leave voters. Polling evidence shows that some 56% of leave supporters (compared with 6% of remainers) think the economy will be better as a result of Brexit, whilst 69% of remainers (12% of leavers) think it will be worse as a result. It’s not at all clear where the cause and effect lie here (i.e. if people’s views of the economic impact explain their position on Brexit or vice versa), but it does suggest that economics – or perhaps more accurately people’s jobs, standard of living, taxes and public services – has not ceased to matter.

And we are no longer in the territory of forecasts. The latest (30 September) assessment by the Centre for European Reform’s Deputy Director John Springford is that the UK economy is 2.5% smaller than it would be had the vote been to remain in the EU, with a knock on effect of £26billion on public finances. The test of whether or not these and other economic effects of Brexit matter to voters is this: do Brexit advocates say that they do not matter? Or do they deny that the effects are happening and/or say that they are nothing to do with Brexit? The answer, almost invariably, is the latter.
Read the whole story
zippy72
16 days ago
reply
FourSquare, qv
acdha
23 days ago
reply
Washington, DC
Share this story
Delete

Google hardware. Designed to work better together.

1 Comment

This year marks Google’s 20th anniversary—for two decades we’ve been working toward our mission to organize the world’s information and make it universally accessible and useful for everybody. Delivering information has always been in our DNA. It’s why we exist. From searching the world, to translating it, to getting a great photo of it, when we see an opportunity to help people, we’ll go the extra mile. We love working on really hard problems that make life easier for people, in big and small ways.

There’s a clear line from the technology we were working on 20 years ago to the technology we’re developing today—and the big breakthroughs come at the intersection of AI, software and hardware, working together. This approach is what makes the Google hardware experience so unique, and it unlocks all kinds of helpful benefits. When we think about artificial intelligence in the context of consumer hardware, it isn’t artificial at all—it’s helping you get real things done, every day. A shorter route to work. A gorgeous vacation photo. A faster email response. 

So today, we’re introducing our third-generation family of consumer hardware products, all made by Google:

  • For life on the go, we’re introducing the Pixel 3 and Pixel 3 XL—designed from the inside out to be the smartest, most helpful device in your life. It’s a phone that can answer itself, a camera that won’t miss a shot, and a helpful Assistant even while it’s charging.

  • For life at work and at play, we’re bringing the power and productivity of a desktop to a gorgeous tablet called Pixel Slate. This Chrome OS device is both a powerful workstation at the office, and a home theater you can hold in your hands.

  • And for life at home we designed Google Home Hub, which lets you hear and see the info you need, and manage your connected home from a single screen. With its radically helpful smart display, Google Home Hub lays the foundation for a truly thoughtful home.

Please visit our updated online store to see the full details, pricing and availability

The new Google devices fit perfectly with the rest of our family of products, including Nest, which joined the Google hardware family at the beginning of this year. Together with Nest, we’re pursuing our shared vision of a thoughtful home that isn’t just smart, it’s also helpful and simple enough for everyone to set up and use. It's technology designed for the way you live.

Ivy Ross + Hardware Design

Our goal with these new products, as always, is to create something that serves a purpose in people’s lives—products that are so useful they make people wonder how they ever lived without them. The simple yet beautiful design of these new devices continues to bring the smarts of the technology to the forefront, while providing people with a bold piece of hardware.

Our guiding principle

Google's guiding principle is the same as it’s been for 20 years—to respect our users and put them first. We feel a deep responsibility to provide you with a helpful, personal Google experience, and that guides the work we do in three very specific ways:

  • First, we want to provide you with an experience that is unique to you. Just like Google is organizing the world’s information, the combination of AI, software and hardware can organize your information—and help out with the things you want to get done. The Google Assistant is the best expression of this, and it’s always available when, where, and however you need it.

  • Second, we’re committed to the security of our users. We need to offer simple, powerful ways to safeguard your devices. We’ve integrated Titan™ Security, the system we built for Google, into our new mobile devices. Titan™ Security protects your most sensitive on-device data by securing your lock screen and strengthening disk encryption.

  • Third, we want to make sure you’re in control of your digital wellbeing. From our research, 72 percent of our users are concerned about the amount of time people spend using tech. We take this very seriously and have developed new tools that make people’s lives easier and cut back on distractions.

A few new things made by Google

With these Made by Google devices, our goal is to provide radically helpful solutions. While it’s early in the journey, we’re taking an end-to-end approach to consumer technology that merges our most innovative AI with intuitive software and powerful hardware. Ultimately, we want to help you do more with your days while doing less with your tech—so you can focus on what matters most.

Read the whole story
zippy72
23 days ago
reply
“There’s a clear line from the technology we were working on 20 years ago to the technology we’re developing today—“ from utopian visions to assisting authoritarian regimes implement a surveillance police state. FTFY
FourSquare, qv
freeAgent
23 days ago
Hey, they did say that their goal is to provide "radically helpful solutions". Doesn't the Chinese government deserve radically helpful solutions to the problem of citizens getting uncensored information and being able to have thoughts the government disapproves of without facing any consequences?
Share this story
Delete

We must stop allowing a minority of Brexit fanatics to hold this country to ransom

1 Comment and 2 Shares

As the Brexit negotiations peter out this week in Brussels, fevered Brexit fanatics – from Boris Johnson, David Davis and Jacob Rees Mogg in the Telegraph, to many others on Twitter – are ranting and raving about the most sensible thing Theresa May has done in two and a half years of Brexit negotiations by suggesting extending the transition period in an attempt at genuine compromise.

This would be a good opportunity to remind ourselves of some salient facts. These Conservative MPs are speaking on behalf of the hardest of Brexiteers, a collection of somewhere between 60-80 of the Tory MPs.

That’s somewhere between 60 and 80 MPs out of a total of 317 Conservative MPs in the House of Commons. And while having 317 MPs means the Conservatives are the largest party at the last election, they did not win enough of the votes to form a majority. Therefore, for all their bluster and bloviating, let’s just state clearly what the members of this small group are: they are a minority faction, holding a minority view, in a minority government.

Their claims to speak for the “will of the people” as cast in the EU referendum of 2016 thus grow weaker by the day. Time alone is a good enough driver of this – the actual vote on referendum day is fading in the historical memory. But more than this, the electorate is changing by the day. Polling points to increasing scepticism about Brexit and even just the straightforward demographics are telling. More and more people are coming of age, turning 18, becoming voters. And young people are the group most opposed to leaving the EU.

This is the real driver of the hard Brexiteer’s frothing, wide-eyed cries of betrayal and surrender: these MPs surely know that whatever appeal they had in 2016 is withering before the nation’s eyes.

Still squabbling

Nothing more quickly erodes public opinion of politicians than politicians fighting amongst themselves. And the Conservatives seem to be spending more time doing this than any other activity – such as, say, representing their constituents – at present. It’s all doubly distasteful when those doing the fighting claim to be spending all their energies fighting not for themselves or their ideological positions but for the will of the people.

Moreover, the most prominent members of this group only do further disservice to their long-term goals. Jacob Rees Mogg, no matter what levels of popularity he has in the Conservative party, is categorically not the future of a tech savvy, multicultural, diverse, post #MeToo Britain. That ship has sailed, and no amount of quaint caricatures of a gilded past can stop the move to a different kind of Britain envisaged by the generation now turning 18.

But beyond Rees-Mogg, the other figures do the cause no favours either. Johnson and Davies, both key architects of the vote to Leave, very publicly walked away from government and the difficult job of delivering Brexit when things didn’t go their way. In a time of national crisis such as this, this behaviour does not come across as a principled falling on their swords but rather as a desertion of a sinking ship.

In short, the hard Brexit wheels are coming off. We know it, the EU knows it, May knows it. And the reason the wheels are coming off is equally as clear: the Brexit that took shape out of the days following June 23 2016 was always, always, undeliverable in any kind of form that didn’t cause untold political and economic damage to the UK. This is particularly true in the matter of the Irish border. History will show that the lion’s share of the blame for the type of Brexit that emerged in those early days lies with May. Her quite frankly ridiculous political game playing, aimed at pleasing the fanatics in her party, created the red lines that have that run through the heart of this whole debacle.

But even she now knows that the tine for compromise has arrived. As in life, so it should be in politics – we compromise constantly in our private and professional lives: why should it be any different here? It seems May might be realising that, belatedly.

Sadly, she is hampered by the fanatics. And this is what the rest of us should be focusing on: how is it that a tiny handful of MPs holding a minority position in society – remember, 99% of the things they are fighting for in a hard Brexit were not on a ballot in 2016 (and indeed, many of them argued publicly against these positions) – came to hijack the political debate as a whole?

That worrying question has many answers – answers we need to address collectively over the coming years. In the meantime, let’s extend the transition period and give ourselves time to breathe as we reflect on how we got to this sorry state – and how we get out of here.

The Conversation

Andy Price does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

Read the whole story
expatpaul
32 days ago
reply
Therefore, for all their bluster and bloviating, let’s just state clearly what the members of this small group are: they are a minority faction, holding a minority view, in a minority government.
Belgium
zippy72
24 days ago
reply
FourSquare, qv
Share this story
Delete
Next Page of Stories