It is very difficult to define what democracy means. It comes in all shapes and forms. We would love to believe that America is a democracy and the UK is also a democracy. In fact, it is not a black and white thing - it has different shades of meaning to it. A lot of people lament that democracy in America is dead, because they have got a new president in Donald Trump. They believe that the very fact that he has been elected the new president is sufficient to prove democracy is not working.
Obviously, without first defining what democracy means before going into all sorts of problems with democracy (whatever that term means) is futile and probably not worth your time reading this article. Loosely, I think democracy can be said to be a political system in which people can freely vote and elect to be voted to public office without hindrance. The voting system itself must be fair meaning one person one vote and each vote carries the same weight. According to these principles, democracy is not a point but a spectrum.
For example, the US system would fail these principles. Clinton won the popular votes but lost the collegial votes due to the fact that the presidential election is not a direct one. Therefore, each vote in a smaller state would often carry more weight than one in a bigger state, say California. This compromise is built-in in the US system so that smaller states would still have a say in the Federation.
Apart from the fairness dimension of a democracy, any political system including democracy (no matter what that means) must be able to regenerate itself from time to time. Sadly, all system be it physical, biological or social will all become degenerate and corrupted over time. You may probably call it the second law of thermodynamics - all orderliness will become orderless over time.
After the election, we heard that Clinton was blamming the FBI and we-don't-know-what for her loss in the election. This reflects how detached the US elite of which she is a member has become over the past decades. Clinton lost because she ignored the unfairness and the injustice of the system which has made the rich richer and poor poorer. This only proves why she would never win this election in the present social context of uncontrolled globalisation which is the root cause of where we are at this point.
This is the beauty of the system - when someone so entrenched in the vested interest of the Establishment - the system will be forced to regenerate itself because they will be voted out of the office and, someone else would have a chance to start anew. Of course, they may not succeed where others have failed and they will also become corrupted in time before they are in trun being voted out again.
In short, Donald Trump as the new president is not itself a problem. It is only symtomatic of the underlining problems of the system. Trump was elected because the system is corrupted and people want to have a real change from the status quo. Ironically, this proves that the system is working, as it is trying to regenerate itself.
2016年11月10日 星期四
Where do we go from here?
It is tempting for us to predict what will happen in future. However, more often than not these predictions will later be proved to be wrong. Nevertheess, if we look from a distance and try not to pass the woods for the tree, we may be able to see things in their proper perspective. That said, how will Donald Trump use his powers and what consequences there will be for the world of his actions or inactions?
Again, if we get to the bottom of it, it is actually a problem of fair distribution of wealth and opportunity (or rather the lack of it). People have expectation that there should be a leveled playing field so that everyone would have a fair opportunity to succeed if they choose to work hard enough. Sadly, the reality is just the opposite and becoming more and more so. People are so angered and frustrated that they would have chosen anyone other than someone who is perceived as within the Establishment as the next president of the USA. It is really in this context someone so unfit for that office has been elected the next president.
Ironically, history will prove in the coming years that someone as unfit as Donald Trump would actually have turned things around if he would indeed carry his words into action. It sounds contradictory, does it not? When we say he is unfit for the office, we are thinking conventionally and presume only someone within the Establishment is fit for this office. Don't forget that the Establishment has grown so corrupted and detached from the people in the past few decades, it is precisely because Donald Trump is so unfit for the office that makes him fit for that office.
What is so interesting about the trajectory of human affairs and history is that it seldom develops predictably in a linear way. There is a real chance that Donald Trump - someone seemingly coming out of the woodwork - could make history. Don't forget that a lot of this uneven distribution of wealth and opportunity stems from the globalization of trade which has provided the capitalists with a system in which to exploit the labour on a global scale. Yes, the pie has got bigger but the Establishment has also grabbed a much bigger portion of the pie. People on the lower rungs of the ladder are left with ever less wealth and opportunity. A rising tide does not lift all boats, because the globalization of trade is not a rising tide.
The truth of the fact is that trade ipso facto is not good. There is a distinction between good trade and bad trade. Probably no one today would say slave trade is good. Slave trade is certainly good and profitable for those who trade in it. But it is not good, because it is not fair and immoral and inhumane. Most economists who are themselves also part of the Establishment would tend to blind us from this important distinction. They know the price of every thing but the value of nothing. Then, what is good trade? The trade that is fair and just and enhances the value for everyone involved in it is good. The current system of world trade is not. Therefore, it should be rolled back.
There must be a connection between the incomes of the labour and the profit of the company so that unscrupulous exploitation of the labour by the capitalists can be rooted out. For example, if the company that makes iphones must be made by law to return a certain percentage of the profits to the labour as part of their wages on top of what they have already been paid, the company would still be encouraged to make as much profit as possible. But, its employees would also benefit from the increased profit. This would take away the exploitative dimension of the company which has always been factored in its formula for making profit. This should be the case regardless where in the world the company chooses to make its iphones (just as an example) be it in China or the USA. If this percentage point is properly set, the company may indeed choose to make its iphones in the USA, because there is no exploitative dimension it can take advantage of the labour in China. More working opportunities will be left in the USA, hence a fairer distribution of wealth and opportunity.
Efficiency is only part of the formula; justice and fairness is far more important than efficiency itself. Efficiency is not an end in itself and must be made to serve justice and fairness. Efficiency represents the price of things but the true value of things lies in justice and fairness. If and only if Donald Trump sees things in the same light, there is a real opportunity for him to turn things around.
Again, if we get to the bottom of it, it is actually a problem of fair distribution of wealth and opportunity (or rather the lack of it). People have expectation that there should be a leveled playing field so that everyone would have a fair opportunity to succeed if they choose to work hard enough. Sadly, the reality is just the opposite and becoming more and more so. People are so angered and frustrated that they would have chosen anyone other than someone who is perceived as within the Establishment as the next president of the USA. It is really in this context someone so unfit for that office has been elected the next president.
Ironically, history will prove in the coming years that someone as unfit as Donald Trump would actually have turned things around if he would indeed carry his words into action. It sounds contradictory, does it not? When we say he is unfit for the office, we are thinking conventionally and presume only someone within the Establishment is fit for this office. Don't forget that the Establishment has grown so corrupted and detached from the people in the past few decades, it is precisely because Donald Trump is so unfit for the office that makes him fit for that office.
What is so interesting about the trajectory of human affairs and history is that it seldom develops predictably in a linear way. There is a real chance that Donald Trump - someone seemingly coming out of the woodwork - could make history. Don't forget that a lot of this uneven distribution of wealth and opportunity stems from the globalization of trade which has provided the capitalists with a system in which to exploit the labour on a global scale. Yes, the pie has got bigger but the Establishment has also grabbed a much bigger portion of the pie. People on the lower rungs of the ladder are left with ever less wealth and opportunity. A rising tide does not lift all boats, because the globalization of trade is not a rising tide.
The truth of the fact is that trade ipso facto is not good. There is a distinction between good trade and bad trade. Probably no one today would say slave trade is good. Slave trade is certainly good and profitable for those who trade in it. But it is not good, because it is not fair and immoral and inhumane. Most economists who are themselves also part of the Establishment would tend to blind us from this important distinction. They know the price of every thing but the value of nothing. Then, what is good trade? The trade that is fair and just and enhances the value for everyone involved in it is good. The current system of world trade is not. Therefore, it should be rolled back.
There must be a connection between the incomes of the labour and the profit of the company so that unscrupulous exploitation of the labour by the capitalists can be rooted out. For example, if the company that makes iphones must be made by law to return a certain percentage of the profits to the labour as part of their wages on top of what they have already been paid, the company would still be encouraged to make as much profit as possible. But, its employees would also benefit from the increased profit. This would take away the exploitative dimension of the company which has always been factored in its formula for making profit. This should be the case regardless where in the world the company chooses to make its iphones (just as an example) be it in China or the USA. If this percentage point is properly set, the company may indeed choose to make its iphones in the USA, because there is no exploitative dimension it can take advantage of the labour in China. More working opportunities will be left in the USA, hence a fairer distribution of wealth and opportunity.
Efficiency is only part of the formula; justice and fairness is far more important than efficiency itself. Efficiency is not an end in itself and must be made to serve justice and fairness. Efficiency represents the price of things but the true value of things lies in justice and fairness. If and only if Donald Trump sees things in the same light, there is a real opportunity for him to turn things around.
2016年7月28日 星期四
The next president
The show thus far of the race for the White House has certainly taken an ugly turn. The man best qualified for the post has dropped out of the race - Bernie Sanders. He is best qualified, because it appears that amongst all the candidates only Sanders is willing to bring some real change to the country and take on the establishment. There is evidence that at least partly due to the Democratic Party's rigged internal system Sanders is now not on the Democrats' ticket.
Now we are left with these two people on offer - Hilary Clinton on the left and Donald Trump on the right. This is truely a choice of the lesser of two evils. Voters who are old enough would still have difficulties in recalling when it was the last time that they were faced with such a hard choice.
To understand why this is a hard choice, one must first have a grip on the current problems of the country. Obviously, there are many social problems facing society today. To name just a few - poverty, inequality, gun control, security. However, one must not lose sight of the root cause to all these social problems facing the country, and more broadly the world today, i.e. globalisation.
Understandably, not everyone share the above view of globalisation. There are many who have benefited from it the last three decades. The problem is there are many more who are left behind and outside the door of globalisation. Inequality is the issue.
Back to our original issue. Who should you vote for, Clinton or Trump? The voters can only take their decision on the basis of what these two people have said and done in the past. First, Clinton is an insider through and through. She has been there for too long (read this as too intertwined with the vested interest of the establishment) to be able to bring any change. It's all business as usual for Clinton no matter what rhetoric she uses.
Next come Trump. A man who has a proven track record of labour exploitation, and relentless business dealings. He is a man who would say anything to get what he wants (read this as he has no principles and no ideology). Whatever later turns out to suit his best interest at the time, he would go back on his words without hesitation. You cannot trust this man for a single second, because he is trying to figure out every second how to make use of you.
Obviously, voters may also consider voting the Liberals or the Greens or not at all. If there are enough voters who decide to vote say the Greens, they may actually create enough momentum to bring about some real change to the present corrupted system. The problem though is it is a two party system and, any candidate from other than the two main parties stands a slim chance of being elected.
Come November this year, if you still care enough to vote my advice to you is - hold your nose and vote for Trump. Yes, he still is an invertebrate liar. However, hopefully the checks and balances in the ssytem will limit whatever damage he may be able to wreak. If he becomes the president, his business instincts would tell him that it works for him with his tactics. Don't forget - he is an unprincipled bloke. He would say whatever no matter he means it or not to get what he wants. But when it comes to reality, he would always take what's best for him, and by extension hopefully for the country.
Yes, indeed this is an interesting ride from now to November this year. Let the show roll on.
Now we are left with these two people on offer - Hilary Clinton on the left and Donald Trump on the right. This is truely a choice of the lesser of two evils. Voters who are old enough would still have difficulties in recalling when it was the last time that they were faced with such a hard choice.
To understand why this is a hard choice, one must first have a grip on the current problems of the country. Obviously, there are many social problems facing society today. To name just a few - poverty, inequality, gun control, security. However, one must not lose sight of the root cause to all these social problems facing the country, and more broadly the world today, i.e. globalisation.
Understandably, not everyone share the above view of globalisation. There are many who have benefited from it the last three decades. The problem is there are many more who are left behind and outside the door of globalisation. Inequality is the issue.
Back to our original issue. Who should you vote for, Clinton or Trump? The voters can only take their decision on the basis of what these two people have said and done in the past. First, Clinton is an insider through and through. She has been there for too long (read this as too intertwined with the vested interest of the establishment) to be able to bring any change. It's all business as usual for Clinton no matter what rhetoric she uses.
Next come Trump. A man who has a proven track record of labour exploitation, and relentless business dealings. He is a man who would say anything to get what he wants (read this as he has no principles and no ideology). Whatever later turns out to suit his best interest at the time, he would go back on his words without hesitation. You cannot trust this man for a single second, because he is trying to figure out every second how to make use of you.
Obviously, voters may also consider voting the Liberals or the Greens or not at all. If there are enough voters who decide to vote say the Greens, they may actually create enough momentum to bring about some real change to the present corrupted system. The problem though is it is a two party system and, any candidate from other than the two main parties stands a slim chance of being elected.
Come November this year, if you still care enough to vote my advice to you is - hold your nose and vote for Trump. Yes, he still is an invertebrate liar. However, hopefully the checks and balances in the ssytem will limit whatever damage he may be able to wreak. If he becomes the president, his business instincts would tell him that it works for him with his tactics. Don't forget - he is an unprincipled bloke. He would say whatever no matter he means it or not to get what he wants. But when it comes to reality, he would always take what's best for him, and by extension hopefully for the country.
Yes, indeed this is an interesting ride from now to November this year. Let the show roll on.
2016年7月27日 星期三
An autocracy's dilemma
A classic difficulty for any system is control and efficiency - the more control one has the less efficient will be the system. This is a millenia old dilema for any political system as well. There is a tendency for a part of the society that is lucky enough to rise up to the highest political echelon to retain that control as much as and as long as possible. A particular example is the Chinese Communist Party in the present day China.
The dilema lies in the unsolvable difficulty in maintaining control over the system and keeping up with the efficiency of the system itself. As with other systems in general, a political system in order to survive must tackle with and solve the issue of economic efficiency of the system, i.e. the society over which it tries to maintain constant control. Without a sufficent level of economic efficiency, the marginal return on investment will stagnate and eventually diminish. Society as a whole will not be able to remain its productivity as a result of the lack of efficiency.
To keep up with that ellusive economic efficiency, an autocracy must loosen up its grips on the system economically at first and, subsequently up to certain point politically. However, the process of lossening up will undermine its much treasured control of the system. This would inevitably lead to the opening up of the political system, as in the case of Taiwan, or the demise of the antocratic regime itself. The CCP is presently subject to the dictates of its survival instincts - that is it is trying to retain its control and stifle any discontent as much as possible.
In doing so, the system itself would gradually become less and less efficient. The evidence for this is apparently the building up of the debt heaps. Now that the system is becoming less efficient, the autocratic control over it will become more difficult. The reason for this problem is - the energy of society which would have been diverted to economic activities would now be used against the very autocratic regime itself. As a result, more resources of the society will be used by the regime to maintain its control over the system, hence worsening the efficiency even further. A good example is the five-cents army of the CCP.
The other option for the autocrat will be to forego its control at all whatsoever. This is truely a choice between a rock and a hard place. The fact that the ruling echelon may continue to suck up the fats of the land is predicate upon the fact that, for example, the CCP continue to dictate the lives of billions of Chinese people. This is simply not an option open to them.
Historically, there has been no autocratic one-party system that has succeeded in solving this dilema between control and efficiency. The former Soviet Union is a good example. All the Chinese dynasties have been in a sense one-party systems and have all failed in the same way spectacularly. Therefore, at some point of its development the tension between control and efficiency would grow so severe as to break up the very fibrics of the autocrat's control once and for all. An autocratic system is indeed a very undesirable model for progress of civilization, because it lacks any linearity for progress. An autocratic system will inevitably make and then break and repeat the process again by another bunch of blokes.
The beauty of this dilema is so clear that it is almost as inherent in the nature of things as a physical law. All are subject to the dictates and effect of this dilema be it democracy or autocracy.
The dilema lies in the unsolvable difficulty in maintaining control over the system and keeping up with the efficiency of the system itself. As with other systems in general, a political system in order to survive must tackle with and solve the issue of economic efficiency of the system, i.e. the society over which it tries to maintain constant control. Without a sufficent level of economic efficiency, the marginal return on investment will stagnate and eventually diminish. Society as a whole will not be able to remain its productivity as a result of the lack of efficiency.
To keep up with that ellusive economic efficiency, an autocracy must loosen up its grips on the system economically at first and, subsequently up to certain point politically. However, the process of lossening up will undermine its much treasured control of the system. This would inevitably lead to the opening up of the political system, as in the case of Taiwan, or the demise of the antocratic regime itself. The CCP is presently subject to the dictates of its survival instincts - that is it is trying to retain its control and stifle any discontent as much as possible.
In doing so, the system itself would gradually become less and less efficient. The evidence for this is apparently the building up of the debt heaps. Now that the system is becoming less efficient, the autocratic control over it will become more difficult. The reason for this problem is - the energy of society which would have been diverted to economic activities would now be used against the very autocratic regime itself. As a result, more resources of the society will be used by the regime to maintain its control over the system, hence worsening the efficiency even further. A good example is the five-cents army of the CCP.
The other option for the autocrat will be to forego its control at all whatsoever. This is truely a choice between a rock and a hard place. The fact that the ruling echelon may continue to suck up the fats of the land is predicate upon the fact that, for example, the CCP continue to dictate the lives of billions of Chinese people. This is simply not an option open to them.
Historically, there has been no autocratic one-party system that has succeeded in solving this dilema between control and efficiency. The former Soviet Union is a good example. All the Chinese dynasties have been in a sense one-party systems and have all failed in the same way spectacularly. Therefore, at some point of its development the tension between control and efficiency would grow so severe as to break up the very fibrics of the autocrat's control once and for all. An autocratic system is indeed a very undesirable model for progress of civilization, because it lacks any linearity for progress. An autocratic system will inevitably make and then break and repeat the process again by another bunch of blokes.
The beauty of this dilema is so clear that it is almost as inherent in the nature of things as a physical law. All are subject to the dictates and effect of this dilema be it democracy or autocracy.
An autocracy's dilemma
A classic difficulty for any system is control and efficiency - the more control one has the less efficient will be the system. This is a millenia old dilema for any political system as well. There is a tendency for a part of the society that is lucky enough to rise up to the highest political echelon to retain that control as much as and as long as possible. A particular example is the Chinese Communist Party in the present day China.
The dilema lies in the unsolvable difficulty in maintaining control over the system and keeping up with the efficiency of the system itself. As with other systems in general, a political system in order to survive must tackle with and solve the issue of economic efficiency of the system, i.e. the society over which it tries to maintain constant control. Without a sufficent level of economic efficiency, the marginal return on investment will stagnate and eventually diminish. Society as a whole will not be able to remain its productivity as a result of the lack of efficiency.
To keep up with that ellusive economic efficiency, an autocracy must loosen up its grips on the system economically at first and, subsequently up to certain point politically. However, the process of lossening up will undermine its much treasured control of the system. This would inevitably lead to the opening up of the political system, as in the case of Taiwan, or the demise of the antocratic regime itself. The CCP is presently subject to the dictates of its survival instincts - that is it is trying to retain its control and stifle any discontent as much as possible.
In doing so, the system itself would gradually become less and less efficient. The evidence for this is apparently the building up of the debt heaps. Now that the system is becoming less efficient, the autocratic control over it will become more difficult. The reason for this problem is - the energy of society which would have been diverted to economic activities would now be used against the very autocratic regime itself. As a result, more resources of the society will be used by the regime to maintain its control over the system, hence worsening the efficiency even further. A good example is the five-cents army of the CCP.
The other option for the autocrat will be to forego its control at all whatsoever. This is truely a choice between a rock and a hard place. The fact that the ruling echelon may continue to suck up the fats of the land is predicate upon the fact that, for example, the CCP continue to dictate the lives of billions of Chinese people. This is simply not an option open to them.
Historically, there has been no autocratic one-party system that has succeeded in solving this dilema between control and efficiency. The former Soviet Union is a good example. All the Chinese dynasties have been in a sense one-party systems and have all failed in the same way spectacularly. Therefore, at some point of its development the tension between control and efficiency would grow so severe as to break up the very fibrics of the autocrat's control once and for all. An autocratic system is indeed a very undesirable model for progress of civilization, because it lacks any linearity for progress. An autocratic system will inevitably make and then break and repeat the process again by another bunch of blokes.
The beauty of this dilema is so clear that it is almost as inherent in the nature of things as a physical law. All are subject to the dictates and effect of this dilema be it democracy or autocracy.
The dilema lies in the unsolvable difficulty in maintaining control over the system and keeping up with the efficiency of the system itself. As with other systems in general, a political system in order to survive must tackle with and solve the issue of economic efficiency of the system, i.e. the society over which it tries to maintain constant control. Without a sufficent level of economic efficiency, the marginal return on investment will stagnate and eventually diminish. Society as a whole will not be able to remain its productivity as a result of the lack of efficiency.
To keep up with that ellusive economic efficiency, an autocracy must loosen up its grips on the system economically at first and, subsequently up to certain point politically. However, the process of lossening up will undermine its much treasured control of the system. This would inevitably lead to the opening up of the political system, as in the case of Taiwan, or the demise of the antocratic regime itself. The CCP is presently subject to the dictates of its survival instincts - that is it is trying to retain its control and stifle any discontent as much as possible.
In doing so, the system itself would gradually become less and less efficient. The evidence for this is apparently the building up of the debt heaps. Now that the system is becoming less efficient, the autocratic control over it will become more difficult. The reason for this problem is - the energy of society which would have been diverted to economic activities would now be used against the very autocratic regime itself. As a result, more resources of the society will be used by the regime to maintain its control over the system, hence worsening the efficiency even further. A good example is the five-cents army of the CCP.
The other option for the autocrat will be to forego its control at all whatsoever. This is truely a choice between a rock and a hard place. The fact that the ruling echelon may continue to suck up the fats of the land is predicate upon the fact that, for example, the CCP continue to dictate the lives of billions of Chinese people. This is simply not an option open to them.
Historically, there has been no autocratic one-party system that has succeeded in solving this dilema between control and efficiency. The former Soviet Union is a good example. All the Chinese dynasties have been in a sense one-party systems and have all failed in the same way spectacularly. Therefore, at some point of its development the tension between control and efficiency would grow so severe as to break up the very fibrics of the autocrat's control once and for all. An autocratic system is indeed a very undesirable model for progress of civilization, because it lacks any linearity for progress. An autocratic system will inevitably make and then break and repeat the process again by another bunch of blokes.
The beauty of this dilema is so clear that it is almost as inherent in the nature of things as a physical law. All are subject to the dictates and effect of this dilema be it democracy or autocracy.
2016年7月8日 星期五
A mid-summer night's walk
A mid-summer night's walk
On once familiar path
To places long last passed
Vivid images reflected 'long the way
Old melodies reverb'rated all over 'gain
On the journey of life we march
Holding onto the remains of past
Which is slippin' 'way fast
It's yesterday once mo' 'n' future no mo'
~ In memory of the death of my past
On once familiar path
To places long last passed
Vivid images reflected 'long the way
Old melodies reverb'rated all over 'gain
On the journey of life we march
Holding onto the remains of past
Which is slippin' 'way fast
It's yesterday once mo' 'n' future no mo'
~ In memory of the death of my past
2016年7月1日 星期五
The next PM
Who should be the next PM? For a start, the next PM will come from the Conservatives, unless the the Conservatives decide to call a general election. Of course, given the present divided state we find the Labours in, they may not want one at this point, either.
Since the now famous Article 50 sets out the two year period in which the exit mechanism shall be completed, the new PM has to be someone who can unite not just a divided Conservative Party but also a disunited country in a relatively short span of time.
As the votes show, the leave supporters are roughly similar in number as the remain supporters. I reckon that nation wide there may be slightly more people in the remain camp than the leave camp. If that was not true before 23 July 2016, it certainly is the case now.
What this will mean to the new PM is from whichever camp she (yes, I mean she.) is to be selected, about half the country's population in the opposite camp may distrust her as well as those in the Tories. Without this trust and confidence, it would be hard for her to negotiate any new terms with the EU.
Say, if a leaver (if this is a proper term) becomes the next PM, the vindictive Europeans may tend to make it hard on the UK when it comes to negotiating new terms. Those in the remain camp may resort to foot dragging creating more difficulties and say we told you so before.
Bo Jo may have sensed this difficulties and realised that the water is still too shallow for a full plunge at this point. In any event, Bo Jo should probably never see his days as a PM. I confess that I am not a great fan of his. I do not admire his hairdo (if indeed this is a proper word). I suspect that it is not even naturally blond and someone should help him comb his hair if he is not minded to do so. Anyway, at this point he is perceived as having stabbed David Cameron in the back. His political allies may not forget and forgive Bo Jo so lightly. He is cunning enough to pull out now and bid his time.
That said, it may be more advisable to have a remainer (again my apologies for this term) as the next PM. She would probably receive more sympathy from the Europeans on negotiating new terms and understanding or benefit of doubt from either camp.
I just hope the UK will not see another Maggie Thatcher whose policies till towards the rich and have made the poor miserable. In short, this is indeed uncertain times. Just when the UK needs to have the most capable leader at the helm to steer the country out of troubled waters, it finds itself lacking exactly this.
Since the now famous Article 50 sets out the two year period in which the exit mechanism shall be completed, the new PM has to be someone who can unite not just a divided Conservative Party but also a disunited country in a relatively short span of time.
As the votes show, the leave supporters are roughly similar in number as the remain supporters. I reckon that nation wide there may be slightly more people in the remain camp than the leave camp. If that was not true before 23 July 2016, it certainly is the case now.
What this will mean to the new PM is from whichever camp she (yes, I mean she.) is to be selected, about half the country's population in the opposite camp may distrust her as well as those in the Tories. Without this trust and confidence, it would be hard for her to negotiate any new terms with the EU.
Say, if a leaver (if this is a proper term) becomes the next PM, the vindictive Europeans may tend to make it hard on the UK when it comes to negotiating new terms. Those in the remain camp may resort to foot dragging creating more difficulties and say we told you so before.
Bo Jo may have sensed this difficulties and realised that the water is still too shallow for a full plunge at this point. In any event, Bo Jo should probably never see his days as a PM. I confess that I am not a great fan of his. I do not admire his hairdo (if indeed this is a proper word). I suspect that it is not even naturally blond and someone should help him comb his hair if he is not minded to do so. Anyway, at this point he is perceived as having stabbed David Cameron in the back. His political allies may not forget and forgive Bo Jo so lightly. He is cunning enough to pull out now and bid his time.
That said, it may be more advisable to have a remainer (again my apologies for this term) as the next PM. She would probably receive more sympathy from the Europeans on negotiating new terms and understanding or benefit of doubt from either camp.
I just hope the UK will not see another Maggie Thatcher whose policies till towards the rich and have made the poor miserable. In short, this is indeed uncertain times. Just when the UK needs to have the most capable leader at the helm to steer the country out of troubled waters, it finds itself lacking exactly this.
訂閱：
文章 (Atom)