Westministenders. Boris, May and Judgement Day

[RedToothBrush]

Well its finally here. The day America changes forever. Good luck planet earth.

Our day of reckoning is beckoning too.

Tuesday is Supreme Court Judgement Day.

At 9.30 Lord Nueberger and the other ten justices will convene and he will read out their judgement.

Contrary to some suggestions this does not mean the decision is necessarily unanimous. It is normal for the Supreme Court to do this.

Nueberger will read any disagreements out as part of the judgment.
Their ruling will be far reaching in its importance however it goes.

A victory for the government will mean a50 can be triggered as and when Theresa May likes. That could be Tuesday afternoon in theory.

If it’s a victory for the claimants then things get much more complicated. It depends on how far the justices go.

It could rule that parliament need to vote on a50.

It could rule that the Great Repeal Act must be passed before a50 can be invoked.

It could rule that the Scottish and NI Assemblies must agree to a50 being invoked.

It could rule that the Good Friday Agreement must be resolved before a50 can be invoked.

It could rule that issues over acquired rights must be resolved before invoking a50.

It could draw other conclusions that we have not thought of.

A strong victory for the claimants could seriously hamper May’s plans for Brexit. Which is exactly why she has laid out her vision and has prepared the battle lines ready for her next round of blame laying.

None of this will be because the government has been short sighted.

If there is a strong victory, remember that May could have avoided the situation by accepting the High Court’s ruling in December that she needed Parliament’s consent to trigger a50. Anything more that makes triggering a50 more difficult is her sole responsibility and she had the power to avoid. Much of the right wing press will tell you differently.

We've heard so much about Hard Brexit and Soft Brexit. We should also talk of Democratic and Undemocratic Brexit. How Brexit is managed and how we conduct ourselves is arguably as important to the future as economics. It is right to oppose Undemocratic Brexit. It is important to make that distinction and all the principles that fall under that concept. What opposition there is need to get their shit together on this principle. Using patriotism to stifle this wholly wrong and unhealthy. Saying Brexit must happen no matter what, regardless of how bad it is and regardless of the cost is wrong.

Make the case for democracy. Keep talking about it. Talk about where it is failing and what we must do to strengthen it, not undermine it.

Here lies Labour's policy on Brexit. "We support Democratic Brexit which is the will of the people. This is how we define this. This is what is needed economic and socially." You can find the necessary slogans from this and start defining it outward from that. So far they have failed to capture this sentiment concisely into a soundbite that people can start to develop and push a left wing liberal agenda on their own terms from. Their PR is shocking and they are incoherent. May owned Corbyn at PMQ earlier this week on these grounds. This is not because they have been misrepresented by the press or been the victim of biased media. Its because they have been shit and have failed to set their own agenda and instead are dancing to everyone else's.

Here’s hoping that democracy will win through the challenges of the next few years. Democracy is about elections and referendums, but it is also so much more. It is about on going debate and the freedom of this debate, freedom of the press, a range of political parties and points of view, the independent judiciary, the right to oppose the state, freedom to exercise your legal rights, freedom of speech, an understanding of equality and an understanding and above all else - respect for of all of the above. It does not bode well that much of the right wing press and right wing politicians are telling us differently.

So much hope about our futures now rests with Angela Merkel one way or another.

Meanwhile Corbyn could face a major rebellion over a50 if he pursues a three line whip rather than a free vote. 60 - 80 Labour MPs are threatening not to tow the party line with shadow cabinet resignations potentially also on the cards.

Brace yourselves the roller coaster is just about to hit a one big drop.

I found this gave me some pause for thought End of era?

Particularly note the paragraphs about what is happening in California. How much it will translate to this side of the Atlantic, if at all, will be interesting.

Peregrina its a very nice blog.
I fully agree with him about the fact we are in the middle of some major changes and that we are struggling to navigate those.
I'm quit's interested by the idea that after Trumps (and May?), the backlash will be so great that there will be a turn towards the left again.
What sort of left would be interesting to see too (Not the Labour Party as it has been in the last 15 years at least)

And yes there is also the question as to how Europe will be able to manage that transition (it will collapse of it doesn't do that well)

It does give me hope though.

I am just not sure how that would translate to the UK. If there was a turn to the Left, I think it would be a different Left from that offered by Labour.

Ah, breaking news. Theresa May knew about the missile failure two weeks before the Trident vote. Who can trust May? But above all, couldn't their PR people have massaged her response a bit better? (Cynical, moi?) By refusing to answer she has left herself wide open to criticism.

May's credibility gets weaker by the day...

Bolshy my mp is the same, in fact he was very instrumental in getting the referendum in the first place. He is in a very marginal seat, less than 500 votes in it last time.

Peregina, some of that assessment about an end of an era I do agree with. But not all.

I do agree that Brexit and Trump are the last attempt to stop progress. Progress that can not be stopped. Rupert Myers was making a similar point a couple of days ago, saying that in essence its a Luddite movement.

The Revolution wasn't 2016. It was a symptom of the communication revolution that started in earnest 20 years ago. When I was studying it then, I studied whether there would be a revolution lead by technology and all but a handful of my peers didn't think it would happen as they didn't think that broadband would be adopted quickly or widespread enough. The few of us who disagree with them were already the ones who were making friends through dial up internet. We realised that there was money to be made through it, and that porn would probably be the thing that led the way.

My point is that the internet even then was not really taken seriously by academics and policy makers until much later. They did not lead the way, nor foresee its potential nor look at how it might impact on society and what those implications might be.

You can see it most acutely in the teaching of programming in schools is still shocking. DH's mum was teaching IT at A Level until about two years ago. She couldn't even use excel properly. Her students were getting good grades. DH couldn't comprehend it as his career is in IT. The vast majority of those in the industry are self taught. DH has found that though who do have a degree in Computer Science (and similar) have often been lacking in crucial skills and knowledge. Even now efforts to improve teaching of programming in schools is lacking.

The government are now only just being to catch up. Though the mere fact that Theresa May refuses to use the technology tells you so much. This is why I find her attitude to the democratisation of communications very alarming. She is still looking to reverse in by authoritarian means but the cat is out of the bag.

Parts of the internet are still very much the wild west, beyond the realms and scope of the law and populated by 'violent' individuals (even if just verbally). That isn't going to change. I don't see how this can stopped when those using the technology are three steps ahead of those trying to manage and police it. China hasn't managed it. Russia hasn't. One of the reasons Russia hates liberalism of the west so much is due to its inability to control the internet. This is why they have invested so heavily in cyberwar and the West has perhaps lagged behind on this due to lack of real investment.

Late last year there was a big drive to recruit highly skilled developers by British security forces and their contractors. The trouble is, not enough of these people actually exist! Not ones who are able enough. And the pay is frankly not enough to attract the best and the brightest. They remain in the private sector. Most people would be surprised and shocked at how vulnerable places you think are secure actually are. (MN included. Post hacking).

Government is behind and trying to learn how to manage this. They are clueless. The lack of comprehension is staggering. The Register, home of the geek, is today is carrying this article:
www.theregister.co.uk/2017/01/23/gov_to_sling_extra_47bn_at_rd/
UK.gov to sling extra £4.7bn at R&D in bid to Brexit-proof Britain
Ummm, good luck with that!

The other thing is the mindset and politics of the majority of most of the best programmers. They are overwhelmingly raving liberals. (See the Register). Perhaps more so than most of their generation.

The Digital Economy Bill, of what little I've seen of it, is not fit for purpose in lots of areas. I read a few section and then just gave up with my head in hands after reading the Lords Select Committee Report on it.

Until 'the dinosaurs have all died' out I'm not sure that technology will be properly understood by politicians. Its for those under 45 to build this future in time. It has always struck me about where the great divide in the Brexit vote is - its when the revolution started.

The trouble is, that we need society - and democracy - to survive long enough to get to that point. Trump does have the ability to stop things with the use of the religious right who are growing, rather than shrinking, in the US. Its a battle of religion v science, belief v reason.

In the UK we are not at the mercy of this as much due to religion having much less importance, but we do have the problem of how the US dominates others. Its a dynamic that could lead Europe to be in conflict with both Russia and the US for this reason. The use of language to describe liberals as the enemy is the concerning thing in this context.

well, de lurking to say thank you to missmoon - used her link to basically rant at my supine (Con) MP . Made me feel better at least.
back to lurking

Red:
It was a symptom of the communication revolution that started in earnest 20 years ago.
The birth pangs were being felt 40 years ago. I can give you an example - I was doing a Post graduate Librarianship course - we watched an audio visual presentation with rapt attention. Yet afterwards, each one, bar me and maybe one other, said no, this will never replace books. Their own behaviour gave the lie to this - would they have read a written handout with such rapt attention? No. Ditto with colour TV - library usage dropped right off for the leisure reader.

I abandoned librarianship and later worked in IT - as you say most of us were self taught. When google earth along, in the early 2000s what happened? People's 12 and 13 year old children started teaching themselves how to write KML files, to plot routes to their friends houses. Their teachers were left standing. It isn't just under 45s - Bill Gates spent hours programming in his own time.

google earth came along that should read.

I'm not sure the religious right are growing, Red. I've seen a couple of articles recently suggesting a drop in people identifying as Christian in the US e.g.
www.pewforum.org/2015/05/12/americas-changing-religious-landscape/

The drop is smallest in the evangelical church (normally the most right wing) but again, I've seen articles predicting bigger drops in attendance in the future as current trends suggest that the intolerant and highly restrictive doctrine of these churches is at odds with the beliefs and experiences of younger generations. I'll have to trawl Facebook for the relevant article!

Anecdata but this has certainly been borne out in my family. Parents and grandparents (those born 1920-60) are all very religious (baptist or evangelical). The younger generations have all drifted away from the church, even after VERY religious upbringings.

RedToothBrush I love your last post (23-Jan-17 12:48:44). I haven't got anything smart to add but having studied communication technology about 18 years ago i very much agree. For people like May and especially her generation coding is dangerous because they are unable to understand it and therefore unable to control it. It's a type of literacy they do not possess, and never will, which probably pisses them off no end, having been to grammar school and being part of the traditional equated elite and all.

There was a thread today on MN about robots and how smart technology is likely to undermine the value of 'biological' humans. If we are defined by our position in the labour market, what will we be worth when work is increasingly being done by machines, what will we be valued for? How will we earn our upkeep? The removal of human rights seems even more sinister in light of a future where human beings may just not be needed any longer.

*educated, not equated

Marking place. Thanks Red.

RedToothBrush - great post about technology and the internet and it reminds me of a generational gap that my DD (12) exposed quite neatly this weekend. She has an old school French teacher who regularly berates the DC for their terrible grades in tests, while routinely setting tests on things the DC have neither been taught nor could reasonably have been expected to know/prepare. This contrasts with the maths teacher and the history-geography teacher who, while asking the DC to use complex reasoning, never attempt to test the DC on things they cannot be expected to know about.

DD summed it up as - Mme B (French) doesn't use the internet and technology whereas Mme de L (maths) and Mme G (history) use it all the time, like we do. Mme B doesn't realise that we are far better trained in logic than she is because of our constant use of technology - she still thinks we are as ignorant of the ruses of adults as she was when she was a little girl.

One of the points that was raised when I studied this, all those years ago, was the idea of Digital Equality. How do you ensure that everyone has access to it. Points that were raised were older people lacked the skills and knowledge and were afraid to use technology, people living in poverty who couldn't afford the technology and rural areas which were less economically viable to connect to broadband.

Many older people have embraced the internet, but many have not.
People living in poverty perhaps do have more access with the invention of smart phones, but they were late to the game and are still disadvantaged in this.
And rural areas have been connected to broadband for the most part but still in many areas are behind with high speed broadband and this particular inequality is actually one of the subjects of the current Digital Economy Bill.

The early adopters of the internet were the professional middle class. I first had access through university - like many I know. My parents did get it shortly afterwards but because connection speeds were lower and because of the cost, had somewhat more limited access to when I could use it. (I have to say, that I probably definitely spent more time in the computer room at university than in the library).

I think it would be a very interesting piece of research to compare adoption times of the internet and ability to access the internet and how they voted in the referendum.

My hypothesis is that those who were in early adopting households and had better quality service provision are probably the most likely to be those who voted to Remain.

If that is indeed the case, then it actually would highlight a 'left behind' but in a very different way to the purely economic one that everyone knows.

However, it equally does not equate to a loss of value to local communities. It does not mean people are citizens of nowhere. There are plenty of other changes that have happened that make it much more difficult for people in this technology generation to 'put down roots'. Not least the cost of housing and increasing commuter times. Most young people from this professional middle class have had to be transient as they can not afford to stay where their parents live. They have had to move away for work and for housing and for education. The local community was unable to provide their needs.

When my parents moved to their current home, they were made to feel unwelcome by many of the locals. That attitude still is present in some of the community, although the area has become a area for commuters. If you haven't been there for forever, you face difficulty in being accepted - particularly in pre-existing community institutions. There is barely concealed hostility to new faces and change which has bugger all to do with immigration.

I do think that this same attitude exists in the home counties and also in provisional northern towns and goes beyond class lines amongst people who have been in the same place forever and a day.

Given that the future is inevitably set to be more of the same, the government should be leading by example, rather than blaming those who have followed the technology. They should be embracing it and promoting it. They should be leading by example. They should be encouraging more of the same and addressing the resistance to change rather than entrenching it. Entrenching it, is grossly unhelpful as it will hold us back. The government is actually taking completely the wrong approach.

This is quite apart from Brexit. Brexit just amplifies it.

I'm sure that a lot of kids that fail academically at school, could thrive if there was an imaginative approach to using the internet and gaming as a base for a skill that could lead to a highly skilled job which would set the UK apart from the rest of the world. Instead, we are looking at bloody grammar schools.

I have also emailed my (Lab) MP. I have received a reply saying that there isn't much the party can do before the Supreme Court verdict.
And there was me thinking they were the Opposition...we really need MN to produce an I-despair-of-Labour emoticon...

Wonder if it's helped yet another African country to show us the way to democracy through democracy: Gambia.

IT not it

I love your digital divide theory of Brexit, RedToothBrush. Now who can we ask to commission an appropriate Ipsos survey?

^Michelle O’Neill is speaking at a news conference in Belfast now.
She says that for being a Sinn Fein activist is a fact of life.
She says she will not let people down. She has learnt from the best, including her late father and Martin McGuinness, she says.
She says after the election there can be no return to the status quo. Sinn Fein will only participate in the power-sharing institutions if they deliver for everyone, and if people are treated with respect.
She says the election will be about citizens making a stand. The principles of the Good Friday agreement must be honoured, she says. She says the GFA and subsequent agreements must be fully implemented, not renegotiated.
She says the British government is on collision course with the EU. Sinn Fein will defend the right of people in Northern Ireland to stay in the EU through special status, she says^.

Mrs May is in Daresbury today to promote the country's industrial strategy.

That's fine. Daresbury has got lots of jobs and will be ram packed full of Remainers. Its also reflected in the house prices locally and most people who work there are commuters who travel in, often quite long distances.

Daresbury is served by a single bus in the morning (8.20) and a single bus in the evening (5.30pm) from the local town. That's it. If you miss you bus or have to stay late (which isn't an uncommon expectation) you are screwed. Copying Daresbury is fine, but it puts jobs in an area away from where they are needed most. It encourages more commuters rather than a local connection with where people live. Which is totally at odds with what May prattles on about. (and rather illustrates my point about changing society).

Add to this, that businesses have been moving out from the local town centre to Daresbury as investment has gone there rather than into the town itself and its infrustruce. The town centre has been struggling with being run down and the town centre has areas of high social and economic deprivation.

I don't see how models like this really help that particular situation. These businesses in Daresbury will be hard hit if tariffs get slapped on by Brexit. They have nothing to gain from Brexit and there is no reason why there couldn't be a new industrial strategy whilst remaining in the EU. Daresbury on the whole does not benefit the people who want to leave the EU. If anything it means certain jobs are even further away from those who are deprived and reinforces boundaries of social class.

Not to mention May is just repeating the almost annual trek to Daresbury by Cabinet Ministers and PMs. David Cameron and George Osborne have also been visitors in recent years. Its kind of tiresome. Its a pet vanity project, which was doing well before any of them were remotely interested by virtue of its location on the M56 and very close to the M6 (and M62). It looks good but its the exception rather than the rule for the NW.

Plus if they want to repeat this further north they are going to have to take a long hard look at the road and rail network. HS2 just doesn't cut it. It doesn't serve the provisional towns where the jobs are needed most. You can stick HS2 in, but then how do people get from the hubs to anywhere else? How does industry?

Its bullshit. Total bullshit.

I was an ICT adviser and inspector in schools from the late eighties and the digital divide was something on which we spent a great deal of time and effort. We tried hard to find ways to make ICT inclusive and to get resources into poorer communities. Sometimes we were successful, sometimes not.
We did teach some of the basics of coding using programs like Logo, but much of the creative stuff got swept away later with the dominance of Microsoft software, especially in secondary schools. It has always been very difficult to recruit outstanding teachers of ICT; there is more money to be earned elsewhere.
It is an interesting fact that many of the programmers and analysts of the seventies were women and it was only later that it became such a male dominated profession. I don't think some of the geekiness helped.
I don't really accept any particular historical date for a sudden awareness and understanding of technology. Theresa May may not understand how to use it but plenty of people of her generation and older certainly did and do.
In my experience the most important factor in embracing technology was always how open-minded and curious people were. If people wanted to learn then they did, if they closed their minds to the possibilities they got nowhere. It has never benefited from a top-down pedagogical model; the best teachers have always understood this.
So I think it is probably very likely that you could find a digital divide in the Brexit vote. It is likely to match the overall picture about educational attainment as well.

Yep, sounds about right, red,and I have north envy, want to return.

Meanwhile in HOC Mogg has asked for
The Commons is about to hear the urgent question on Trident.
Jacob Rees-Mogg, the Conservative MP, has just tried to get the Commons to sit in private, on the grounds that these are secret matter. There was a vote by acclamation, but Rees-Mogg’s motion was defeated.

It's so secret that it's on every news site round the world.

^The missile did auto self destruct off the coast of Florida.
Why were British people the last to find out?^ latest Labour question.

It's comparable to the crowd was big, no it wasn't .
The missile broke, we're not telling you.

Skinner: " How can the president of US, a man who is as thick as two short planks, be given the information that we are not?."

Michael Fallon is doing a debate on the Trident missile. Labour MPs are going nuts as Fallon has said not to believe everything you read in the newspapers.

Trouble is Trump has just said on CNN what apparently happened and said more than Fallon. Dennis Skinner has just asked how our nuclear deterrent can be independently functioning if Trump is spouting to the media about it but the British parliament isn't allowed to know what's going on.

DailySunday Politics ‏*@daily*_politics
"We don't comment on operational details for national security reasons" says PM "I have absolute faith in our independent nuclear deterrent"

Nope we have an American spokesman for that.