Thursday, 9 February 2017

The Remain Campaign should not have argued that the EU was what had kept the Peace

Leading up to the referendum on whether or not to leave the European Union, many on the remain side argued that the EU had kept the peace in Europe ever since its existence.  I feel that this particular argument should never have been used, and indeed, it was obvious to me that Brexiters were quick to take advantage of this obviously floored argument and ridicule us on the remain side.  The truth is that however undesirable we may feel the consequences of an EU breakup may be, a European war would never one of them.  Were those speakers and politicians representing us on the remain side seriously saying that were the EU to collapse, France would suddenly find itself at war with Germany again? I sincerely hope not; since anyone who can make that argument without questioning it would clearly need to think it through a bit better. If anything, the willingness of Western European countries to found and cooperate within the European Coal and Steel Community, along with its successor organisations, was caused by a collective desire to avoid war; not the other way around. In this blog, therefore, I will try to argue why I think European history since 1945 has been so comparatively peaceful.

100 years ago, Europe was in the middle of the First World War.  In many ways, not much had changed since the 4th Century BC when Alexander the Great was fighting the Persians. Whereas in that war you had two main Empires fighting each other for a greater share of the pie, in the 1910s, you had opposing Empires fighting each other for a greater share of the pie.  Wars were in no way a one off in the thousands of years before the 20th century, and even when they weren't happening, war was more often than not, in the air, with different powers most often viewing each other as rivals to be contained.  Today, the situation is totally different; the nation states of Europe now see each other as neighbors to cooperate with and not rivals to be contained.  Yes, arguments between neighboring countries do happen but they are no comparison in any sense; whenever, say, France and Britain have had a disagreement, it has been over border control at Calais and the Common Agricultural Policy; not over the Channel Islands or colonies in Africa.

That, I believe, is at the heart of it all.  Conflicts over territory are far less common in the world today than they used to be; territory is no longer something that you simply acquire, and with that, territorial expansionism, a leading cause of war, is (almost) unheard of.  But just why have our attitudes territory changed so much?  First of all, we live in a Europe, and a wider world, where the vast majority of countries are nation-states, and in Europe, for the most part, international borders reflect ethnic and linguistic countries.  Therefore, it doesn't make sense to go round annexing territory where the population is of a different nationality.  The belief in territorial self-determination has been critical, stating that the population of any given area should have the final say, meaning that traditional ways of acquiring territory, such as through marriage or conquest, are now seen as illegitimate.  This change, along with the related belief that all men are created equal, has replaced expansionist practices such as colonialism and Lebensraum.  Lebensraum, for example, was a German belief, that they, the Germans, were superior to the peoples of Poland, Russia and other Slavic countries, and that they therefore had to right to conquer and enslave them and steal their land.  It was perhaps the most important cause of WW2, and therefore its demise as an ideology, and of any similar expansionist ideologies, has made any kind of repeat of WW2 completely out of the question. The end of colonialism, in which certain European countries had large Empires on other continents, has meant that nations such as Britain and France have one less thing to fight over.  It is no coincidence then, that the demise of Empire and this long lasting period of Peace have come about at the same time.   Then of course, there is Constitutional Democracy and the fact that under such a system, governments can no longer go to war on a whim and expect their populations to unquestionably serve up.  The idea that Democracy brings peace is as old as Thomas Paine.  It can only be a good thing, then, that Constitutional Democracy is the dominant political system across Europe and the wider industrialized world today.  But in addition to the important political changes that have just been described, I also remember someone arguing on youtube that the post-war economic miracles that took place in Europe, South Korea and Japan, helped to prove once and for all that territorial expansion was not a prerequisite for economic expansion. Today, when countries do compete, it is to attract foreign direct investment, to get to the top of the PISA rankings, eetc, and to out-perform each other in ways that do not involve any kind of territorial aggrandizement.

 The three main Europe-centered conflicts of the Twentieth Century, the First World War, the Second World War and the Cold War, did a lot to bring about the conditions described above.  Not only did the first two show just how destructive war can be, and thus act as a deterrent against future wars, a notable achievement of the Cold War was that it served to further consolidate unity between nations which were on the same side.  In the West, the capitalist nations realized that they had to pull together and become allies in the face of the communist threat while in the East, the Red Army made sure that no conflicts broke out between the Warsaw Pact countries.  Thus, when the Iron curtain finally came down, the allied countries in the West, for example, were now so used to being allied with each other, that they weren't going to suddenly start fighting each other again, while more importantly, the factors described in the previous paragraph were now firmly established.

Thus, while I was a staunch remainer in the lead up to the referendum, and count myself as a pro-European even now (though I do accept the result of the referendum), I feel that it was neither wise nor correct for the Remain Campaign to go so far as to say that the EU was what had prevented war breaking out.  Such an argument only allowed Leave supporting politicians to get another chance at ridiculing the Remain Campaign, a chance which individuals such as Nigel Farage and Daniel Hannan most definitely took.  

Tuesday, 24 January 2017

Opinion: Britain's Pro-EU parties should change their tactics

 In the wake of the Supreme Court rejecting the appeal made by the government against the High Court ruling in 2016 (that Parliament would have to vote on triggering article 50 for it to be triggered), the Liberal Democrat leader, Tim Farron, has announced that the Liberal Democrats will vote against any triggering of article 50 in parliament until there is a 'vote of the people on the final deal'.  While I agree with the Lib Dems' stance in principal, it seems to be the case that Brexiters have been quick to portray the Lib Dems as negating the will of the people by demanding a second referendum.  Similarly, Plaid Cymru are campaigning to keep Wales in the single market, on the grounds that Wales sells exports more to the EU than they import (which they do), and similarly, Plaid are being portrayed by their critics as being anti-democratic, (despite the fact that notable Leave Campaigners, an example being Daniel Hannan, are recorded on camera before the referendum stating that an exit from the EU would not necessarily mean an exit from the Single Market.)  In this particular blog article, I will argue that both parties should have followed a different post-referendum strategy, namely one which would have denied their opponents any opportunity to portray them as ignoring the result:

While I supported the remain cause before the referendum, and sympathize with the above stances of both Plaid Cymru and the Lib Dems now, I personally would have taken a different approach since the referendum.  I believe that both parties should have tried to find a way of staying true to their internationalist and anti-Little Englander values without appearing to be ignoring the referendum.  They should have criticized the government, the leave campaign and UKIP for their ultra-nationalist, neo-imperialist and Little Englander attitudes, along with the incompetency of the government since the referendum, without publicly advocating any alternative policy which resembled ignoring the result:

For example, I'd have condemned Nigel Farage's speech in the European Parliament on the day after the referendum in which he arrogantly taunted the other deputies that they jolly-well ought to give Britain a preferential tariff-free deal, because if they didn't, the other countries would be hurt far more than Britain would, but that the other deputies wouldn't understand that because none of them had 'ever had a proper job,' for its naked arrogance and rudeness. Equally, I would have spent my time since condemning other examples of that 'Brexit attitude' by other Europhobic politicians.  I'd have criticized the comedy trip, on the 21st of January by former minister Owen Patterson and chair of Leave Means Leave John Longworth, travelled to Berlin, in which they tried to persuade German business leaders to lobby Chancellor Angela Merkel to give Britain a preferential free trade deal, arguing that the continent and Germany needed Britain more than Britain needed them, and described Britain as 'a beacon of open, free trade around the world' (despite choosing to leave the world's largest free trade area,) only to be met with 'sniggers' and 'audible mutters of irritation' from the audience. I'd have also criticized the comedy incompetence of the government, and any examples of that, but I would not have campaigned for anything which could be interpreted by their Brexit supporting critics, and by the public in general, as ignoring the result of the referendum.

The point is this: if they had criticized both the government and the Brexit politicians generally but not actually announced any alternative policy, they'd have succeeded at criticizing their opponents while not giving their opponents, or the public, as much to criticize them about in return.  That's better than coming up with policies, such as having a Second Referendum, or anything which appears to want to 'water down' the government's Brexit plans, which only allows the other side to label you (however wrongly) as undemocratic.  If Plaid and the Lib-Dems had, say, gone about condemning the attitudes and values of the leave campaign, and their displays of arrogance and parochialism, both political parties would have stayed true to their internationalist values, those being tolerance and respect for other countries, without seeming undemocratic.  That is what both Tim Farron and Leanne Wood should have done, and that's what they should start doing now.  Also, put it this way; both Plaid Cymru and the Liberal Democrats know that they are not going to be in government before Article 50 is triggered, so what benefit are they going to draw from announcing any alternative policies to the government, with regards to Brexit, anyway?

Sunday, 22 January 2017

The State of the Welsh Language in Ceredigion

Having just finished my one exam this semester on the 13th I thought that perhaps I could continue my blog 'series' on the state of the Welsh language and write one on Ceredigion.  So far, I have covered Gwynedd and Anglesey and given that Ceredigion is where I've been studying for nearly three years now, I thought why not?

The county of Ceredigion, located half way up the coast of West Wales and before 1974 referred to, in English, as 'Cardiganshire', is one of the four counties (by current boundaries) of Wales considered traditionally Welsh speaking.  Indeed, a majority of the population of the county could speak Welsh until as late as the 2001 census; 51.8%, although by 2011, this had fallen to 47.3%.  I, however, just like with Gwynedd and Anglesey, proceeded to look at the latest Estyn inspection reports on the county's primary schools to see what kind of percentage of children in the county came from Welsh speaking homes.  They showed that of Ceredigion's primary school population of just over 5000, around 26.6% speak Welsh at home.  

This did not surprise me.  Not only did I know that the 2011 Census had shown that Welsh was no longer a majority language here anymore, it was immediately obvious, of course, from the day I arrived in Aberystwyth, that Ceredigion was not Gwynedd and that Aberystwyth was not Caernarfon. Compare Ceredigion to Gwynedd, where, just under 60% of primary school children come from Welsh speaking homes, and a few questions and observations come to mind; mainly, why Welsh has survived so comparatively well in Gwynedd and and declined so much further here in Ceredigion?
All 47 Primary Schools in Ceredigion.  Dark Green = Above 70%
Light Green: 50-70%        Yellow: 40-50%
Orange: 30-40%                     Dark Red: 20-30%
Grey: 10-20%                Black: 0-10%

Before looking at the 'why', it is worth looking at the geographic distribution of the language within Ceredigion.  First of all, it is worth saying that 14 out of its 46 primary schools had Welsh-at-home majorities but that only 3 of these 14 were above 70%.   , Whereas in Gwynedd, there are large areas of that county where most schools are above 70%, in Ceredigion, no such areas exist anymore.
As you can see above on the right, however, 7 of those 14 Welsh-at-Home majority schools appear to be clustered in the countryside just east of the town of Aberystwyth, in the north of the county, perhaps indicating a genuine survival of Welsh as the majority home language in that area. Before we get too exited however, it is worth pointing out a few things.  1) None of these 7 schools are above 70%. 2) Those seven schools have an average pupil population of only 51.9, compared to an average size of 60.3 for WAH majority schools across the county in general and 133 pupils for non-WAH majority schools in the county.  3) While some of these seven schools, such as Ysgol Gymunedol Pontrhyfendigaid seem to be the main schools for their respective villages, and in that particular case the only school for miles around, others, such as Ysgol Gymunedol Penrhyncoch are dwarfed in size by nearby schools with much lower percentages from Welsh speaking homes.  One must wonder, therefore, whether the reason why there are nearby schools in the Bow Street-Penrhyncoch area which have such vastly different WAH percentages could be that a De Facto segregation system may have emerged there, with Welsh speaking parents and English speaking parents deliberately choosing to send their children to schools where the other children are of the same linguistic background.  

Some History
The obvious question to ask is, how far back do you have to go for Welsh to be predominant as a mother tongue in the homes and streets of Ceredigion? Until when did a majority of the county's children speak Welsh at home? Unfortunately, only the more recent Estyn reports on the county's primary schools are available online, and so the Census is what I have looked at, and in particular, the percentage of 3&4 year old inhabitants recorded as speaking Welsh at each Census, rather than the entire population.  There is however, a catch, which is this; as the census results across Wales show when compared to Estyn reports, we have reached a stage now where many parents register their 3&4 year old children as Welsh speaking merely because the latter are attending Welsh medium nurseries and schools, regardless of their actual home language.  That is why, for example, in the county of Gwynedd, the percentage of 3&4 year olds speaking Welsh was recorded at around 72% in 2011, despite only 59% of children there, according to Estyn, actually speaking it at home.    In neighboring Carmarthenshire, it is interesting to see that the percentage of 3-4 year olds speaking Welsh drops between every Census until the decade between 1981 and 1991, when it rises despite Welsh only declining further as a home language during that time.  I therefore assume from that instance that percentages for 3&4 year olds remain a mostly reliable indicator of home language until that period, and will therefore only look at censuses leading up to that of 1981.

% of 3-4 year old children able to speak Welsh
Change in % points per decade

      *Note that this is the drop between 1951 and 1931 divided by two due to there being no Census during the Second World War

I have to say that I was very surprised when I found these figures.  Contrary to what is widely believed, namely that everything was rosy in the Welsh Heartland counties until the 1960s,when incomers and retireers pursuing the rural idyll started arriving, these results show that Welsh lost significant ground in the county between 1911 and 1951 when the percentage of 3&4 year old children speaking it fell from 90% to 60% during those forty years.  The census figures for the overall population do well to hide this decline; the percentage of the overall population, regardless of age, speaking Welsh, only falls from 89.6% in 1911 to 79.5% in 1951, and then to 74.8% in 1961 and thus favors the view that the decline has only really happened in Ernest since the 1960s.

 What is interesting is that the decline  in 3&4 year old Welsh speakers appears to have slowed down significantly after 1951.  Why is that? Did the phenomenon, of parents reporting their children as Welsh speaking even when it wasn't the home language, start as early as the 1960s, or was there a genuine slow down?  We need not necessarily be suspicious, since, it could be that the drop between 1911 and 1951 represents a shift to English that only effected certain communities/areas of the county at the time, and that once they had been anglicized, there was a certain 'lag time' during the period 1951-1981 in which  Anglicization had temporarily stopped encroaching on new areas before a second wave of Anglicization impacted the rest of the county from the 1980s onwards.  That is indeed possible, since it is known that Welsh held out longer in certain areas such as Aberaeron, Lampeter and Tregaron than in other areas, most notably the town of Aberystwyth.  Unfortunately, we can't know for sure, since age break-downs for people speaking Welsh are not available for any individual district or parish (with a population below 20,000) beyond the census of 1921.

What about Aberystwyth?
Being both a seaside resort and a university town, its no surprise that Aberystwyth was the first place in the county to be anglicized.  What did surprise me, was quite how early it happened; by 1921, only 43.3% of 3&4 year olds in the town could speak Welsh, compared to 64.9% in 1911.  Another way of looking at it, however, is that Welsh managed to remain the majority home language of the town's children until 5 decades after the arrival of the railway, and 4 decades after the creation of the University College here.  Welsh also survived as the majority home language in Aberystwyth longer than in some other seaside resorts, such as Llandudno and Beaumaris, both of which already had less than half of their 3&4 year old inhabitants speaking Welsh by as early as 1911.  On the map above, one will notice a strong concentration of schools where fewer than 20% of pupils speak Welsh at home in the Aberystwyth area.

Conclusions and Questions
Thus, it is regrettable to say that Welsh is, unfortunately, no longer the principal home language in the county.  It should therefore be understood that for the 73.4% of primary school children who don't speak it at home, Welsh is a second language and not their mother tongue.  That is something that should be born in mind by policy makers no matter what future Census results state are the percentages of people able to speak Welsh.  So far,  the Census, which asks nothing about Welsh being the home language or one's mother tongue, appears to be the main sauce of information that the council, and other public and non-public bodies, turn to when drawing up their language analysis and plans.  Until a Census is taken which does ask one a question on whether Welsh is one's mother tongue, I do believe that the information I have looked at could be of benefit to anybody interested in the position of Welsh in the community, but then I would say that wouldn't I?

For any readers and certainly for me, however, the fact that only 26.6% of children in the county speak Welsh at home raises the obvious question; 'why?'  Why is it that in the northern county of Gwynedd, Welsh has survived as the home language for a majority of primary school pupils while here in Ceredigion, it has not? Not only do 59% of primary school pupils in Gwynedd speak Welsh at home, there are significant areas within Gwynedd where more than 70% speak it at home, notable urban areas, such as Caernarfon and Blaenau Ffestiniog where more than 80% speak it at home while there are some villages, such as Frongoch and Trawsfynydd, to name two, where more than 90% of pupils in their respective village schools come from Welsh-speaking homes.  In short, since Welsh has managed to survive so well up there, why has it failed to do so down here? Clearly, anglicizing influences such as Television and the Internet are not the main cause, since if they were, Welsh would have declined just as much in every home with a TV set and broadband connection.  As for the answer to that question, it will be interesting to see what you, readers, think.   

Friday, 16 December 2016

Merry Christmas to my Blog Readers

Having completed all my assignments this term and done some research for my dissertation, Christmas is now only singe-digits away and I just thought that I would write this blog as an early Christmas present to members of my family and my other readers.  I therefore hope that the content of this blog makes your respective Christmases all the merrier:

It was last Christmas, I think, when we were all, or rather, most of us were, lodging in this beautiful barn, when one member of the family argued that the countries of Northern Europe such as the Netherlands and Denmark, may well end up abandoning their national languages and adopt English as their new mother tongue.  Another member of the family told us, once (not at Christmas), that there were people in Germany who thought that the Germans may well stop speaking German one day and adopt English as their mother tongue.  In this blog, I intend to assure said relatives, along with anybody who happens to be reading this blog, that such a catastrophe just isn't going to happen.

The reality is this; just because a society, region or nation-state comes under the influence an outside language, and that language becomes a widely/universally spoken second language within that region/nation-state, it does not mean that the indigenous language has to disappear.  There are many examples of this.  Most speakers of Swiss German can also speak Standard German (the two being very different) as their second language yet that does not mean that Swiss German has to die out.  In fact, Swiss German has survived very well.  In the Baltic States and other areas of the former Soviet Union, Russian was (in some cases, is still) very widely spoken but the indigenous vernaculars there have not simply melted away.  In Prague under the Austro-Hungarian Empire, most Czech speakers in the city could also speak German but it did not mean that they had to stop speaking Czech.  Closer to home, in the town of Caernarfon in north Wales, English was understood by a majority by at least 1911, while 100 years on, the town is still very Welsh-speaking; in 2011, it was noted that Welsh was very much the language used by its secondary school pupils in the playground, while in 2016 it was reported that 90% of the pupils in the town's secondary school spoke Welsh at home. 

Thus, the presence of a widely/universally spoken second language does not mean that the indigenous language has to disappear.  In all the cases listed above, a knowledge of the widely/universally spoken second language was either advantageous or necessary and so no matter how important English or any other language becomes, I don't see said independent nation-states just abandoning their mother tongue.  Firstly, what would they have to gain? Nothing, because if they are already reaping the advantages of having high levels of English, what more do they have to gain? Unlike in the situations described above, languages like German and Swedish have full command of domains within their respective countries; Swedish is the language of government in Sweden and of the domestic media.  Immigrants and Refugees who move to Sweden tend to learn Swedish, and in fact, the most popular language in Sweden on the language-learning website, Duolinguo, was Swedish.  This was related to immigration into the country, as the article here describes.  Thus, so far, there is little sign that globalization is going to endanger the languages of said countries. 

Thus, the national languages of Northern Europe, are, in my opinion, not under threat and I am very happy to come to that conclusion.  I hope that you all are too, and I also hope that such a conclusion makes your respective Christmases all the merrier this year.  Merry Christmas, or as they say in Swedish, God Jul!

Monday, 5 December 2016

Census No Longer Reliable in Revealing the True State of the Welsh Language

Whenever I have read Welsh Language Policy documents produced by local authorities, other people's blog pages, books on the state of the Welsh Language or media by pressure groups (such as Cymdeithas Yr Iaith Gymraeg), I see that the Census seems to be the standard data that is used to study the state of the Welsh Language in any given area.  This is very unfortunate, since, the truth is that the Census has become at best inaccurate and at worst downright misleading when it comes to giving an accurate picture of the state of Welsh as a mother-tongue.
        That this is the case shouldn't be that surprising since as many of us will know, the Census question merely asks one if they 'can speak Welsh,' followed by similar questions on one's ability to read, write and understand it.  No question is asked on whether or not it one's mother tongue, or on one's level of fluency or on how often one uses it.  How then are you able to distinguish mother-tongue speakers of Welsh from second language speakers of varying fluency who may never have used it after leaving school? The truth is, you can't, and as a result, pretty much everyone from public policy makers to Non-Governmental Organisations (such as pressure groups) and individual enthusiasts are basing so much on information that is inevitably going to be misleading some of the time .
       Here are some examples.  The town of Dolgellau in Gwynedd is, according to the 2011 Census, 64.8% Welsh speaking.  One would guess therefore, that Welsh was the majority vernacular in the town.  However, the 2015 Estyn report on the town's primary school,  Ysgol Gynradd Dolgellau, indicates that only 25% of children there come from Welsh-Speaking homes, painting a completely different picture.  On the other hand, in Y Felinheli, where 64.3% could speak Welsh in 2011, 75% of children in the village's primary school came from Welsh-Speaking homes according to its 2014 estyn report.  The 2011 Census recorded that the towns of both Bala and Blaenau Ffestiniog were around 78% Welsh speaking yet the percentages of their respective primary school populations coming from Welsh-Speaking homes varied spectacularly.  The figures were, 54% and 80%, for Bala and Blaenau Ffestiniog, respectively.  (The figures for Bala, coming from a 2014 Language Impact Assessment Report, page 8)  I could go on, but you get the picture.
       Thus the Census can, and often does, provide a misleading picture of the state of Welsh as a vernacular in any given area.  Don't get me wrong, there is of course a correlation between the percentages of people able to speak Welsh at the Census and the percentage of people who are daily mother-tongue speakers but the former is no longer a reliable indicator of the latter.  This is more the case now than in the past, since the growth of Welsh Medium Education is producing more and more second language speakers of Welsh who will, of course, put themselves down as Welsh-speaking on the Census even if it is their second language and they may have never used it since leaving school. In addition, you have those who have learned it at school as a compulsory subject who are often not fluent at all while you also have adult learners, me being one of the latter.  When I took part in an Office for National Statistics survey this summer, I was advised to report myself as a Welsh speaker even though my Welsh, although improving is far from fluent (although I can assure you, I am trying!)
         It is worth stressing that the position of Welsh as a language of the Home in any given community, is noted as a very strong influence, if not the strongest influence, on whether or not it is used by children in the playground and the street; rather than merely the percentages being able to speak it .  Both a 2014 survey commissioned by Gwynedd Council and the language impact assessment referred to earlier point to the language's position in the Home as being the leading factor.
        There is no doubt in my mind, as you can imagine, that the Census questions relating to Welsh need to be changed in time for the next one.  There should be one question on fluency and another on whether it is one's mother tongue or second language and why not also have a question which asks Second Language speakers how often they use their Welsh?  Until a Census is taken with such changes made, I suggest that any individual or body interested in the state of the Welsh Language as a community language should use the percentages of children speaking Welsh at Home, provided by Estyn in their school inspection reports, as the primary Data to use, as that is much more useful in ascertaining the percentages of children being native Welsh speakers.   That is why, when writing my blog on the status of Welsh in Gwynedd and on Anglesey, I decided to use Estyn and not the Census as the basis for my research.

Friday, 2 December 2016

Richmond Park By-election: Congratulations to the Lib-Dems

This morning we heard the news that Liberal Democrat Sarah Olney had beaten Zack Goldsmith in the Richmond Park by-election which the latter had instigated over the government's decision to favor a third runway at Heathrow.  I, as you can imagine, am nothing short of thrilled that the Lib Dems won, as they are, I believe, the progressive and internationalist voice in British politics today.

 I am also very pleased that the other internationalist potential contestants, most notably the Greens, decided not to contest the election and endorsed the Liberal Democrats. Clearly, Zack Goldsmith deserved to be defeated as he had supported Brexit while his constituents voted overwhelmingly against it but most notably his unsuccessful mayoral campaign against Labour candidate Sadiq Khan did, it seems, play the religious card and its reputation as a highly amoral and reckless (given the current political climate, particularly for members of the islamic community in the West) campaign does seem to be well founded.  Thus, I am not sorry that he lost his seat.

Zack Goldsmith claimed that the by-election was about opposition to a third runway at Heathrow but it must be said that none of the candidates running in the by-election actually supported the government's plans for Heathrow.  The Conservatives (Zack standing as an independent)  did not even field a candidate undoubtedly because they knew that the Tory/pro-Brexit vote would be split and that the Lib-Dems would thus win by a huge landslide which they were clearly sufficiently scared about.  UKIP did not field a candidate either and of course, endorsed Zack.  Guys, there is no doubt that this was not a referendum on the expansion of Heathrow but on Brexit, and the Tories knew it as much as UKIP and Greens did.  Perhaps more profoundly, it was a contest between regressive nationalism and progressive internationalism.  

So what does the result mean?  The result is no doubt a statement from the people of Richmond, that the Tories can no longer count their remain-supporting urban bourgeois heartlands, at least in London, as safe territory anymore while they follow the path of the Nationalist populism which has swept across the western world.  It is a sign that, if the Tories abandon economic pragmatism in favor of such nationalism, then such voters may well abandon them.  If I were a Tory, I would be shaking in my boots.

And what about Labour? Unlike other parties on their half of the political spectrum, they decided not to pull out of the contest and instead fielded a candidate.  It shows that Labour under Corbyn, just like during the referendum, is only so committed to the remain cause and to joining the internationalist side of the ideological struggle across the western world.  In short, during both the referendum campaign and this by-election, the Lib-Dems put their heart and soul into the fight while have not done the same.  Now, of course, were Labour and not the Lib-Dems the main opposition to the Tories in this particular constituency, Labour may well have embodied progressive internationalism but the point is that this is an example of how shallow their commitment to such a cause seems, in my view.

Let's hope that this is not merely a fluke but a genuine trend.  If the Lib-Dems can win in hitherto Tory Richmond, then why not in Fulham or Kensington and Chelsea? I would also like to add that I would not be too sad if the Lib-Dems were to replace Labour as the main anti-Tory/UKIP party and I wish them every success in doing so.  I would however prefer it if they didn't do too well in the constituency where I am right now (Ceredigion) as they are the main opposition to Plaid, who I support and have even become a member of.  Either way, congratulations Sarah Olney and the Lib-Dems and good luck in the journey ahead.

Tuesday, 15 November 2016

Trump being elected President: My reaction.

I am sorry that this blog has come a week late.  My excuse is this; I was on a trip to Berlin organised by our University's history department, from the Monday to Friday of last week while since then I have had to complete two assignments.  Hopefully I can finish and publish this blog tonight, meaning that of Tuesday 15th of November.  

I think you can guess what my views on Donald Trump are, assuming that you have read my earlier blogs on Brexit.  Pretty much the entire world has said something resembling what I think about the President-elect, and so I won't waste too much time on regurgitating my mind.  I suppose the only positive is that it might reduce tensions between the West and Russia and bring the 'Second Cold War' to an end.  Given that it was reported that Russians were celebrating Trump's victory, my fingers are crossed that America and the West will no longer be the bogey-man in Russia's eyes.  However, that is seriously the only plus I can think of; a xenophobic demagogue who, as Michelle Obama has said, brags about sexually assaulting women is no joke when anywhere near power.  Threatening a neighboring country to pay for one's own projects (in this case, his wall) along with the unapologetic xenophobia of his rhetoric should have put off enough voters to make a Trump victory an impossibility but of course, it didn't.

Of course, Hillary actually received more votes than Trump.  As Wikipedia states, this is now the fifth Presidential election in US history where the candidate with the most votes actually lost the election. 7% of all Presidential Elections, according to CPG Grey.  However, if you only include the five Presidential elections that have taken place in the previous 16 years, we have 40% of such Elections resulting in the candidate with the most votes not becoming President..  And it's not as if such a discrepancy has effected both main parties evenly; in both cases, it was the Democratic nominee with the most votes and the Republican winning the Presidency and not the other way around.  Is this a coincidence? No.  Bear with me while I explain why:  In American Presidential elections, it is the Electoral College which elects the President, not the American public, while it is the Electoral College which is elected by the public on polling day.  Each state is given an amount of seats in the EC.  However rather than distributing the EC seats fairly to each state according to their respective population sizes, each state is given three seats to start with before the rest are distributed according to population size. This means that states with smaller populations are over-represented while states with larger populations are under-represented.   And, of course, because more thinly populated states and rural areas in general are more likely to be pro-Republican, and urban areas, pro-Democrat, the EC's misrepresentation inevitably favors the Republican party.  Thus it is no co-incidence that both George Bush in 2000, and now, Donald Trump in 2016, were both elected President despite loosing the popular vote in those two elections.

Thus, the Electoral college is, by design, not fairly representative, and in 21st century America, this favors one political party over another.  What, of course, makes it worse is that the vast majority of states have a Winner-Take-All system for Electoral College elections meaning that, if, for example, there are two candidates running in California, one only needs to win 1/2 +1 of the popular vote there to win all 55 of California's votes in the Electoral College.  If there are 3 candidates running in California, you only need 1/3 +1 of the popular vote in the state to win all 55 votes.  There's no other way of putting it; this is not Democracy rather it is indefensible

A better Electoral System For America
I therefore propose a better system for electing the President which does not involve abolishing the Electoral College: 
  • Each state would be fairly represented according to their population
  • Elections shall be by Proportional Representation so that if a candidate, say, gets 30% of the popular vote in California, he/she will win 30% of California's votes in the Electoral College, 
  • If no candidate gets more than 50% of the Electoral College votes nationwide, he/she will need the support of a fellow candidate with enough votes to get them over the 50% line.  Therefore, a candidate with 53% of the EC votes will need a fellow candidate with at least 7% to agree to endorse them, in order to become President.  
  • If the smaller candidate with, say 8% of the EC vote, feels that the candidate he has made President has not being keeping the promises he made to him, he can withdraw his endorsement at any time during the subsequent Presidential Term.  Should this happen, the EC from the last election will either have to either elect a new President within a certain period of time, or face re-election by the public.
I also believe that it is disgusting that Third party candidates are excluded from the Presidential debates.  Neither Presidential candidates from the Green or Libertarian Parties were allowed to participate on stage despite the fact that the were on the ballot in majority of states.  Any presidential candidate on the ballot paper in enough states to be available to a majority of American voters should be allowed to participate in the debates no matter how few or many votes they received at the last election.  Not allowing such candidates to participate is a blow to democracy because it keeps the American public in the dark about the choices available to them.    

        We can only hope for the best in my opinion.  I personally am trying to avoid thinking about what the consequences of his opinions and subsequent policies are going to be for relations between the U.S. and the Hispanic and Islamic worlds.  As one article I read put it, it would undo many ties of goodwill that the US has with countries in both regions.  I hope that whatever undesirable consequences there are, are, a) temporary, and that, b)people across the world know that most Americans did not endorse him at the election. 
        I mentioned at the beginning that reduced tensions with Russia might be the only positive result.  There is, perhaps, another, which is that NATO, which Trump has described as obsolete, might be disbanded.  My opinions on NATO are quite simply this, it is a Cold War relic that should have been done away with when Iron Curtain came down.  Since then, it's expansion eastwards has only antagonized Russia and I believe it is one of the, if not, the reason behind anti-Western sentiment within that country.  
         As I also said in the beginning, I was in Berlin right through the election. Whilst there, I read this article which argued that temporarily at least, Trump's victory could result in Merkel's Germany acting as the new 'leader of the Free World.  Or certainly, Germany would be the leader of the still Liberal countries within it.  I agree, and believe if there is one country that can play such a role, Germany is best for the job.  One only has to take a look at Germany's leadership role within the EU and equally towards the refugee crisis, or how stable the German economy has been relative to other economies within the EU.  Germany has become a land of opportunity, not just for refugees, but for economic migrants within Europe, and its importance is this regard is only likely to increase further with Brexit.  Germany, although without a 'Holywood factor', does appear to have influence in areas besides politics and economics; German TV series, such as Deutschland 83 and Unsere Mütter, Unsere Väter have proven popular in other countries, such as Britain.  German is the fourth most popular second language in the world on the popular language learning app, Duolinguo.  Not bad considering that Germany is a country with under 100 million people and without the post-colonial influence or organisations such as the Francophonie and Commonwealth that Britain and France have, respectively.  Germany certainly came across as a very pleasant and progressive country whilst we were in Berlin, and I see more people looking to Germany as a leader during Trump's presidential term.  In short, if there is any country which can be surrogate America while Trump is serving as President, that country is Germany.