And the shitshow rolls on. Today, we have an immigration policy unveiled by the government that makes no sense, even on its own terms. They want say they want to prioritise for skill not salary, so that we can get social workers and health care professionals from abroad as needed. Okay, great. Except that salary is still going to be a benchmark and it will still be set too high for social workers and a lot of health care professionals to get visas. Yet do not fret, fair Britannia: Priti Patel was on the media this morning telling us to chill because apparently social workers will “obviously be valued”. So, for clarity, in spite of the system intentionally being set up in a way that will not allow the NHS to hire from abroad to fill certain key gaps because the salary bar is set too high to do so, the value of “value” will magically solve these problems. As usual, none of this has been highlighted by the political media who on one side are careful to cheer the government forward and on the other, want to talk about how intersectionality deals with questions of how hairdressers are a front for transphobia.
In the midst of all this fun, you might have missed this little news item: Tory MP Robert Halfon, who has had some decent ideas in his day and I don’t mean that sarcastically, has come up with a doozy of a terrible, awful idea that even in an age plagued with a glut of terrible, awful ideas manages to stand out as terrible and awful. He has suggested that we hold a nationwide referendum on the BBC licence fee. I’m not kidding. I know you’re now going “Stop making weird shit up, Nick, things are bad enough as is without you inventing weirder stuff. Satire is dead, don’t you know.” No, seriously, I even have to hand Halfon’s quote on the matter:
“They say that we own the BBC but we have no role in it. This would be about a democratisation of the BBC. To coin a phrase, it’s time for viewers to take back control.”
Oh. My. God. Yes, Robert because the last nationwide referendum we had worked out so bloody well. Really, to coin a phrase, brought the country together. I am now begging all MPs of all parties: stop trying to create more referendums. They are terrible, they are a shit way to do democracy, they should only ever be used in extremis and even then, with a great deal of thinking about whether a referendum is really necessary. Stop suggesting them! Now that the Tories have a comfy majority, the least I would have hoped is that we would see a return to good old fashioned representative democracy. You know, where the government actually decides things and then does them, as opposed to dithering over every difficult decision before wimping out and then holding a bleeding nationwide plebiscite on the matter.
Tories, listen: either keep the licence fee model that we have or get rid of it and go to a subscription model. I know which I’d prefer – the status quo – but I’m not in government, you lot are. Just make a decision and suffer the political consequences of it. And let’s not have any more referendums, please? On anything at all.
On referendums I disagree with you. I think they are a valuable political tool with the proviso that the issues are properly wrung out in the ensuing debates. With regard to the EU referendum of 2016, none of the sides would engage in an actual substantive debate on the matter. In fact, I recall Clegg’s disastrous performance during the TV debate with Farage. (No, I’m not a Farage supporter). Clegg effectively asserted the EU was a good thing because ‘Nigel Farage thinks the moon landings were faked. Nigel Farage thinks Elvis is still alive. Nigel Farage wants W.G. Grace to open the batting for England again.’
Farage didn’t even need to turn up. Clegg gleefully proceeded to machine-gun himself in both feet. So in 2016 all we had were Campaigns. The actual debate only started after 24 June 2016, and even then ‘Customs Union’ and ‘Single Market’ only became conscious and discussed issues around mid-September of 2016.
. However, in more recent years, the concept of the Referendum has not so much been undermined by the result, but the means by which they were held, and the reasons for which they were proposed.
https://www.thearticle.com/blairs-missed-euro-referendum-could-have-stayed-camerons-hand
Not trying to hijack your thread with somebody else’s blog, but this is a good illustration of how a promised (and it was ‘promised’) Referendum over the Single Currency was a sham from start to finish. It’s a bizarre article by Denis MacShane practically gloating on the matter.
Since the 90s, from the point of three parties separately promising a Referendum on the Single Currency, the use of the Referendum has been mooted by the main parties not to formulate policy, but to duck the public holding of an identifiable, attributable policy. Ashdown admitted that his own Euro referendum would be ‘advisory’ but would not publically discuss the term ‘advisory’. Promises of Referendums have been used to evade and avoid. To lie by omission. That Cameron forbade the Civil Service from even formulating contingency plans for a withdrawal vote should have been, and should still be a matter of grave public concern.
If by removing the Referendum from policy platform means that ‘X’ Party will candidly and openly disclose and discuss intent and future policy, and well in advance of an election – as a manifesto should do – then fine. But I remain to be convinced any of the main parties will do any such thing.
The actual debate only started after 24 June 2016, and even then ‘Customs Union’ and ‘Single Market’ only became conscious and discussed issues around mid-September of 2016.
What a vote to Remain meant and what a vote to Leave meant were defined by the government prior to the referendum (being the only body who could “implement what you decide”). Leave meant leaving the EU Customs Union and the single market. They communicated this through numerous media interviews and articles, the official booklet sent to every house, and in statements and answers in parliament. The remain campaign, Britain Stronger in Europe, concurred and both made the claimed disadvantages of leaving the single market the central plank of their campaign…
‘Brexit vote was about single market, says Cameron adviser’ [November 2016]:
http://www.politico.eu/article/brexit-vote-was-about-single-market-says-cameron-adviser/
Here’s David Cameron, at the despatch box on June 15th. 2016 in the last PMQs before the Referendum, stating what both a Remain and a Leave vote would mean…
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9BjtP00IRPA&start=2170
His earlier answer to Ruth Smeeth, then MP for Stoke on Trent North, regarding tariffs on ceramics confirmed we would also be leaving the EU Customs Union.
‘Mentioned’ is not the same as ‘Discussed’. David Cameron was in a position to talk about solely his own Government, which he promptly abandoned upon losing the Referendum – even having asserted prior to the vote ‘I will not resign’. (Yeah, right).
From that point on, no future Government was under an obligation to recognise what he asserted. In fact, very large numbers of MPs asserted they felt no obligation to recognise the result of an ‘advisory’ result in the first instance.
Had Cameron remained in his post your comments would hold the right substance.
Nick
You know what this reminds me of
1950s britain when nobody wanted to do the jobs like social care nursing or even driving buses
So what happened we had to dip into the commonwealth to make up the numbers
I think that good old liberal enoch powell was part of the government begging for labour from overseas
Now we have something similar in enoch 2 priti pitiless patel stating low skilled workers are not required in good olde england as there is a bank of 8 million natives waiting to take up the slack
Let the experiment begin
Labour need to get keir in as I see the economy crashing
I can really see the young British getting up at 3 in the morning to pick crops
Good luck