Red Cliffs Of Dawlish

Red Cliffs Of Dawlish
Red Cliffs Of Dawlish
Showing posts with label Question Time. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Question Time. Show all posts

Friday, 4 March 2016

The Leave Alliance: Sharing Knowledge

Rare Pearls are not found on the shore but in the depths of the ocean.

I was curious what the latest EU opinions discussed in the public forum might sound like, so watched the BBC's Question Time 3rd March 2016, last night. There were it seemed a little more actually serious questions about the EU this time around, in particular one about Democracy which unfortunately the presenter David Dimblebee decided did not have enough of a "discussion hook" in it to dwell on and moved onto taking more questions, understandably.

But this is a serious problem that is not recognized for what it is: FLEXCIT: Changing the Political Reality. Like seeing a clam shell and not knowing that inside it is a Pearl. Another notable comment was from the audience (most of the interesting things actually come from the crowd given enough of a chance to sample a large number and sift the productive ideas from the rest):-
"We Don't Know Enough?" 
In a previous blog this was pointed out back in other BBC productions on the question of the EURO or Europe: Decrypting: What is Babel-17? Interestingly, there was an extremely emotional lady who was aghast at the suffering of migrants in tents that took up a lot of time and due to the heightened emotional pitch even when the correct procedure provided by Dominic Raab was given it was largely not acknowledged or consolidated in those present that arguments had been advanced.

So we see that people often confuse themselves via tracking multiple different reactions, discussions and so forth in these debates. Bear this in mind for QT then multiply it up: Remember most of what the public rely on for the facts, as per the questioner is from the legacy-news media. They in turn provide information or forums such as BBC's Question time for large group sizes as was discussed previously: When to Attend/Hold Meetings. The type of communication possible is inevitably going to be of a qualitative difference.

There's a couple of things to say about this in summary:-

  • Organizational barriers to productive communication at scale
  • Lack of practice of actually doing this!!
When we come back to that question of democracy, Representative Democracy in the UK could be summed up by Martin Amis' quote about marriages paraphrased for our representative democracy:-

“After a while, representative democracy is a sibling relationship--marked by occasional, and rather regrettable, episodes of incest.”


Our "occasional, and rather regrettable, episodes of incest" is the attitude I've been trying to find to describe the ubiquitous response of the Establishment Class to our infrequent representative democracy holding actual elections that matter: "Get It Out Of The Way!" unlike the periodic 5 years of musical chairs between party machines involved in their own private and regrettable bouts of incest aka The Westminster/SW1 Bubble Effect.

This brings us onto the other side of the problem. The end point is effective communication at scale to people BEFORE they vote and with time to think and consider for themselves and indeed talk with each other!

I've been blogging since the Autumn and pass the 90 posts mark. If I have learnt something, it's that working out how to learn and know more about this issue in order to increase public information works like this:-





 How can we improve democracy? By making better decision-making

 We have several levels:-
  1. Logistical collection of information
  2. Semantic ordering of information
  3. Organizing of information into knowledge systems
  4. Contextual Memory Recall of communicative knowledge to decisions

 

1. Research of Information Base




 Seeing the results of this echoed today for example in BBC Question Time...

Quoting Dr. RAE North at the invaluable resource of EUReferendum.com If you were a scientific researcher looking for a fossil or "missing link" aka Transitional Fossil this is the sort of "find" that you might be frothing at the mouth at!! Here we have the example of a major political party and how in it's inception it was built with some ideologies. Somewhere the imperative during it's "evolution" to acquire power to effect ideology is transitioned to acquire power to acquire more power... to eventually effect "something". Here is the evolutionary branch in what we now see in the Party System in our Westminster. It does seem that the Conservative Party's great success under Thatcher is also a useful comparison of a confluence of influences occassionally providing a stronger more effective government?

There's a lot of personal opinions about Donald Trump at the moment. Most reactions are to distance themselves from him and publicly denounce him. This is a short-sighted reaction: What is this? Trump is medium of  populism which suggests people want alternatives to the Establishment governments, and will pick that which makes itself visibly available irrespective of it's quality.

But we look at both ends here: Research and Communication and at both ends we see that democracy is not served effectively as a system: The result is that perpetual comment: "We don't know enough to vote."

Fascinatingly enough, during the aforementioned BBC Question Time, what did people spend a lot of time on the panel and audience discussing? Was it the subject of democracy? No. It was the personality of:-

 I don't blame nor condemn Trump: He's astute enough to know "all publicity is good publicity" for the Business of Being The Top Trump in the deck. The key is the word "publicity" - You!

 

2. Semantic Ordering (understanding) of Information


Understanding oceans of information: We need honest experts who can find the subtlest of pearls


As said there is much to learn and a lot can be learnt. But there's many examples of when you think you know something only for the wind to be taken out of your sails at an oversight, some new fact that is simple yet essential that you should have understood even when you do read and find the expert quality sources!

On the right handside EU Referendum: a Duff deal is an overview of Andrew Duff's scrutiny of David Cameron's deal. Time and again he's been helpful in explaining the workings of the EU, but he demonstrates something so many others like Hugo Dixon don't: He knows enough to have the right context and tacit knowledge around the explicit statements of what things are. Many people talk about Donald Trump or Boris Johnson, but few talk about Andrew Duff. Yet they say they want to know about Brexit and the EU and how to vote in the Referendum?

I have to kick myself, I'm sure I may have come across, probably several times, what Dr. RAE North explains in  EU Referendum: the anti-democratic Union: I ordered it somewhere did not attribute it's full context or significance ie repercussions (frequency, magnitude, structure etc) and likely forgot about it despite reading around the subject including Robert Oulds useful book! Here it is a pearl worth knowing!:-

Just reading "ever closer union" in the Treaty Rules is a good indication of what the EU is. But there's more pearls to be found if you dive for them!

 

3. Unity of Understanding with Context




Supranationalism is ordered in The Great Deception; FLEXCIT: The Market Solution provides the other concept in details via policy contexts through eg Regulations: Intergovernmentalism

All the above is intended to inform our decision-making for x1 day The day we have our say: The People's Referendum. We have almost all the pieces to know how we will vote, to quote a Kent MP's view on this:-

 

4. Communicating from a knowledge basis to people

"During the next few months, as the referendum grows ever closer, we will be bombarded by propaganda and conflicting "facts". Many will be confused and will still find it difficult to make up their mind.

To those people I would simply say is this; ignore all the complicated arguments because the the only decision you have to make is a simple one.

Do you want the laws of our land to be drafted by elected representatives who sit in a European Parliament that reflects also the views of 27 other countries> If the answer to that question is yes, then you should vote to remain.

Or, do you prefer to have the laws of our land drafted by representatives who you elect to Westminster that reflects the views only of the countries that make up the United Kingdom?

If that is your position, then vote leave. That is what I will be doing." 

~ Gordon Henderson; Sittingbourne and Sheppey MP; kentnews Week ending February 28, 2016.

It's not perfect but I think there is merit in focusing on communication that is useful to the voter, focusing on the inherent distance of democracy (even if Westminster is still distant!) involved and pointing out the inherent ambiguity and conflict of different views of x27 diverse nations (some of whom are in the pipeline for ever closer union integration of the Eurozone in the next Treaty).

 Fossilizing "Representative Democracy" driven by: Prestige, Authority, Personalities, Partisan Party Machines and Money

Looking at the present Leave Campaigns I can't help think they look like both The Establishment Parties and Populist Parties in an unhappy marriage mainly due to the barren lack of democracy as attempted to discuss here.

A more directly Real Democracy organization connecting 1-4 in sharing knowledge to people:-

























Knowledge-driven, Real Democracy inspired: A learning campaign for people: A Pearl of an opportunity

Thursday, 4 February 2016

Decrypting: What is Babel-17?

"Wovon man nicht sprechen kann, darüber muß man schweigen" ~ Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent. ~ Ludwig Wittgenstein

Samuel R. Delany's sci-fi novel Babel-17 tells the story of a humanity encountering an alien language in the far future galaxy. This language "appears" to threaten invasion, but in order to counter the threat, the messages must first be understood. Not only the above consideration from Wittgenstein is implicit in this contention, but also:
"...my work consists of two parts: of the one which is here, and of everything which I have not written. And precisely this second part is the important one."
Here we have two considerations: The limitation of language and the limitations of what we select in order to use language to communicate. In fact Wittgenstein manages to get to the heart of the story in Babel-17 without giving away the underlying plot of the story.

Now imagine these 2 core elements of the language used in the our politics of EU Referendum and Brexit in the Legacy News-Media broadcasting the ideas from the Top Tiers of the Political Food Web:-

  • (1): Without the core concepts of understanding - one cannot speak without being able to think first.
  • (2): What is said necessarily omits a vast range of potential communication.
  • (1) + (2) = (3): Combining both: If the language itself omits the words and hence ideas, then these in reverse prevent the necessary thinking!!!
By now I hope you are reading this, thinking I knew this blogger was cracked; a little too quirky and now banging on about sci-fi and Wittgenstein and language... !

 A "low drone" dominates and is broadcast incessantly

Now, instead of travelling far into the future and facing the seemingly inscrutable dangers of an alien language, let us take a journey back into the recent past that already looks so far away: PANORAMA The Great Euro Debate TX. 27/1/97.


 Panorama: The Great Euro Debate - 27.01.97

  • "The words used in the argument are a foreign language."
  • "Strong passions"
  • "Most of us aren't well informed"

Our next witness is John Monks, the 
General Secretary of the Trades Union 
Congress, a man who fears for Britain’s 
workforce, that if they are outside a 
single currency life will be a cold and 
uncomfortable place, and Peter Sutherland 
questions him first. I should just point 
out that friendly witnesses are questioned 
for a rather shorter period than hostile 
witnesses, which is why Ruth Lea had 
rather more time than you did.  The 
opposite will happen when the other 
witnesses come in.  Peter Sutherland.

 Peter Sutherland 
 Well let me take up the invitation from 
that introduction.  What is your view as a 
union leader of the effect on jobs of 
staying out of a single currency when it 
is created? What will the effect be?


 
 John Monks 
 Well on balance I think it would be 
Caption: damaging. Immediately I think we would 
JOHN MONKS pay a premium in interest rates. I think 
GENERAL SECRETARY, TUC our interest rates would go higher than 
that for the Euro area and I think that 
would be a damaging consequence.
 
Peter Sutherland 
 So that would cost business and investors 
money?

 John Monks 
 Well it would cost everybody - mortgage, 
people who have got mortgages and so on.  
Because we’ve got a record of devaluation 
and the Germans haven’t, which will be the 
core of the system, we would pay I think 
greater, a premium on our interest rates. 
I think too that we would lose some of the 
inward investment  which has been very 
important to Britain. Something like forty 
per cent of our exports at the moment come 
from foreign-owned firms and that’s been a 
tremendous boost at a time when a lot of 
British industries of the traditional kind 
have been struggling. And the third reason 
I would say it’s damaging is that our 
influence in this thing called Europe, the 
European Union, would be so much less. We 
would be peripheral to what was going on. 


 We would be in a small minority of 
countries and I think for Great Britain 
that’s a pretty hopeless future. We want 
to be at the centre of things, not on the 
edge. 

 Peter Sutherland 
 Do you think it would be possible to 
Caption:  sustain membership over the medium to long 
PETER SUTHERLAND term by remaining outside a single 
CHAIRMAN, GOLDMAN SACHS currency with virtually everybody else in 
INTERNATIONAL the European Union inside a single 
currency? 
 
John Monks 
 You see I think it would be difficult to 
stay in the European Union indefinitely if 
we were floating our currencies against 
the Euro. If, as some people would argue, 
we actually pegged the level of the pound 
to the Euro then we get all the 
disadvantages of being in the Euro without 
 any of the influence and the advantages 
and probably still pay a premium on 
interest rates but I think, if we float 
against it, then it’s a matter of time 
before there’s tremendous tensions between 
us and the Euro area about devaluations or 
revaluation, probably devaluations on the 
long-term given our recent economic 
history, and that could blow us out of the 


 European Union which would be tremendously 
damaging. 

 Peter Sutherland 
 Thank you, Mr Monks.

 David Dimbleby 
 Norman Lamont. 

What is absolutely fascinating is that the time is different, yet the pattern of the subject is almost identical to the present prevalent "LOW DRONE" we find drowning us in the Legacy News-Media in the newspapers, webpages, radio and television mediums.

You can read the above or watch the video link.

I was just watching the latest BBC Question Time and the deception over the Norway Option was manifest once again:-


Summary from White Wednesday refining Paul Reynolds "Norway Scorecard"

Unfortunately this scorecard won't be broadcast far and wide by the BBC so instead we have:-
  • Shabana Mahmood - Labour MP for Birmingham Ladywood
  • Sal Brinton - House of Lords Peer and President of the Liberal Democrats
Emitting their "low drone" and suffusing the British electorate with it. Do they know what they speak of? If not they cannot speak of it. 

 Here's a most illuminating consequence of our "Babel-17" language on the EU Referendum: Pawel Swidlicki now TALKS FOR PEOPLE!!! because he knows what they want - OR, because people like him exploit the "low drone" language that people use to speak about the subject.... [Details: Norwegian model or Norway Option a lot like EU / Europe; Flexit or FLEXCIT]

There are 2 very hard results to discuss here:-

  1. The language of the EURO matches the language today of the EU immaculately in it's shape, it's pattern, it's tendencies: Above all: It's severe limitations.
  2. This language allows our "betters" to think for us and hence speak instead of us.


Yet more Babel-17; coming to cinemas near you in 2016!!!