In the past few days the Government’s image had lost some of its shine.
First up is the decision to authorise the exploitation the Jackdaw natural gas field in the North Sea. The question is: Does, or doesn’t, Mr Burnham’s government regard the damage to the planet by further fossil fuel exploitation outweigh the alleged (in this case very short term) advantages. I understand that the pros and cons are finely balanced, but Burnham has voted in favour of the short term.
As Guardian columnist Zoe Williams writes (22 October): “… it matters: it destroys our moral authority as a nation and it extinguishes hope .”
On this very same topic the junior energy minister Michael Shanks toured the early morning media studios to announce and justify the decision. This provoked justifiable outrage from the Commons Speaker, Lindsay Hoyle – such announcement should be made first to parliament. That is our system.
True, this government is not the first to ignore this convention, presumably in order to get the government’s point of view implanted before opponents have time to collect their wits. But Mr Burnham promised a new style of politics. Here is an indication that, like so many of its recent predecessors, the government places slick presentation skills above democratic protocol.
In this very same week the Home Secretary is proposing to extend the period immigrants must live here before they can apply for citizenship from the present five years to 15. This is outrageous. Is Mrs Mahmood vying with Theresa May to win the pize for creating the most hostile environment for those who came here in good faith and offer us so much.?
If you’re unsure of what that “so much” comprises read Gaby Hinsliff’s article in today’s Guardian.
And finally, the Chancellor of the Exchequer John Healey is putting it about that in next week’s Budget he hopes to release the energies of frustrated entrepreneurs by “scrapping red tape! “
It is too early to say: “It might just as well be the Tories,” but we are travelling along that road.
Yes to all of these if, by doing the right thing, we influence others to follow.
ReplyDeleteYes to all of these
ReplyDeleteBy what mechanism?
if, by doing the right thing, we influence others to follow.
But that never happens because the others are all sensible and act in their own interests. So we just end up making ourselves poorer, weaker and more vulnerable for no gain (while everyone else laughs at us for being so stupid).
Oh ye of little faith.
ReplyDeleteOh ye of little faith.
ReplyDeleteCan you think of any examples of this actually happening?
Slavery? Racial discrimination? Parity for women? None yet perfect but, with occasional steps backward, moving that way.
ReplyDeleteSlavery?
ReplyDeleteYou must be joking. No one ever gave up slavery (those that have — there still is slavery in eg Ghana) because of moral authority. Slavery had to be ended, everywhere it was ended, by force or threat of force by the Royal Navy.
Racial discrimination?
Name a country which ended racial discrimination because of someone else’s ‘moral authority’.
Parity for women?
Again name one country which established parity for women because of someone else’s ‘moral authority’.
A good decision from Burnham. Now get on with Rosebank, Tornado, Tornado East, Tobermory and Suilven. We are not living our lives in 50/100 years time. In any case, Mother Nature will have the final say, probably with a catastrophic super volcano which no amount of liberal handwringing will prevent or control.
ReplyDeleteAbolition of the slave trade in 1807 by the UK is a classic example of public pressure through relentless campaigning on moral and religious grounds over several decades. It gave Britain the moral high ground to use the navy to suppress transatlantic slavery trade
ReplyDeleteIt gave Britain the moral high ground to use the navy to suppress transatlantic slavery trade
ReplyDeleteContribution to the suppression of the transatlantic slave trade of having ‘the moral high ground’: zero per cent.
Contribution to the suppression of the transatlantic slave trade of the military might of the Royal Navy: 100%.
The moral high ground is worse than useless in international matters. The only thing that counts in international affairs is power, either military or economic.
Usual bs
ReplyDeleteDo you really think the govt of the day would have bothered to get the navy to stop slavers if it hadn't been for the moral public opinion at home?
If so you're deluded
At the time public opinion support was mobilised including boycotts of goods such as sugar and petitions to parliament with thousands of signatories, no means fear in those days. Parliament was eventually forced to act precisely because of the moral outrage as conditions and practices become more widely known
ReplyDeleteIf you disagree then as usual share your evidence ( although as usual you won't because you have none)
Do you really think the govt of the day would have bothered to get the navy to stop slavers if it hadn't been for the moral public opinion at home?
ReplyDeleteThat’s domestic public opinion, not international ‘moral authority’. Totally different things. Domestic public opinion can force a government to do things; but no country ever did something because of some other country’s ‘moral authority’.
(Or, for that matter, because some other country ‘set an example’. Examples are for maths homework, not international diplomacy!)
ReplyDeleteYou asked for examples of mor al authority - you got them.
ReplyDeleteA few people in the UK started questioning the morality of enslavement
. This snowballed by influencing others in the UK to get the slave trade in Britain abolished and later slavery itself. None of which required military action btw.
And as usual no actual evidence from yourself to support you inane comments
You asked for examples of mor al authority
ReplyDeleteI asked for an example of any national changing its behaviour because another national had, by ‘doing the right thingy’, influenced it to follow: see https://keynesianliberal.blogspot.com/2026/10/the-burnham-government-shine-dims.html?showComment=1792776741370&m=1#c8846612556486509316
Slavery is not an example of that because no country ever stopped using or trading slaves because any other country influenced it to follow.
Every country which abolished slavery did so because it was forced to. The Confederate States of America had to lose an actual war before they sotpped keeping slaves; many other countries, such as in the Middle East, were forced to do so by military and economic pressure from the British Empire. Some, such as Nigeria, were invaded by the British military and forced to free their slaves.
(Britain never abolished slavery because there never was slavery in Britain).
But not one country ending slavery is an example of doing something because it was ‘influenced to follow’ Britain in ‘doing the right thing’.
Same old BS
ReplyDeletePeter's original comment
By doing the right thing we encourage others to follow
Nothing about other countries but the original examples stand (with the usual absence of any evidence from yourself)
To add to the list of changes that came about in the UK because a few people were brave enough to take the moral high ground
Abolition of death penalty
Abortion rights
Decriminalisation of homosexuality
Animal welfare legislation
As usual you're in denial
Nothing about other countries
ReplyDeleteFrom the original article:
‘ As Guardian columnist Zoe Williams writes (22 October): “… it matters: it destroys our moral authority as a nation and it extinguishes hope .”
Note: ‘our moral authority as a nation’.
So yes, this is about other countries. Because what use is having ‘moral authority’ as a nation if it doesn’t keep us fed, doesn’t give us energy, doesn’t deter our enemies?
And ‘moral authority as a nation’ does none of those things. ‘Moral authority as a nation’ is useless waffle and we should not pursue it because it matters naught. We should pursue our national interests: food, energy, defence. Those are real concrete things that protect our nation. ‘Moral authority’ does not protect us one bit.
As Peter commented, this decision means we have no right to criticise other nations for their lack of progress on climate change.
ReplyDeleteThe pursuit of naked self interest condemns millions in the near future and beyond
this decision means we have no right to criticise other nations for their lack of progress on climate change
DeleteSo? What has criticising other nations for their lack of progress on climate change ever achieved? Has any nation ever made faster progress due to us criticising them for their lack of progress? The answer is no.
As usual you miss the point.
DeleteGlobal climate change targets only have a small chance of being met even if all nations contribute.
When some don't the UK can no longer comment on their lack of contribution. Nor can the US and some other big players meaning the consequences of global warming get closer for the millions adversely affected.
Not that you're bothered of course as you're purely motivated by self interest - which is what caused the problem in the first place
When some don't the UK can no longer comment on their lack of contribution.
DeleteSo? Britain commenting on their contribution made no difference, so why will Britain no longer being able to comment on their contribution made make any difference?
The UK has considerable influence across parts of the commonwealth
DeleteThat's now been thrown away
The UK has considerable influence across parts of the commonwealth
DeleteNo it doesn’t. Name one concrete Commonwealth country that has changed a policy as a result of Britain’s influence.
If there isn’t one then the influence can’t be that considerable, can it?
Oh dear
DeleteHow naive
I think ‘naīve’ is actually the word for those who think that anything other than raw military or economic power matters in international affairs. It’s a sweet, childish view of the world to think that other countries might follow us if we ‘set an example’ but it is, as you say, naīve.
DeleteFraid not. Try searching for soft power in the context of the UK and the commonwealth and the numerous articles and case studies written.
DeleteOh ,- I forgot, you don't believe in evidence do you?
Try searching for soft power in the context of the UK and the commonwealth and the numerous articles and case studies written.
DeleteGive just one example of a Commonwealth country changing its policy because of British ‘soft power’.
‘Soft power’ is no power at all. As the Chinese and the Russians understand, the only power that counts is hard power.
We know you don't actually bother with real evidence but rely solely on your own bigoted and ignorant views but I'm always hopeful
DeleteTry this
https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/dcms-sectors-soft-power-evidence-review-and-theory-of-change/dcms-sectors-soft-power-evidence-review-and-theory-of-change&ved=2ahUKEwi-wNTU6uiXAxUGm_0HHbAJEksQy_kOeggIAggBCCQQAQ&opi=89978449&cd&psig=AOvVaw00I5hFuA7kkHhX6NTfqvYk&ust=1793693374513000
From section 5.3 'Overview of the evidence'
Delete'Therefore, there is very little causal evidence demonstrating how soft power interventions actually change foreign policy behaviour or security outcomes.'
So the report agrees with me. There is no evidence that 'soft power' does any good whatsoever.
You should read things before you cite them. Is this why you are so reluctant to link to evidence, because you don't read it and then it blows up in your face by saying the opposite of what you claim?
Wonderful bs
DeleteWhat's that then, an entire hour to read the whole report comprehensively?
You simply continue to embarrass yourself
What's that then, an entire hour to read the whole report comprehensively?could be for it.
DeleteThe only thing that matter is whether some power helps us achieve our real policy goals, and the report is quite clear on that (as I quoted above): there is no evidence that it does.
The rest is meaningless fluff.
[Misformatting]
DeleteWhat's that then, an entire hour to read the whole report comprehensively?
The report is quite clear: there is no evidence that soft power achieves anything concrete.
It then goes on to sketch out a totally speculative mechanism whereby soft power could by having some nebulous, subjective, un-observable effects.
But that's all bullshit. It's speculative, and there's no evidence for it, and its all subjective so it's not even clear that evidence there could be for it.
The only thing that matter is whether some power helps us achieve our real policy goals, and the report is quite clear on that (as I quoted above): there is no evidence that it does.
The rest is meaningless fluff.
I asked for evidence that soft power has ever helped achieve a foreign policy objective; you pointed to a report which says in black and white that there is no evidence that soft power has ever helped achieve a foreign policy objective.
DeleteGame, set and match, I think.
Fraid not .
DeleteWhy have successive govts pursued such a policy for decades of its a waste of time?
The report clearly sets out the why and how's with concrete examples
There's also plenty of other rigourous research in the topic but as usual you don't want to see anything that shows your own "thinking" to be inadequate
Where's the evidence that soft power is a complete waste of time? There would be plenty of you were right - not just the UK but the us, china, Russia also who put huge resources into this
Why have successive govts pursued such a policy for decades of its a waste of time?
DeleteI hate to break it to you, but governments do lots of things that are a complete waste of time.
The report clearly sets out the why and how's with concrete examples
Point to one concrete example the report gives of a soft power intervention which could be proved to have concrete, measurable results.
You can't, because it is (as the report itself says in black and white) all speculative.
There's also plenty of other rigourous research in the topic but as usual you don't want to see anything that shows your own "thinking" to be inadequate
Link to some of it then.
Where's the evidence that soft power is a complete waste of time?
I don't need to provide evidence that it is a waste of time. The burden of proof is on someone who claims it isn't a waste of time to provide the evidence to show that it isn't. And as the report you linked to states, there is no such evidence.
Once again, quoting the report:
'Therefore, there is very little causal evidence demonstrating how soft power interventions actually change foreign policy behaviour or security outcomes.'
Yes but soft power isn't just about these 2 policy areas. It's credited by those involved in getting climate change actions higher up the commonwealth agenda as one example. There are others
DeleteFind me a source that says soft power doesn't work. - if you can
Yes but soft power isn't just about these 2 policy areas. It's credited by those involved in getting climate change actions higher up the commonwealth agenda as one example.
DeleteBut 'getting climate change actions higher up the commonwealth agenda' has had absolutely no concrete effect -- has it? It hasn't stopped a single tonne of carbon dioxide being emitted into the atmosphere, has it? So what was the use of it?
Find me a source that says soft power doesn't work. - if you can
That report you linked to says it doesn't work: 'Therefore, there is very little causal evidence demonstrating how soft power interventions actually change foreign policy behaviour or security outcomes.'
In other words: there is no evidence it works.
Yes it has. Climate change targets have been set across the commonwealth as a result
DeleteClimate change targets have been set across the commonwealth as a result
DeleteBut none of the climate change targets have been met! Just setting a target doesn't achieve anything! Only results matter, not targets!
And there have been no results!
Something for u to ponder and puzzle over
DeleteUSA spends billions of taxpayer money on voice of America and equivalent - all targeted outside the us
Russia and china do the same
Even the good old beeb still has the world service
All trying to spread their national message and influence ?through - you've guessed it - SOFT power
Surely trump and Putin can't both be wrong can they
Surely trump and Putin can't both be wrong can they
DeleteYes. They can be. And are. About lots of things.
And there is still no evidence that soft power achieves anything. The only power that actually achieves anything in international affairs is military might and economic might.
So all these countries are eating billions on such communications
DeleteThey clearly don't think so - but you know best don't you
Ever hear of media impact market research?
Probably not
So all these countries are eating billions on such communications
DeleteIt's not even in the top ten biggest things that countries waste billions on. Which is not to say that they shouldn't stop wasting those billions -- they should.
They clearly don't think so - but you know best don't you
Not just me -- that report you linked to agrees. 'Therefore, there is very little causal evidence demonstrating how soft power interventions actually change foreign policy behaviour or security outcomes.'
Clueless as usual
DeleteVery little does not equate to zero
DeleteThe report cites multiple examples of impact
As usual you're simply in denial
Do us all a favour.
Stand in front of a mirror and just keep repeating
I'm right I know I'm right
So the rest of us can continue an adult discussion
Very little does not equate to zero
DeleteIf it was just very little they would be able to cite at least one impact. They can't. It's zero, but they don't want to write that because it would be embarrassing, so they write 'very little' knowing that they are technically correct.
In the same way that if something has never happened you can say it has happened 'in a small number of cases' and be technically correct (because zero is a very small number).
The report cites multiple examples of impact
No, it cites multiple speculative ways in which soft power might have a subjective impact. It doesn't cite one single concrete actual impact that can be shown, by objective evidence, to result from soft power.
Speculation and subjectivity is not evidence.
Keep looking in that mirror
Delete