Walter's Blog |
|
Reflections on recent events, plus the occasional fact free rant unfiltered by rational argument.
|
|
"If you want to read a blog to get a sense of what is going on in Hong Kong these days or a blog that would tell you what life was like living in colonial Hong Kong, this blog, WALTER'S BLOG, fits the bill." Hong Kong Blog Review
|
|
7/8/2024 1 Comment Anarchy in the UK! "Just 31% of Britons say that Keir Starmer handles the riots well, while almost half (49%) think he is mishandling them" The awful, unforgivable rioting that has gripped England and Northern Ireland for over a week now shows no sign of abating. Significantly, Scotland is not involved.
Moreover, there are signs that Prime Minister Kier Starmer has inflamed sentiment by labelling anyone on the streets as 'far-right'. At the same time, he ignores genuine concerns over unchecked mass migration and social deprivation. None of this should be a surprise because the Labour elites have long despised the working class. Who can forget Peter Mandelson, the darling of the Labour Party, asserting, "Your preoccupation with the working class is wrong. They've got nowhere else to go.". Likewise, Gordon Brown's gaffe in dismissing a Labour supporter as a "bigoted woman" because she raised the issue of uncontrolled migration. In 2016, during the EU referendum, working-class people smelled a rat when Labour vilified them as misled thickos and xenophobes for supporting Brexit. Labour intellectuals rejected working people's concerns in patronising and hectoring tones. Party figure Emily Thornberry sneered at a working-class household for flying the English flag. Thornberry is well known for her hypocrisy, having sent her kids to an elite private school despite her party opposing such schools. George Orwell's position decades ago was that socialists don't support the working class; instead, they hate the rich. Of course, none of this is an excuse for the violence we've seen, the racial attacks and the looting, but it is an insight into why Starmer speaks as he does. The media has largely followed the official narrative and is not questioning it. When one reporter dared to question the Metropolitan Commissioner of Police about alleged 'two-tear' policing, the commissioner snatched the microphone and threw it to the ground. The question hit home. In truth, all public order policing, indeed all policing, is a tiered process. No two situations are the same, and officers must react based on what they see, their experience and their training. But I suppose when the native population goes to jail for posts on Facebook, or, in the case of Sam Melia, goes to jail for anti-immigration stickers while a foreign man gets community service for repeatedly raping a twelve-year-old girl, it is difficult to refute the suggestion of preference given to a particular group. And therein lies the issue. Here in Hong Kong, we are familiar with the false narratives promulgated by media outlets as they follow an agenda. During the 2019 social unrest, the Western press portrayed events as solely 'pro-democracy' and largely peaceful while side-stepping the xenophobic mobs who attacked Mainlanders and their businesses. Likewise, their video clips focused on police actions and failed to show the build-up of petrol bombs and violence that led to the volleys of tear gas. The firebombing of police homes and assaults on off-duty officers was notably absent from the coverage. So, it is too easy to poke fun at the hypocrisy and double standards of British politicians now that they are struggling to contain serious unrest. But that would be churlish as I feel for the police officers deployed with inadequate training, poor tactics, and a lack of options to disperse violent crowds. The impact of the unrest on the police, who are facing fatigue and logistical challenges, is a matter of concern and should evoke empathy. At least Hong Kong has a well-structured and practiced public order response, with layers of contingencies and depth. Still, dealing with riots was never easy, and the optics are always terrible. In Northern Ireland, we've already seen rubber bullets fired at protesters, and I suspect it is only a matter of time before tear gas is used in England if the riots persist. The Northern Ireland Police Service displayed better resolve and coordinated tactics. Given their vast experience, this is not surprising. A YouGov poll suggests that one in three Britons support peaceful protests against migration, with an overwhelming 85% opposing the unrest. Just 31% of Britons say that Keir Starmer handles the riots well, while almost half (49%) think he is mishandling them. The poll also reveals a significant lack of confidence in the police's ability to protect people and property from further unrest, a concerning trend that adds to society's unease. For decades now, the very same politicians who are lining up to denounce much of the rest of the country as 'far right' have been pushing soft-on-crime policies while subjecting the British people to porous borders and mass migration from third-world countries. The post-industrial cities in the north have received most of the asylum seekers. These cities have substantial unemployment, stagnant social mobility, and poverty. Liverpool has the highest number of asylum seekers, while the north/south divide in sharing the burden is substantial. The North East houses a larger proportion of asylum seekers than any other region of the UK, with a rate ten times higher than the South East and South West. So, is it any wonder that the British social fabric is now fraying? Is it any wonder that mass immigration and the elite obsession with diversity are now producing a low-trust society with spiralling crime, social alienation, and growing division?
1 Comment
31/7/2024 1 Comment Southport - What is the narrative? "Citizen journalists, including drone footage, provided some of the best contextual coverage of the unfolding events" People reveal their prejudices by reacting with such powerful certainty to partial information. Thus, presenting incidents through social and news media is possibly inflammatory when context, background, and all the inherent complications are missing.
Indeed, social media's fleeting representation of events often appears designed to elicit a baseless emotional reaction. The social unrest of 2019 gave weight to this view. There is ample evidence of edited clips or timelines deliberately switching to paint the police in a poor light. Western news reports inevitably opened with scenes of police firing tear gas while the hours of rioting and criminal damage that prompted this response are cut from the account. Of course, by making the story one of 'police brutality', a narrative of peaceful protest is supported. Therefore, any injuries to the police are excusable, and the wholesale destruction of public property is the legitimate cost of the fight. Such reporting inflames the situation. All this came back into focus with recent events in the U.K. An incident at Manchester Airport on 23 July dropped into view with a clip showing a police officer stamping on the head of a man. The man had already been tasered and was flat on the ground. The following outrage drowned out any calls for 'wait and see'. The man's lawyer immediately took to social media, claiming the incident was racially motivated and his client was very ill in the hospital with a brain injury. He repeated these false claims through the traditional media, who uncritically accepted them. Then, an extended clip from CCTV emerged. This coverage shows the man and his brother attacking the armed police officers. A WPC allegedly had her nose broken as the brothers landed blow after blow on the officers. The narrative suddenly reversed. In no time, the family fired the lawyer as they went into damage control mode, expressing concern for the officers' well-being. Nonetheless, one officer was suspended. Then, the keyboard warriors declaring police racism fell silent as their case fell apart. Then, this Monday, 29 July, a horrific attack by a young man left three young girls dead in Southport. The suspect is a British-born black 17-year-old, and all the deceased are white girls aged six, seven and nine. Eight other children suffered stab wounds in the attack, and five of them are in critical condition. Two adults also remain in critical condition after being injured in the attack. It is known that the suspect arrived at the venue by taxi armed with a knife, suggesting a degree of premeditation. Within hours of this horrible attack, rioting was underway in Southport. Video from the scene showed men attacking the police, who appeared to be defending a mosque. Fifty officers suffered injuries, including fractures, lacerations, a suspected broken nose and a concussion. One officer was knocked unconscious. The scene was messy and confusing, with appalling optics. Then again, if you want picture-perfect anti-riot tactics, go to Hollywood. This is the real world. The police were not helped by their public order training and the political limits on the options available to disperse crowds. Tactics using batons that demand close contact invite injuries to both the police and the rioters. Likewise, as we see in the video clips, coordinated action needs to be included. Once again, the U.K. police public order approach appears based on "winning by appearing to lose." As a consequence, many officers are injured. Is it too cynical to suggest that the intent is to score narrative points in the PR battle instead of restoring order? On this occasion, citizen journalists provided some of the best contextual coverage of the unfolding events, including drone footage. Without the edits and shaping commentary of the mainstream media, it is possible to watch and draw your conclusions. It appears that the violence was prompted by social media speculation of a terrorist attack. The girls were attending a Taylor Swift-themed dance class; therefore, some saw echoes of the 2017 Manchester Arena attack when a radicalised Muslim man detonated a bomb, killing many, including a large group of young girls attending pop singer Ariana Grande's concert. The conspiracy crowd ran wild on social media. Yet it is unclear whether the culprit is associated with the attacked Mosque or his motivation. Currently, the dominant media narrative is that the rioters are outsiders and members of the nationalist English Defence League. If indeed true, they arrived quickly on the scene in substantial numbers. It would be interesting to know the addresses of any of the persons police arrested. Also, immediately, commentators drew comparisons with a recent riot in Leeds that saw the police retreating in the face of a predominantly Asian crowd. Accusations of two-tier policing sprang to the fore. Again, it is difficult and unwise to conclude anything without detailed knowledge. What is apparent is that a deep undercurrent of disaffection is bubbling away in communities that have felt the impact of mass migration. Layered atop this is failing public services, a broken economy and a deep resentment amongst many indigenous people who feel disadvantaged. The new Prime Minister Starmer's appearance to pay his respects in a photo opportunity didn't go well at the scene. If he was hoping for an extended honeymoon, he's not getting his wish. The minutiae of these incidents, the socioeconomic antecedents, and the role of social media in shaping public perceptions will continue to be debated. Meanwhile, what prompted this shocking attack on children remains unknown. But for sure, attacking the police and smashing up shops and a Mosque won’t get to the cause. 14/7/2024 0 Comments China, Hong Kong and Sir Keir Rodney Starmer - with a little help from David Lammy "The idea that Britain can have a unique or separate policy on China is worth challenging." What do the Labour election win and Sir Kier Rodney Starmer's premiership mean for China and Hong Kong? In the short term, not much. However, in the long term, it presents a promising opportunity to reset and strengthen relations with China, as Labour is eager to engage in global trade.
Before that, Starmer's immediate priorities remain re-engaging with Europe and seeking to repair the damage of the post-Brexit era. That may take some time and effort. Many surmise that Labour will likely be less ideologically driven than the Conservatives regarding China. This could mean a more pragmatic approach, focusing on economic and trade relations rather than political ideologies. After all, if they want Britain to be a world-leading trading entity, they cannot ignore China or Hong Kong's role as an entrepôt. However, the bigger geopolitical picture will determine whether China is prepared to accept British overtures. The idea that Britain can have a unique or separate policy on China is worth challenging. Washington is widely held to dictate substantial parts of British foreign policy. When Rory Stewart, a former M.P. who served in the Foreign Office, asked for advice on a specific policy, he was told, "Find out what the Americans are doing and do a bit less." That sums it up. Add to that a view that the "special relationship" was always more unique to the British than the Americans. Presidents Obama and Biden were somewhat indifferent about the whole idea except when it suited their interests. The special relationship didn't earn Britain any post-Brexit trade deal with the U.S. Still, it cannot be forgotten that Britain forfeited much of its leverage as the former colonial ruler. The tacit support that British politicians gave to the 2019 violence is still fresh in the memory. Likewise, the BNO scheme irked Beijing. And yet, the BNO scheme has not attracted the vast numbers of people that its advocates asserted would leave Hong Kong. They spoke of millions departing for Milton Keynes, Nottingham and Crewe. With their impoverished perceptions and blinded by one-sided media coverage, they assumed the whole of Hong Kong was destined to leave. It didn't happen. I suspect that had it happened, the numbers would have added weight to the rhetoric offered by Reform U.K. and others who object to mass migration. Plus, the lack of infrastructure, housing, and public services for such a large influx would further drive negative public sentiment. Times have changed. It is now apparent that the U.K.'s anti-migration sentiment, which coursed below the surface, has come to the fore and translated into seats in parliament for Farage and his crew. Even former Prime Minister Tony Blair, who quietly opened the floodgates to migrants during his long premiership, is now cautioning Starmer to get ahead of the debate by limiting the numbers allowed in the U.K. This shift in mood, a faltering economy, expected tax rises, and the possible taxation on assets held in Hong Kong may discourage further migration to U.K. Likewise, international students could see significant fee increases given the near bankruptcy of many U.K. colleges and the desire to keep fees stable for local students. Such a move further dampens the attractiveness of the U.K. universities, although given their international standing, they won't see a mass exodus. Starmer's first week in office signals a shift towards a more rational and calm approach on the world stage. The previous psychodrama propagated by Liz Truss and Boris Johnson seems to have dissipated. However, Labour must be cautious in its choice of David Lammy as the new foreign secretary, as his tendency to speak before thinking could potentially lead to missteps. In 2013, Lammy took to Twitter, slamming a BBC news item about the chimney erected over the Sistine Chapel. The "Will smoke be black or white" headline Lammy labelled racist. After colleagues and the media widely mocked him, he was forced to apologise. He didn't understand the smoke signals used to mark the Pope's elections. This single incident demonstrates ignorance and a distorted mindset. In 2018, Lammy branded Trump, who was then President, a "woman-hating, neo-Nazi-sympathising sociopath" and a "profound threat to the international order". This language of hate that supercharges the political debate could return to haunt Lammy. Lammy set out his "progressive realism" foreign policy vision in April. What that means remains to be seen. Lammy said the U.K.'s approach to China had "oscillated wildly over the past 14 years" of Conservative rule and vowed to "adopt a more consistent strategy." Still, Lammy will need to step carefully so as not to invite any retaliations from the U.K.'s sixth-largest export market and the world's second-largest economy. For example, Britain's luxury automakers are fearful they could become targets in any tit-for-tat trade war with China. Other sectors could feel the pinch if Labour antagonises Beijing. Ask the Australians how their wine and seafood industry faired when a political dispute escalated. In summary, Britain's attractiveness to Hong Kong migrants may wane, especially if taxes go up and public services continue to fail. No one expects a return to the warm relations marked by the period when David Cameron was Prime Minister and hoisting President Xi in his local pub. Interestingly, a potential thaw in relations could be indicated if Lammy or Starmer take a trip to Beijing. Such a visit could signal a new chapter in UK-China relations.  "Parliament doesn't truly represent how the country voted" There's a glaring unfairness in the acclaimed British democratic system. How so? The system gives voters in specific seats more power.
Let's break it down: Reform UK, led by Nigel Farage, won five seats this week with some 14% of the total vote cast, or four million votes. Meanwhile, the Liberal Democrats won 61 seats with a 12% vote share. It's a system that doesn't quite add up. And it gets worse. Sinn Fein had a 0.7 per cent vote share yet secured seven seats. Below is a breakdown by party.
The party that reaches 326 seats, just over half of the available seats, then gets to form the government after the King invites them to do so. If no party hits 326, a coalition may form and earn the right to rule, subject to the King's invitation. The result of this system is a disconnect between a party's share of the seats in parliament and the share of the vote they received. In other words, parliament doesn't truly represent how the country voted. This can leave many feeling unrepresented. As the number of MPs a party gets doesn't match their level of support with the public, it can be challenging for the public to hold the government to account. Still, the FPTP usually allows parties to form a government independently and tends to generate a two-party system. Significantly, it also has two other impacts: the creation of "safe seats" and "swing seats". Safe seats, which have a low chance of changing hands, mean that there is no point in campaigning. Hence, parties focus on the swing seats that could change hands, making these areas the battlegrounds of the election. As a result, the manifestos come shaped to appeal to voters in swing seats and the parties spend the majority of their funds campaigning in them. Voters who live in safe seats may feel ignored by politicians, as the focus is on swing seats that could change hands. Arguably, the FPTP system provides for strong governance by having a clear winner who is not beholden to the whims of other parties in a coalition. In addition, the FPTP system reinforces the individual MP's connection to the constituency. What is the alternative? Over 100 countries use either proportional representation or a mixed system to elect their parliament. Less than 50 use the FPTP system, and most of these are former British colonies that adopted the Westminster model. However, Australia did away with FPTP in 1918, Ireland in 1922, South Africa in 1994, Tanzania in 1995, and New Zealand in 1996. How would this week's result look, if Britain adopted some form of proportional representational?
The FPTP system has served the two big parties well, and they've seen no reason to change. Likewise, the public enjoys the ability to punish a governing party by throwing them out for their failures. The Conservatives felt that hammer blow this week. Yet, there is an undercurrent of change sweeping through the British political scene, as witnessed in the success of Reform UK. This relatively new party with little infrastructure significantly damaged the Conservatives and came second to Labour in some 90 seats. In many instances, that was a close second in traditional Labour strongholds. This shift in the political landscape, coupled with the success of smaller parties, could pave the way for a serious discussion on electoral reform. The Greens and Reform UK would benefit from some form of PR system. However, it remains to be seen if these two parties will find common ground to push for change. Nonetheless, I do not doubt Farage will now press home the point on PR, questioning the legitimacy of Labour's win and advocating for a more inclusive electoral system. Voter turn out was 60 per cent, which just above the record low seen in 2001 (recorded since 1918). Widespread disillusionment with politicians, politics and the need to bring some form of identify document to the vote, all likely contributed to the low turnout. So, while Labour won a resounding victory, 80 per cent of voters, including those who abstained, didn't vote for Starmer and his crew. In truth, no electoral system is perfect, and each one produces anomalies that distort the vote. Nonetheless, we saw a smooth transfer of power without the shenanigans that afflict other places. The peaceful transition left TV commentators struggling to fill airtime as they covered Richie Sunak's arrival at Buckingham Palace to get the headmaster's permission to stand down. Bereft of anything to say, the Sky TV Royal correspondent observed the well-raked gravel in the courtyard and the crunching sound of tyres. I suppose that is preferable to gun shots and rioters storming buildings. Addendum. I'm grateful to a reader who took the time to crunch some numbers. He points out that only 96 candidates won their seats with 50% or more of the vote. In effect that means that in 554 constituencies, the majority of voters did not vote for the person who subsequently became their MP. As he asserts, "Kind of goes against the 'majority rule' tenet of democracy!"  "Labour inherits a stagnant economy, failing public services, crumbling infrastructure, and a weakened military." As anticipated, Labour emerge victorious in the U.K. general election. Kier Starmer, is only the fourth Labour Party leader to achieve the premiership from opposition feat. He now faces a daunting task. The victory is just the beginning, and a brief period of celebration is all he can afford. Labour inherits a stagnant economy, failing public services, crumbling infrastructure, and a weakened military unable to defend the country. The outgoing Conservatives, who took the reins in 2010, have significantly reshaped Britain's landscape. Here's some data that underscores the profound impact of their policies.
On the more positive side.
U.K. undergraduate fees are frozen at £9,250 for 2024-2025. Without international students subsidising home students, the annual costs could rise above £20,000, which is a huge jump. Meanwhile, could the decreased recorded crime reflect a lack of trust in the police, or have counting rules changed? These are legitimate questions, given the public sentiment that crime has increased and communities have become less safe. Many citizens believe that offences such as burglaries and shoplifting, have been effectively decriminalised because the police have simply decided not to investigate them. Yet, as this Bloomberg article explains the situation is more complicated than the raw data suggests. And while the decrease in the use of fossil fuels is to be welcomed, it has created new vulnerabilities that need addressing. On a cold night in January 2021, as temperatures dropped across the U.K., the national grid's controllers made frantic calls. With low-wind conditions, which usually go with a cold snap, Britain's much-trumpeted drive for green power hit reality. The gas and coal generators scrambled to fire up as the wind turbines slowed and fell silent. In the process, the owners of these generators were able to command a premium price. On a typical day, a unit megawatt-hour costs £40. That evening, the top price reached £4,000. That prize went to the gas-powered West Burton power station in Nottinghamshire. You know, one of those places hated by the eco-warriors that sustains the heat for pensioners and the power for ventilators. Other gas and coal power stations increased their output overnight, thus averting a disaster. Getting the balance right between saving the planet and keeping the lights on isn't easy. With the Conservatives' appalling record, their deceitful Covid parties at Nos. 10, the rampant corruption surrounding PPE procurement, and Liz Truss's near-crash of the economy, getting Starmer elected is the easy part. Britain has many remarkable strengths. The soft power of the English language, the arts, and culture grants influence and access that is the envy of many nations. The common law anchors business, creating an equal playing field. Further, Britain remains a leader in fields like artificial intelligence, life sciences, and renewable energy, all of which top universities support. The challenge for Labour is to leverage these advantages and carry the public with them in a post-Brexit and post-Empire world where Britain's influence is waning. I wish Starmer well. He has many tough choices to make. Meanwhile, the exit polls indicate a potential seismic shift, with the Reform Party possibly securing as many as ten seats in Parliament. This could significantly alter the political landscape, potentially leading to a more diverse and balanced representation in the government. And while Starmer has emerged victorious under the first-past-the-post system, his nationwide support may not be as strong. If this holds true, it could cast doubt on his legitimacy. Stay tuned - the results are still pouring in. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. Archives
July 2025
CategoriesAll Festivals Hong Kong Hong Kong History Policing Politics Public Order UK USA |
RSS Feed