Why I'll (probably) be voting for Owen Smith

I don't agree with all of Jeremy Corbyn's views and policies. I am not a Republican (at least not in the British context), I'm not sure about unilateral disarmament and I'm certainly dubious of his (past?) support for organisations such as Hamas and Hezbollah. Nor do I agree with all of Owen Smith's proposed policies. I don't, for example, support a second referendum on the U.K.'s membership of the European Union. But, although I haven't made up my mind 100 percent yet (there are still over three weeks to go), I am increasingly coming to the view that in the Labour leadership election I am going to vote for Owen Smith. This is for one reason and one reason only. I think he is more likely to win a general election than Jeremy Corbyn is. That belief is based partly on intuition about who is more likely to win over vital swing voters, and partly on evidence such as this poll.
As a low paid, public sector worker and council tenant with children, some of whom are unemployed (between zero hour contracts) and some in state education, perhaps one day to go on to university, and various family members who suffer from chronic illness and are dependent on the NHS and social care, I need there to be a Labour government. I have worked for the National Health Service for 15 years and I have never seen it as on its knees as it is right now in terms of staffing levels. The NHS badly needs there to be a Labour government ASAP.
Corbyn may have a more ideologically pure political history but that counts for nothing if Labour cannot win power. Whatever happens, there will be a mountain to climb but I increasingly believe that Owen Smith is Labour's best hope of winning the next General Election.
At one of the recent hustings, the candidates were asked what they listened to on their iPods. Owen Smith mentioned some pop or rock group whose name I can't even remember. Corbyn (who I like to think doesn't own an iPod) professed to be a lover of classical and folk music. Clearly Jeremy Corbyn has much better taste in music than Owen Smith (in my opinion, anyway). Sadly, however, if, as a musician, you want to get to number one in the charts you're probably going to be better off with a catchy, slickly produced and well marketed pop song. That's just the nature of reality.

Paul Weller knew a thing or two about old Etonians

"What a catalyst you turned out to be. Loaded the guns then you ran off home for your tea." (Eton Rifles, The Jam)

Has anyone else noticed...?

Actor Charles Dance and early 20th Century Ulster Unionist leader Sir Edward Carson.

I wonder if they could be related.

Brexit and the Irish Civil War

The pro and anti treaty debates and subsequent civil war in Ireland redefined the whole landscape of Irish politics for at least 70 years (in some ways they are still a defining factor today). The way the recent referendum has split our country into two opposing camps around a single issue has, in a small (and thankfully less bloody) way, helped me (as someone who is interested in early 20th Century Irish history) to understand how such a lasting re-entrenchment could have occured.

The new divide in UK politics

I've long been uncomfortable with the distinction in politics between the traditional categories of 'left' and 'right'. In the aftermath of the referendum it seems to me that a new political divide is becoming apparent, one that is perhaps more visceral or emotional in character yet in many ways more relevant to the current political scene. I would characterise the two camps on either side of this divide as follows.
On the one hand there are those who believe representative democracy is superior to direct democracy (which is really just a vehicle for populism); who tend to - as Michael Gove might put it - trust 'experts' to make the right decisions and who believe strongly in the importance of international and intergovernmental cooperation.
On the other, there are those who believe that the public as a whole is more qualified to make political decisions and judgements than any individual or select group, however apparently well qualified; who are more likely to question the opinions of experts however well educated or well established in their fields they may be and who are mistrustful of people or institutions weilding large amounts of power.
Although I think that most of the people who voted the same way as me in the referendum probably fall into the first category, I have to admit that I am not sure which of the two groups I would most readily place myself in.

My thoughts on A.C. Grayling's letter to Parliament

A friend today drew my attention to this article by the philosopher A.C. Grayling. Below are my comments on the article:

Interesting article but I would want to question a few of Prof Grayling's premises, eg.
1) Is membership of the EU actually a term of the UK constitution (such that we have one)?
2) Should the judgement of elected representatives be given superior weight over that of ordinary citizens even when those citizens have had months to independently study the relevant facts? If so, what does this imply about the intellectual capabilities of 'ordinary people'?
3) The fact that a majority of the electorate didn't vote for Brexit is a good point but people have a right to abstain from taking part in the decision making process and to trust those with stronger views to make the decision on their behalf. Does this really invalidate the decision of the majority of those who did vote?

I did not want our country to leave the European Union but, now that the majority have voted to do so, I think that to ignore their wishes would set a dangerous and highly divisive precedent. Far better, in my opinion, to try for a post-EU deal that sees the UK retain free movement and membership of the single market, thus keeping the best aspects of EU membership while assuaging the concerns about sovereignty held by many of those who voted to leave.

A possible way forward for our divided country

Here's my humble suggestion for a possible way forward for our rather bruised and divided country post-referendum: With the tory brexiters apparently rowing back (at least a bit) from the pre-referendum anti-immigrant rhetoric (and the, admittedly remote, possibility that the tories might not even be in power in a few months) it seems very possible that we could end up with the so-called 'Norway Option' - membership of the European Economic Area (EEA), which is basically the single market, without full membership of the EU. Rather than agitating for a 2nd referendum or for the government to simply ignore the referendum result - which will only lead to further division and bitterness - perhaps the best thing would be for those who voted remain and those who voted leave (apart from those whose leave vote was purely motivated by anti-immigrant feeling which - Jeremy Kyle-esque news interviews with white van drivers in pie and mash shops notwithstanding - is undoubtedly nowhere near all of them) to push for EEA membership as a compromise. Remain voters would surely be pleased that we would get to retain the EU's 'four freedoms' (freedom of movement of goods, services, capital and people) - at least to the same extent that the remaining 27 EU member states do - and those on both sides of the divide with concerns about sovereignty or the so-called 'democratic deficit' would surely be pleased by the fact that the UK would no longer be under the direct jurisdiction of Brussels. True, we would no longer have a vote in the Council of Ministers and we would have no MEPs, but we would undoubtedly still have a pretty significant influence over EU policy due to the size of our population and (once it gets back on its feet) our economy. Those who are obsessed with keeping immigrants out of the UK would not be happy but, considering the leave vote was only 52%, such people are without doubt only a minority of the electorate. I would, therefore, argue that the referendum result does not have to be interpreted as a mandate to reject freedom of movement.