Category: Interludes

26-9-19

Dear Partners in thought,

It is sad it had to take the Supreme Court in Britain to stress unequivocally that the PM had lied to the Queen, Parliament, the people and endangered British democracy, writing another abysmal chapter in the delusional and unhealthy Brexit saga. Who could believe that Boris Johnson had sound reasons for proroguing Parliament? While some thought that the end justified the means and that a small dent into British identity, the latter so dear to Brexiteers, would not matter, twelve judges unanimously declared to Britain and the world that values mattered and democracy should not be ignored. The irony, otherwise so British in nature, in that good episode of an otherwise deep tragedy was that Boris Johnson dared launching the most damning attack on British democracy while purporting to restore parliament’s sovereignty and escape the clutches of a supposedly “undemocratic EU” led by “unelected” bureaucrats. We should rejoice at the Supreme Court’s decision while worrying that we are more and more subjected to these kinds of attacks on our values, which we now take for granted so tired we become. The sight of Donald and Boris, quasi-partners in crime and strange lookalikes, in New York during the UN Annual Meeting, was very telling, especially when the US President simply said that the British PM’s unanimous Supreme Court rebuke was “another day at the office” – even if we should excuse him, his mind being lost amid the Ukrainian steppes this week. 

This turn of events may or may not trigger a change at Number Ten. It should, but adversity is a defining feature of the PM, who thrives on it like his role model though for vastly different reasons. Boris will fight if only to go down gloriously in flames. However this judicial decision has created once again another opportunity for Britain to reconsider Brexit and eventually, Article 50 extension permitting, have a direct say on what the people “really, really want” to borrow from the once popular Spice Girls.

Warmest regards,

Serge                 

2-9-19

Dear Partners in thought,

Reading about the economic programme of a potential Labour Government, it is clear that Boris Johnson cannot believe his good fortune – at first glance. A Labor Government following a Labour win in a snap general election would confiscate GBP 300bn of shares in 7,000 large companies and give them to workers, while it would provide a “right to buy” scheme for private tenants and tax landlords more highly – all while creating the most leftwing economic approach (management would not apply) in modern Western history. When contemplating the two main parties and thinking about the demise of traditional Western parties (a previous Interlude) one might wonder what is happening to Britain between her rock and her hard place. On one hand splendid isolation, economic decline and reduced clout at all levels. On the other, probably the same (if Brexit, especially of the hard kind, goes ahead) and return to quasi-Marxist times led by the great leadership we know (covered in a previous Book Note). One may also wonder if Labour’s economic policy grandstanding does not hide a desire to stay in opposition so unlikely they would actually win any election on that extreme platform. Theirs is certainly not the best way to win a general election, even facing a Conservative Party led by zealots that lost its soul and moorings. 

Such a dismal choice for British voters makes us think about what happened in France in 2017. The two leading “government” parties that had commanded 80%+ of all votes for decades did not make it to the last round of the presidential elections and the unknown Macron was elected against all odds. Those two main centre-left and centre-right parties continued their journey to oblivion, gathering together 15% of the votes in the European parliamentary elections last May. Clearly there may not be an Emmanuel Macron in Britain yet. However the Lib-Dems, pro-EU (even if it might be too late), led by a woman (not only reflecting our times but going back to some good times for Britain), could become a Macron-like movement, seizing the opportunity presented by two abysmal parties that no longer represent the British people (“Extremist” BoJo “elected” PM by 90,000 party members and two-thirds of Labour voters being center left). Even if Brexit were to happen through the autocratic decision of a PM who played with core values that were Britain, a LibDem victory (with Green support) that would be backed by a moderate cross-old party drive could make a great difference on the future of Britain. And even if they would not win with an outright majority due to the tight schedule involved to get their message across, they could be a senior partner in a LibDem-Labor coalition with the junior partner having had to put some water in their Leninist vodka. 

The LibDems (with Green support), if given a chance and the great opportunity presented to them, could be the French Macron. 

Warmest regards,

Serge  

29-9-19

Dear Partners in thought,

The decision by Boris Johnson to suspend Parliament for five weeks at this juncture is clearly expedient in terms of getting his No Deal Brexit or whatever deal through. It also shows that Brexiteers, especially of the hard kind, who supposedly love “the will of the people” are ready to silence their representatives in what is an extreme populist, if not autocratic, move. Whatever we may think of the strange workings of the House of Commons, this decision sets a precedent not seen in modern British history and shows, in spite of some newspapers not wanting to see a tyrant, a move that, if it perdured, would blemish British democracy and its executive branch forever. Boris Johnson took a big gamble quite apart of a no confidence vote he will likely face. He has likely ensured that the Queen will stop that dangerous process and save democracy, strengthening one more time British monarchy and the Windsor family which often rise to be the best at the worst times in British history. The alliance of Buckingham Palace and the Mother of Parliaments will prevail and be an example, for Britain and the Western world not to mention the world at large.  

Warmest regards,

Serge        

24-8-19

Dear Partners in thought,

The Brexit saga may end in a No Deal as foolishly desired by the current British PM whose only ambition was to be PM for a party that put its interests well ahead of that of its nation (like the other party’s leader to be fair). It is time to reflect upon how Britain arrived at this dire state of affairs and identify the losers and the winners of what history will doubtless see as folly. 

Referenda are usually meant to be lost even if few would have thought the Leave vote would have prevailed in June 2016. Leave prevailed as Remain was a bad name, the benefits of EU membership were poorly articulated and the “fear” factor and campaign over-played to the extent it did not register with many voters. Leave made promises in the truest populist sense that were easy solutions to complex issues combined with superior marketing skills and slogans à la NHS. Leave voters transcended party politics largely with left-wingers, many short on facts and at times education, in depressed British areas, aiming at the EU capitalist plot while others wanted to keep the job-stealing foreigners out of areas where there were no longer jobs. At the same time well-off, right winger, tories, often retired but very vocal decided it was time to get British sovereignty back (however notional it was) from those folks who could not run a pub in Bruxelles. To be sure most of them were all good people, but they wanted to exist, be heard and either stop that dreadful, inhuman globalisation process or go back to Victorian times they read about as children. 

Once the smoke clears and assuming Brexit is enacted, Britain, if it has not really felt much economic pain yet (as many Brexiters point out rightly even if recent signs are not good) will gradually feel the blow in terms of jobs shifted to mainland Europe (finance, services), a much lower level of foreign investment (quite a few foreign multinationals cancelled their investments like Toyota or BMW) and a British pound declining further, all of which will have dire consequences on the financial standing of the UK, not to mention the City of London, once a preeminent world financial centre and of course all households. As Bill Clinton’s chief campaign strategist’s James Carville  famously said once “It’s the economy, stupid”. Dreams of glory or revenge do not make up for a lower GDP and fewer jobs being created as Brexiters, once they have what they wanted, will soon realise, many of whom wondering what they did to themselves and their country. So Britain is a sure loser at all levels, not to mention that the young who did not vote much will bear the brunt of the decision of their elders who will gradually disappear in the sunset haven enjoyed a rather good life. However Europe is also the loser as it was stronger with Britain in a world of blocs. Europe’s preeminence as the leading trading bloc in the world will be seriously affected while Britain will have to deal with its largest trading partner and live with rules and regulations it will no longer participate in shaping. Brexit is a lose-lose game for both Britain and the European Union – and the Western world generally all the more as America is led by an erratic, ignorant and dangerous President. 

In fact the real winner of Brexit is Russia, which may have helped the Leave outcome and will surely benefit from it as the European bloc and the West are weakened. Macron’s decision to engage with Russia this past week to solve the Ukrainian situation is a preemptive move that says that Brexit will happen. The other winner of Brexit, albeit to a lesser and indirect degree, is China, which also has to deal with the trade war follies unleashed by President Trump who is now wondering whether America’s worst enemy is China or the Fed’s Chairman, just if we needed to assess his level of sanity. One thing is sure, to paraphrase Lenin, is that the Leave voters, regardless of whom they were and what they thought they thought in June 2016, were by and large “the useful idiots” of Vladimir Putin and to some extent, quite indirectly, China. 

Warmest regards,

Serge                 

23-8-19

Dear Partners in thought,

The news of Joe Biden’s demise after the first Democratic primary debate and his “time being up” (in his own words) were very premature – as I told you then.  I still think that Joe, barring a round of mega-gaffes, will get the nomination and polls seem to go this way.  It is a simple Cartesian thing regardless of the reasons for the media to make the process more exciting. Radicals simply can’t make it based on the fact that moderates are the clear majority of Democratic primary voters. Sanders and Warren both at 15-16% are well behind Joe at 30% and can certainly count on vocal activists but that wing is less 15-20% of the Dems on a good day…And Harris as she spoke more and was propelled in the limelight strangely went back where she was at about 5% showing that she needs to wait her time. I hope she gets warmer to Joe for the ticket I think they should build based on the perfect mix they represent at all levels. As for Mayor Pete, the other rising star we got to know more, he will be the man for 2024 or 2028. Lastly I think Joe’s new ad move to say that the Dem focus should squarely be “to beat Trump” and “restore our values” – forget about those radical programs – is very smart and what I would have advised him to go for. Joe should also state early on to artfully deflect the age factor that he will fulfil his core mission for one term only, hence the critical running mate selection. Politics is not rocket science and it is high time for America and the world to have a safe pair of hands with restored values we have always shared to shine on that “city on the hill”.  

Warmest regards,

Serge

13-8-9

Dear Partners in thought,

A very good man who used to be the mayor of a great, historically fateful American city recently told me that the Republican Party under Trump was dead while the Democratic Party was dead too but did not know it yet, prompting me to reflect on the fate of our great Western political parties in a few historically key Western nations. 

I actually think that the main “political parties”, as we have known them for decades in the West are dead or dying. Look at France with the Socialists (social democrats really) and center right parties (whatever the latter’s changing names) which commanded about 75-80% of the votes, broadly speaking for 50 years, garnered an aggregate “15%” at the European parliamentary elections of late May. Look at the UK and how “abysmal” both main parties have been since the June 2016 referendum in terms of both leaderships (not to mention putting parties before nation) and of course their electoral results…Germany is on its way too with the CDU at 25% in late May…I think one might be also tempted to think that Putin and his “liberalism is obsolete” is right (I don’t believe that though he has a point) when you see that the extremes rise, also in the voting booth (though not as much as could have been feared in May), as easy solutions to complex issues are appealing to many for a variety of reasons and fashions, when rational arguments are not wanted, especially if emanating from the “elite” as populism is inherently unsatisfied and corrosive of politics. 

For my part I think it is a time where those main parties go through a “re-foundation” process to re-define their identities and value add. I think the GOP and Dems will go through such process (by gradually rejecting “Trumpisation” and economic radicalism, away from mirror vote-grabbing extremism respectively) all the more when Trump is gone (I think he does not have the numbers even if the Dems can be self-hurting) as he has been a major disruption factor for both. As for France, I think Macron is a good leader dealing with an ever riotous and challenging Gallic nation but his 2017 victory killed the main parties while his own is not yet one (re-foundation of both centre-left and centre-right will be hard as Macron is occupying both spaces on different issues, having succeeded in creating a broad “centre” where Giscard failed as he was too early 45 years ago). As for the UK, both main parties seem doomed, Brexit (and poor Cameron) being the “emotionally-charged” reason and the Boris Johnson train down the road to no-deal oblivion and overall decline that all can see as a bad unfolding and unavoidable script…If only they were letting the people speak, to settle once and for all the matter and however imperfect this way forward, three years later and based on more facts, and not those two non-representative parties…I wonder what historians will say 50 years from now.  

However and in the meantime we should not despair. The dire current Western political landscape has already triggered innovative initiatives led by concerned individuals focused on tackling societal challenges “together” and not along toxic partisan lines. One such initiative, Engage Britain, is being led by well-known financier, Guy Hands, founder and chairman of Terra Firma, the British private equity group. Engage Britain aims at putting pepole, with all their differences, knowledge and experience, at the heart of tackling the most difficult and divisive challenges facing Britain – which are of course easy for all to see particularly from afar. Guy’s bet is that his fellow citizens are capable of working together, through established and pioneering solution-focused principles and methods, to help solving challenges, that parties have not been able to such as the funding of healthcare, opportunities for families living in poverty, protecting the environment or addressing decently and rationally divisive issues such as immigration. Engage Britain’s end game is ambitiously to “act as catalyst of wider civic society to build a better place for all to live”. I recommend that you go to http://www.engagebritain.org to get a good overview of such new initiative that is emblematic of things to come and will likely have a strong, positive impact on society and further marginalise political parties in the West. There is light at the of the tunnel and we should still believe in the future.            

Warmest regards,

Serge 

6-8-19

Dear Partners in thought,

I thought I would give you my take on where the Dems are primary process-wise now that the first and second debates (sadly very much akin to TV reality and Twitter with only a few seconds to express views on key matters) have happened and where we are now. The second rounds of debate last week did not change the dynamics of the Dem race which were set in the first rounds in late June. Joe Biden was under attack from all in his group, given his clear lead today, this in spite of a temporary slump following his rather unimpressive fighting spirit in late June while a passion-driven Elizabeth Warren kept appearing as the better one in her own group. Based on this, I would actually like to focus a bit more on the first rounds that really set the stage in late June for where we are and may continue to be.    

Now we can guess (partly thanks to Donald Trump Jr who is definitely his father’s son) that Kamala Harris probably unleashed her attack in the first debate (second group) with the dual goal of reducing Joe’s “establishment” lead and interestingly beefing up her African-American credentials, hence these odd “busing”and “little girl” references, so she could deal with the fact that she has more of a Jamaican and Indian background as it came up a few days later (at least she was not asked to go back where she came from by Dad). Personally I think that kind of well-rehearsed “stitch up” and especially these race tactics, however crucial the subject matter in American “history”, are a disservice (to her for sure and) to American politics (probably also strengthening Trump and why he is where he is in the first place) even if she rose in the Dems primary polls (though did not overtake the three leaders who are still Joe, Bernie and Elizabeth). As an aside, 53% of African-Americans were backing Joe after last week’s debates, far ahead from any candidate and due to the clear Obama legacy and the often forgotten fact that most African-Americans are of the moderate Democratic persuasion, as Bernie can remember.   

Joe certainly appeared a bit out of touch and for some “showing his age” (we are bound to hear more about this and his health in the coming months) in that first debate as shown with his poor response to Kamala’s fierce attack (defending de facto states rights, which was daft) but this changed nothing substantially.  He still leads confortably and can keep building a commanding position in the first primaries – as nearly 50% of Dems primary voters are “moderates” and only 16% are “radicals”, which makes the leftward drive of some usually mild candidates strange (unless he keeps up on the gaffe trail and quotes such as “My time is up” by way of conveniently deflecting attacks). There is no doubt that this radicalisation of the Dems exemplified by Bernie (true to himself for sure) and Warren, compounded by the vocal statements of the four congresswomen Trump called the Squad (with AOC as the main voice) helps Trump and he knows it, making them front and center while pleasing his core base. It is no wonder why wise House Speaker Nancy Pelosi worries about this non-representative left wing drive and dangerous calls for an impeachment, whatever its good grounds, that has no chance of happening and would comfort Trump’s base. Would AOC and her three friends actually against all odds be the best Trump supporters?  

Interestingly Trump is polling behind most lead Dems (an average of 10 points behind Joe). I think Bernie is not doing too well this year in a more crowded and less clear contest, also in the absence of a super-establishment “put-off” candidate (for some). A passionate Warren did well in the first debate and kept doing well in the second one but mainly as she was the only heavyweight in her group – and has now risen above Bernie in some polls. Strangely Castro who did well in the first debate and is very engaging did not gain much poll-wise (apart from more money) while Beto did not confirm the hopes of many Texas followers and should work on his super Italian hand-gesticulating style that does not help him…Talented and unpronounceable Pete Buttigieg, the South Bend, Indiana mayor – ex-McKinsey and Afghan veteran – is doing extremely well on the fundraising trail (also targeting rich donors unlike Warren and Sanders) but one may also think that his “upfront diversity” is the driver behind it while he is still relatively low in the polls, also lacking a minority appeal notably after a fatal, criticised shooting by the police in his town in June. The other candidates (it’s hard to keep track of how many are still running now though we can now exclude Congressman Salwell and include hedge fund billionaire Tom Steyer!) are there “for the future” or hoping for a VP slot if they shone well enough…However what are NYC Mayor Bill de Blasio, this interesting female writer and a few others, however skilled in their own ways, really doing there? It is likely that half of the candidates will have disappeared by year-end.  

As you know, I actually saw Kamala as Joe’s best running mate (note that Joe might still do too, forgiving and tactical as I am sure he is) like I said a couple of months ago given the perfect geography/age/gender/race balance with a relatively compatible overall moderate outlook that her prosecutorial profile helps with, whatever radical economic initiatives (like with student loans now, to outflank Bernie) she may talk about (also a good complementarity with Joe). Given his age, I also see Joe for one term eventually or, better, clearly stated at the ticket start with his main mission of “getting things back to normal”. 

Even though the road is indeed very long and short of unexpected events arising, I stick to Joe winning the nomination and Joe-Kamala for the ticket in spite of the early debate attacks from the Californian which actually propelled her in the top group and raised her combative and complementary features which the experienced and calm man from Delaware should have noticed. Interestingly I saw that the FT’s Ed Luce mentioned a first all-women Warren-Harris ticket. I had not thought about that ground-breaking combative one.  

Warmest regards,

Serge

5-8-19

Dear Partners in thought,

As I come back from blog break, it would be hard not to write about the massive El Paso and Dayton tragedies we all know. 

What have we learned from these 249th and 250th “mass shootings” this year alone? Nothing new. Mass shootings be they in schools, shopping malls or restaurant districts in “America the beautiful”, the leading country in the world, are probably the number one horrifying fact of American life today. It looks like the severity of those two tragedies may have caused some serious thinking and re-thinking even if the NRA is likely getting into gear, counting on its paid politicians and lobbyists to propel the usual message that guns are what have made America and will keep it safe against all enemies. 

When looking at the reactions to El Paso and Dayton, especially from the NRA supporters and the so-called defenders of their interpretation of the Second Amendment, it is useful to understand the following two points:

1. President Trump has encouraged hatred through his language and style which led mentally-ill individuals who felt they were following a virtuous path for America (at least in the case of El Paso) to go and shoot innocent people. When Trump first reacted to El Paso, he condemned the event due to its “cowardice” as if the shooter should have simply not killed people in the back. This is beyond words and shows who Trump is and what damage he has done to America (and the world on other matters). That he dares linking congressional legislation on gun control to immigration is beyond belief in what America always stood for. 

2. Some likeable Republican pundits like Rick Santorum, a former U.S. Senator from Pennsylvania and Republican presidential candidate now acting as moderate conservative counterpunch on CNN, reacted to potential (read likely) gun legislation in two ways: 1. Depriving good citizens of the possibility to stop bad events like in El Paso and Dayton as they would have no access to guns would be bad. 2. Making guns hard to obtain will not stop really bad people from getting them if they want. Rick Santorum is right. However police forces as in many countries in the world have the mission to enforce the law and protect citizens (in Dayton they stopped and killed the shooter in one minute of his rampage which, if already dreadful, could have been much worse while in El Paso the shooter was apprehended in a few short minutes even if the dead and wounded count was horrifying). Moreover gun legislation would be targeted at assault weapons and special multi-round magazines like the two shooters used, not simple handguns so American culture would be preserved. Lastly Santorum is right in that “bad people” committing bank robberies or gangs fighting gangs will always have access to bad guns like everywhere else but 21 year old “nutcases” influenced by the official DC discourse and social media won’t and schools and shopping malls will be safer for this. 

Gun control is not out of reach. If anything El Paso and Dayton due to their dual timing and horror may this time lead to real change that even the NRA, Trump and his friends will not be able to stop as it would be too costly politically. With this on the road a much harsher management of hate speech on social media will need to be put in place as guns are only one of the tools to control even at the cost of free speech. There is “no ifs or buts” today to borrow from a recent PM in Britain.

Warmest regards,

Serge                 

10-6-19

Dear Partners in thought,

Rather than a long note, I wanted you to think about the way Britain will choose its next prime minister as it is surrealistic. The Conservative party, whose leaders, among whom the Eurosceptic crusaders first, have taken Britain to the emotional road of Brexit oblivion against all facts – while killing the most reputable party of the last 100 years in European history – will now select the next Prime Minister of Britain. After the Tory MPs select the two top candidates, the Tory membership, a vast majority of them enjoying the prospect of a no deal Brexit – from a party having reached 10% at the last European parliamentary election – will likely send hard stance Boris Johnson to Number 10. While following a certain logic by way of a process, the fate of Britain will in effect be decided by hardline activists.

With all due respect, in another age the Bard would have said: “Something is rotten in the State of…Britain”.

There is today an urgent need – more than ever – for a general election and/or a second referendum. 

Warmest regards,

Serge

30-5-19

Dear Partners in thought,

The European parliamentary elections dealt a massive blow in the UK to the Tories and to some extent Labour. The British political landscape has changed durably not unlike that of France. However in the case of Britain, its majestuous ship that ruled the waves is now astray. To borrow the words from the favourite man of a likely future Eurosceptic Prime minister (and our favourite man too, to be fair), Britain is in the midst of its “darkest hours”, redux.   

Labour went into a self-killing journey of oblivion with an unlikely set of actual Trotskyte entryists at its helm bound to dogmatically oppose what they saw as a EU-flavoured capitalist plot.  Soon nobody will care as that once major party will become increasingly irrelevant (one wonders what the likes of Tony Blair and Gordon Brown think today). If it continues its doomsday course Labour will gradually not matter and will share the road to irrelevance of Mélanchon’s France Insoumise. To be fair the left has a tough existential time these days. Their time seems to be gone. Liberals and greens are gradually taking their place with values and ideas that resonate more, especially with young voters.  

The Tory Party, led by key and, sadly, talented Eurosceptics and a Prime Minister who naively opened Pandora’s box, is now going into a contest to replace the inefficient and tearful Theresa May. Those people – Boris Johnson, Michael Gove, Sajid Javid and Jeremy Hunt – suffer from autism and an over-developed ego without any understanding for what goes on around them. The Tories, once the most successful European political party in Europe for more than a century, that gave back Britain its pride and relevance with Margareth Thatcher, are effectively dying as we speak though its leaders seem to keep dancing. Nigel Farage, clownish as he can be, killed them – but they killed themselves first out of personal ambition ahead of national interest combined with strategic mismanagement – while the unlikely winner of last Sunday still could not run a pub even if he likes beer.  Britain needs new parties though the Lib Dems may step to the fore alongside the Greens. The young will dictate this. History may say that these European elections may have been more about the greens and the liberals and the gradual demise of once government  parties that made post-war Europe than the nationalists.  

Britain has seriously hurt itself via the Brexit process and along the way a reputation built over centuries even if some older, well-off Tories feel that all is still good on the economic front now not yet feeling the impact of leaving the EU. However it is time for all to look at the big picture. Britain without Europe is markedly wounded while the EU without Britain is severely weakened – at a time when blocs do matter and a rising China is going full blast for world leadership with America not willing to let this happen. Europe need to be together as we can win or sink together depending on the course we choose. There is no need for a lose-lose scenario now even if it feels like an existential booster to some in search of an elusive and comforting past glory where sovereignty could only be notional and lethally costly. 

Some in the EU, who liked Britain for what it was, are even saying that it would be better now to let it go the high seas. I disagree and say that we need to push our European message across and help our friends stay as we simply help ourselves. We also owe it to them for what they did for “who we are” over the past century. Let’s keep open arms and help them fight their demons so we keep growing as “Europe”. Let us help them reach that second referendum point even if the odds are tough and the leaders to be will fight it out of party rationale as they have before. We owe it to them. We owe to ourselves – to try harder. Let the better angels of our nature prevail while focusing on what matters.      

Warmest regards,

Serge