Rosh Hashanah

Hi All,

Shanah Tovah!

Happy New year!

More like America 2

Another example of how we are becoming more like America (the irony being this is being shaped by arch pro EU politicians who hate American and Trump especially) .

It is like this :  in America there is a  separate executive and legislature.  In the Westminster system the executive comes from the legislature and they are fused together. The executive introduces legislation and the parliament collectively votes on it, whereas in America the Congress decides its own legislation , subject to Presidential veto. 

Today we are seeing a shift from that position to an American system. We've got a government (executive)  that cannot pass legislation and cannot stop the parliament from voting for its own whims. This is because opposition MPs won't vote to call an election, something which would happen automatically in the old constitutional system.  A government only lasted providing it could command a legislative majority, which is why we don't have impeachment as a political tool to get rid of prime ministers( the only route for Americans to get rid of a president) .

 Thanks to the liberal democrats in the coalition years we now have a fixed term parliament, which needs a two thirds majority for an early election or we have 2 weeks of chaos for someone else (why not Gina?) to show they can command a majority.

In a short space of time we've become a de facto America. An executive which cannot be moved, but one which is  unable to pass any legislation. In fact it's worse than America because they can't even do any executive functions (e.g. Benn Bill and the usage of political judicial activism in yesterday's supreme  court case).

One also wonders what the unforseen and unintended consequences of all this will be. I dread to think.

Now here is a thought

Dudes,

Hmmmm....

Is this the only way to get an election/ brexit in the UK?

Pro Europeans just made us....

....just like the USA!

Isn't it ironic that in the attempts to stop brexit by pro EU fanatics  ( the underlying reason behind the propagation supreme court case) has made us more like the USA , with political judicial activism?  Given that by and large the left , liberals and a chunk of our establishment detest Americana , it's doubly ironic that this is the long term consequence of today's decision. Our whole constitutional settlement is being realigned and interestingly no-one voted for that , via referendum or parliamentary fiat.

But. Anyway. Time to doff your cap to our new Lord protector , Bercow.

Baar baar black sheep

Bar bar PC shit
Have you any pride?
Yes gender neutral term , Yes gender neutral term ,
One for the Palestinian ,
One for the Remonaer
We're fully woke here
One for the little transgender who lives down the lane...

Oh fuck me.

The original sounds better - the one my daughters get sung - (much to the amusement of their 'birth partner' aka in the old bigoted terms my WIFE! Who is French. We must make some allowances 😎😎🔯🔯😃😃) :

Israeli elections

Dudes,

Yes . Another Israeli election.  The second in a year.

I kinda had the same reaction as 'Brenda from Bristol'  Haifa :

But  with the exit poll too close to call...

Is it Likud or Kahol Lavan?

At least I voted.

Enough said

Just a dog?

Hi All,

A lovely poem spoken by the nation's favourite veterinarian surgeon:

I love the several Labrador dogs I've had both in the family and on my own ( they've always been black -  how woke! - and  male " working " Labradors i.e. ones who were bred for estates and farms )  and grieved at their passing away.   They've all helped me through my own mental illnesses and  .  But  recently  we've had a new one (black and a boy!)recently. 

Labrador retrievers are sooooo cool!

When one nation conservatism was populist

My weekly column today is reflective of the week's political events. This week I'm thinking of the conservative MPs who rebelled against their own party and then "lost the whip", followed by Amber Rudd's decision to resign both from the cabinet and the whip.

The left and media have made a big thing about this with them bemoaning the loss of "one nation" conservatives . This assumes that anyone on the left of the conservative party are one nation conservative , especially as often they will self identify as such. The issue here is twofold. First many of these conservatives (especially of the David Cameron era) are best described as economic and social liberals , rather than conservatives, liberal here meaning classical liberalism of the John Stuart Mill type. If this is difficult to grasp I will give two policies that fit the ideology well : gay marriage (social liberalism) and austerity (economic liberalism).

The second issue is that there is another source of left conservatism (confusingly in the grand scheme the centre right of politics) and that is Joseph Chamberlain. Chamberlain started off as a radical liberal and mayor of Birmingham in the 1870s, wanting social and economic reforms . He eventually split the liberal party over Irish home rule, to become a liberal unionist and supported the conservatives , introducing many domestic reforms at home , but also pursuing imperial expansion abroad ( trying and failing to enter and alliance with Wilhelmine Germany) .

Eventually the liberal unionists and the aristocratic Whigs (more on them later) formally merged with the conservative party to form the conservative and unionist party we have today. The reason why centre right conservative people look towards the one nation tradition is because after Southern Ireland stopped being part of the UK , the unionist element was less emphasized than the conservative part of the brand. Only with the rise of Welsh and Scottish nationalism has the unionist part been revived.

But what of one nation conservatism?

This branch of conservative ideology was the brainchild of one man: Benjamin Disraeli. Disraeli is, as of now, the first and only Jewish Prime Minister of the United Kingdom. He was Sephardic , but converted to Anglicanism, as in those days Jews by religion could not enter parliament, although he was still confronted by causal antisemitism as was "normal" in 19th century Europe, he first made a career as being a novelist as well as politician . To my mind this ability to get to the top, despite antisemitism, makes him all the more impressive as a politician and as person.

Disraeli had a daunting task . In 1846 the conservative party has been split down the middle, over the repeal of the Corn laws . For the next 30 years , with a few years exception, the party was out of power. The government of the day tended to be a coalition of ex conservatives, such as William Gladstone , the aristocratic Whigs and middle-class liberal radicals , such as John Bright as well as a voting base of non conformist Quakers, Evangelical , Methodist and Baptist Christianity. The Whigs, small in number,  tended to dominate this coalition , which would become the Liberal party, and were led by Lord Palmerston. The mid 19th century Liberal party would be known for free trade, political reform and a robust imperial and foreign policy.

Disraeli had an answer to this and it was one nation conservatism. This came from one of his books , Sybil, which decried the consequences of the industrial revolution wherein in Disraeli's view Britain was divided into the rich and poor i.e. two nations , rather than one.

Disraeli was not some form of radical democrat. In fact his view came from a very particular 19th century English paternalism or nobless oblige , in which the aristocracy and the middle-class had a duty of care to those beneath them( Disraeli and his family were wealthy Sephardic merchants ) The idea wasn't wholly romantic : sometimes it would be necessary to compromise to stop the tide of socialist revolution.

Disraeli's manifesto or policy program was to "dish the Whigs" .The Liberal party, despite its radical sections had become wary of any reforms, after Palmerston died Glastone took a different direction in foreign policy preferring isolation, international conferences and meditation to settle disputes, often to what was seen to be British humiliation, and so Disraeli saw his opportunity by emphasising what was in effect a populist manifesto: political , economic, social domestic reforms at home and an aggressive imperial policy abroad and to emphasise Britain's imperial power .In Europe he wouldn't remain isolated and would emphasise British national interest , by using the Royal Navy if necessary.

 Hence the great extension of the franchise, making Queen Victoria Empress of India,  buying the Suez canal, several domestic reforms and his role at the Congress of Vienna: he also had the support of drinkers who reacted against the temperance tendency of the Protestant Christians within the Liberal party , to the extent Gladstone attributed his electoral defeat as being down to "a torrent of gin and beer". As one contemporary said of Disraeli domestic reforms " The Conservative party have done more for the working classes in five years than the Liberals have in fifty." In 1883 the primrose league was founded in order to continue Disraelian concepts. In fact the symbol of conservatism should be a primrose , as much as the old torch or the ridiculous Cameron tree with a squiggle.

There are several things we can get from Disraeli's concept of one nation conservatism. Firstly it was populist. Secondly it emphasised patriotism . Thirdly it wouldn't have any truck was the Liberal / Gladstone "congress "  (proto EU)  view of Europe.  Not even Trump has made himself Emperor of Puerto Rico, let alone an entire half continent.  

In short I cannot see how today's conservative rebels can identify as one nation conservative. I doubt Disraeli would be a remainer. In fact I'd say Boris is more likely to be a one nation conservative in the traditional sense of the word. In fact today's conservative rebels aren't conservatives of any type. They are , as said above, economic and social liberals. They don't care about anything other than Europe or SW1. Seeking approval or praise from the guardian is the last place a conservative should be looking towards.

The Crown in Parliament system

This week is going to test the British constitution to the limits. Last week remainers were exploding in (ridiculous?)  Outrage over the proroguing of Parliament.  I don't doubt remainers sincerity. I doubt their sanity sometimes [ As an aside I recommend this piece on radicalized remainers , for greater clarity].

Once proroguing was signed by the Queen , remainers started to suggest we were in a dictatorship, fascism, right wing coup etc. Then there was the inevitable legal move. The matter for me and Hannah is that this is over the top rhetoric at best and dangerous at worse ( for if a real fascist government took hold, would it not be like that boy who cried wolf?). Britain is not in the middle of a right wing coup. It is not in a fascist dictatorship.  We know because as Jews our grandparents fled fascism in both Czechoslovakia and Iraq.  We know exactly what a fascist regime looks like.  In any case a dictatorship doesn't allow a Parliament to sit freely as it is today  and it doesn't allow credible and real opposition. The proroguing is for five days. It is constitutional and legal. Other governments in the Commonwealth have done the same in similar controversial circumstances ;  Stephen Harper in Canada in 2008 and no other than John Major (who supports the law suit against this decision) way back in 1997. In Australia the Governor General once sacked a government and dissolved the Aussie parliament , using the royal prerogative and that was as late as the 1970s.

 In fact if there is any coup going on , it is a coup against the current government and an attempt to reverse Parliament's previous decision to pass article 50 legislation.

The talk of preventing no deal Brexit is in reality an excuse for those who want no Brexit at all. This is quite clear from the people involved. It is also clear that when people were suggesting replacing Boris with a government of national unity , it in reality meant a remain government of unity.  Until Corbyn wondered in and demanded to be made PM , it was a serious possibility. Yet even Conservative rebels balked at letting a Socialist Marxist into power. For now.

An example of this coup attempt can be seen today , wherein remain MPs are going to , with the aid of the Speaker , take control of the businesses of the House of Commons.

This is a real constitutional outrage, because :

1. Any Speaker (unlike the US House) is supposed to give up their partisanship and become a neutral referee of the House as a whole. When seeking re-election , the Speaker does so as " the Speaker seeking re-election", not under their previous party allegiance.  He or she is supposed to be neither a government toadie nor a help for the opposition. The Speaker is or should be bound by convention and precedent. The current Speaker is going way beyond this and is acting in a partisan fashion.

2. The British constitution is that of the Crown In Parliament (being the Monarch, the House of commons and House of Lords)  :  the government is formed  or appointed by the Crown from MPs who can command a majority in the house of Commons for its legislation, especially budgets and the Queen's speech. In turn this executive is accountable to Parliament as a whole , via questions in the house, written questions  and standing committees. When Speaker Bercow gives the control of the order paper to Hillary Benn , Philip Hammond etc, he is breaking out of constitutional convention . First these MPs will not be accountable or under scrutiny as a government minister would be. Secondly it goes against what I've already said. We don't have shadow governments only one government that needs to be appointed by the Crown will a clear majority of the house  in favour.

3.  To pass no deal legislation will take time under normal parliamentary procedure. It needs to clear both houses. It also needs Royal Assent to become law (as I have written Crown In Parliament) . Hold that thought as it is important for later.

4.  This is more a political view than a constitutional one, but 3 years ago Parliament asked the people and the then Prime Minister said the result would be honoured.  Parliament has already passed the article 50 legislation . By going against a largely participated in  democratic vote ,  Parliament is risking the old rule of law premise that if a party looses or wins an election they then have every right to govern until the next election.

So what exactly can Boris and his government do in reaction?

There are four possibilities :

1. Get defeated and call for a general election. This would be the conventional thing to do , as any government that gets legislation passed that it doesn't want clearly doesn't command the confidence of the House. Except it is no longer that easy thanks to the conservative / liberal coalition years wherein we have the fixed term parliament act. Either Labour have to agree to an election (to get the two thirds majority required to trigger an early election)  or a formal vote of no confidence has to be put forward by Labour . If won there's 14 days of shenanigans whilst alternative governments are explored.

2). Boris can use the prerogative powers of the Monarch , to deny Queen's consent. This is once again an example of the Crown in Parliament ( Westminster is called a palace because it is one , just like Buckingham Palace). This is a little known power that means debates in the two houses have to have the Queen's  consent to go ahead. This has been used many more a time by previous governments than you might think  ( e.g. by Tony Blair in 1999) .

3). Boris can allow the whole charade to continue and then use the prerogative powers to withhold Royal Assent. This is basically the Queen's power of veto (again Crown in Parliament ) . The Queen is a constitutional monarch and thus never uses this power of veto . In fact the last time it was done was in 1708 and that was Queen Anne . But what people don't realise is that this veto was used by Anne on the "advise " of her government.  In fact it is perfectly constitutional for the Monarch to veto a bill on the advise of her Ministers.

4) Boris accepts the rebellion and caves in like Theresa May. We then have a permanent situation of stalemate , where we are destined to leave , but never can, constantly seeking constant extensions.

What do people here think?

Constitutions

There's an old joke that says God is an Englishman. The strange thing is that there are many similarities between the British and Jewish constitutions ( except us Jews would claim that the basis of our constitution comes from God via Moses our teacher).

Let's look at this in more detail. 

The first thing the ignorant will tell you is that Britain has no written constitution, unlike America's famous one which can fit into the back of any politics textbook and still get into a rucksack. In fact saying Britain doesn't have a written constitution isn't true. Britain doesn't have a codified constitution, i.e. it is NOT written down in one singular document to fit neatly into a textbook and did not come about in one particular year , instead coming about throughout the centuries into what we have today. Some of it is written, some of it is oral and some of it is convention or tradition and some of it has been imposed by the EU. But it has come about over time. Similarly both the British and Jewish legal framework rely on precedent and convention.

Likewise, the halakha has a mixture of written (the Torah of Moses) , oral (the oral Torah eventually written into the Talmud) and custom and tradition  or convention (Minhag). The oral law of the Talmud often contains commentary by Rabbis of a later date; you will almost certainly get a commentary from Rashi at minimum, but sometimes commentary on commentary from various Rabbinical sources throughout the ages. 

But you may ask what about codification ? True the two most well known sources which sought  to codify Halakha , both  of whom come via our Sephardic middle eastern Rabbinical scholars : Moses Maimonides( the Rambam) and Joseph Caro ( the Maran).  Of course  us Ashkenazi took these and modified them and (to Sephardic eyes) made them grossly over complex and legalistic, by adding to them ,but that's a different story. Similarly , Britain has Walter Bagheot and Erskin May.

But what's important is that they both work , have grown organically rather than mechanically and stand the test of time.

Back to school

It's been a long summer  and it's always a strange time of year. Despite having stopped school  almost ten years ago the last few weeks in July till now always makes me think of it. So today is the start of school again, the summer holiday is over and I always get a psychological feelings of the same. Of course I have worked during the past six weeks, but strangely this time of year always has the back to school feeling. 

Strange eh?