Spending hundreds of thousands of pounds to find out why the electorate loathe him seems yet another waste of money by Brown. He could read the blogs, lots of fine and accurate, imaginative analysis there, and available free of charge. The news that he has been refused as a client by a leading advertising company because of the bad effect he would have on its other famous clients suggest too that another aspect of his persona is well recognised.
Assurances that all this money, for yet more private polling and focus group delving into why he is the worst person on earth to be prime minister, is coming out of Labour party funds and not from the taxpayer is undermined by the reporting of widespread concern that the Labour party is within three weeks of bankruptcy. Its officers and employees are taking advice from lawyers to protect themselves from personal liability, and the unions on terms and conditions of their termination of employment.
It may be helpful to suggest that the better departments of social anthropology - UCL or Cambridge would be a good choice - are well versed in the occurrence, causes, explanations of, and social response to the perceived social malignancy of individuals. Cheaper and quicker too, as their research has been funded and completed already. It offers also, good reasons why using magical methods is really dangerous in the real world. Some of the remedies provided in ethnographic accounts for dealing with the Browns of our societies are pretty elemental (earth, air, water, fire, as in the form of: stones; flying - let's see you; floating as in drowning; and as for fire let's no go there), and Brown (ignorant and unaware as always) is not a Shona spirit medium, though he does resemble Mugabe in other behaviours.
Much safer just to accept the modern, democratic way - go for a vote in a general election and then go away.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
4 comments:
...he does resemble Mugabe in other ways...
I have today received an email from a mate in Africa to inform me that a loaf of bread in Harare now costs Zim$600 million. When I lived in that area it was Z$0.90. Current rate of exchange US$1 = Z$ one billion.
How times have changed - and it's all that Tony Bliar's fault (allegedly).
Who thought up NIBMAR, Nomad? Was it some Colonial Office 'position' or did it come from another, international, secretariat? Was it a Colonial Office collective view that was too clever - eg lip service to modernity while setting goals it was thought would maintain the status quo? Wilson didn't like it at all. I have regard for Wilson's sharp political intuition.
Using focus groups etc. to increase attractiveness by pressing the right public buttons is our version of rituals to garner social and political power acceptability. Brown should watch it; we might abandon modern rejection means if he keeps improperly with holding them, and try some elementals.
Good question HG, to which I have no answer, but short of invading (probably not a good idea given that the Suez debacle was still fresh in people's minds) I do not know what else Wilson could have done to prevent UDI which the white Rhodies were determined to go for. You may find the attached useful.
From: www.plexoft.com/SBF/N03.html
NIBMAR had been promoted by African, Asian, and Caribbean members of the British Commonwealth for years before the Rhodesias split up. British PM Harold Wilson resisted. Eventually, at the July 21, 1961, Commonwealth conference in London, he accepted a draft resolution formulated by Canadian PM Lester Pearson. Nevertheless, he continued to offer Ian Smith, leader of Southern Rhodesia, deals that fell far short of NIBMAR. They were not enough for Smith, at least in the 1960's, and on November 11, 1965, his administration unilaterally declared independence.
If things go on as they are, I can quite see the UK (or at least England!) declaring UDI from the EU one of these fine days.
If Smith were to do it today the response by other countries would be different I think. I haven't access to a good set of books on central and southern last century African history (the anthropological studies are inappropriately skewed for international relations). What Wilson seems to have understood was that it was not in any Rhodesian's interest to treat the country as if it were, say, Ghana, or Malawi, or even Zambia. Nigeria, Kenya, Rhodesia and South Africa should have gained independence in a wholly different manner than the other colonies. Certainly independence, but the wrong model on false premises of anti-colonialism won out and the price has been very cruel. Wilson knew, but was without the political support, and in the wrong political party, to do better for these countries.
Post a Comment