On the rottenness of the political leaderships

For a long time I thought that most populist politicians just track the interests and preferences of voters and serve them.

In the last years however it seems more and more that some parties and politicians are perfectly capable of forming the wills of the voters in a way that suits their agenda.

Every time one hears a politician talk these days one is faced with a product. There isn't much content usually that has anything to do with the motivations and values of the person talking, or the institution/post she/he represents. It is just a marketing product designed to attract 'buyers'. who are in this case voters.

What we see at the moment in the EU and in Europe at large (including post-Brexit UK, and European Russia) is that right-wing, extreme-nationalist people are parading as political conservatives. But don't be deluded. They don't actually aim at defending any values or ways of life. They aim at grasping power and securing positions for themselves and their collaborators. This in itself wouldn't be a problem. You will have these moves in any competition. The problem starts when this becomes the sole goal of their activities.

Brexit is an excellent case to study. It does not serve the EUs interests, it does not serve the interests of the British people at large, or the English people at large. It does not serve the interests of Britain, or Britain's foreign political partners. What it does is simply this: There was a worry for some more nationalist and mainly middle level administrators and political and business players in the UK that they would lose their positions and weight in a more unified Europe, and in a UK which is becoming richer and richer. These folks came up with the idea that leaving the EU will protect their positions within British politics and business by isolating - at least partially - the decision making structures and markets in which they participate. It might also help them get higher positions and get a slice of the enormous wealth that the UK - much with the help of the EU, EU citizens working there, and other international partners - has amassed in the last decade.

People who will be affected by Brexit, but don't get to vote

The Guardian ran a short compilation of profiles of people from the EU currently working and living in the UK. The piece focuses on how people see and feel about the vote, and what their fears are about a possible 'Leave' win.

On Angela Kiss's 'How to be an Alien in England'

I picked up Kiss's book with some excitement: she is a contemporary female writer, working as an accountant, and a Hungarian, writing about her expat experiences in the UK. I put down the book with a bit annoyed. Altogether, I would give it 2 stars out o 5, if I would give stars. Here is why.

In her book Kiss is into what was a very popular genre from the Romantic age up to the late 1980's: giving a national characterology. She is trying to do it in a funny way, but the book does not give one enough info to discern what Kiss actually finds true and how much of her bafflement concerning British habits is genuine, and how much is adopted for comical effect. Some of the jokes are good, some of the stories are cute, but altogether the material is too thin. Where it isn't too thin it commits one of two other mistakes: 1) It relies too heavily on the same jokes, and 2) it doesn't recognize when being puzzled why another culture stops being funny. The first of these two issues becomes apparent after page 30 where she can only keep the narrative flowing by making more and more ridiculous overstatements, which, naturally, become less and less entertaining, and don't provide any actual insight either into her experiences in Britain as an East-European, nor into what the Brits are like in their daily interactions.
The second issue is very bothersome and irritating on many points of the book: Kiss seems simply to have assumed that her way of doing and understanding things is obviously correct, since it makes sense to her. That's fine so far, but then she assumes that different ways of doing things not only not make sense to her but they can't make sense at all. She doesn't even entertain the idea that there might be different ways of going about one's life and looking at things. Or at least she doesn't show any sign which would indicate that she understands this.

Reading the book reminded of an important difference between comedians. Some of them are really funny to listen to for a few minutes, and they can be downright brilliant in short sketches. Still, if one has to listen to them for more than 5 minutes it becomes apparent that what seemed to be depth or meaning is just obsession with some insignificant detail or a ridiculous overstatement and simplification. Then there are comedians who can do one and a half hour shows, connect a string of topics, comment on publicly debated issues - moral, political, etc. - and one is entertained all the while. Sadly Kiss's book reminded me much more of the first kind of comedian. There are some funny bits and pieces, but reading the book for more than 10 minutes makes its shallowness obvious, and highlights that its author has failed to grasp what being an alien in England is like, as well what Brits are like. These are of course both tall orders, in fact, in my opinion they are impossible, since there is no unified British character, nor is there a single immigrant experience. There are common threads but those would have to be teased out with much more care and sophistication. What's more annoying is that Kiss doesn't even seem to have tried sufficiently. I would only recommend this book to someone who has never been to the UK and never intends to come here, and is a big fan of often very insensitive and politically incorrect 1970's, 1980's humour.

The Shepherd's Life

The Shepherd's Life has been a hit book in Britain. James Rebanks wrote an interesting and compelling account both of what it is like to be a shepherd, and of why it is okay to choose to continue a tradition. Rebanks isn't into high  level politics. He is into the very personal and moral sphere of life, the sphere in which we seek our happiness, fulfillment, our calling, and try to construct a life that has meaning and value for us, and for others. And he is very good at this, even remarkably so.

There are many debates in contemporary philosophy concerning values, meaning, the good, and the meaning of life. I think Rebanks's position is closest to those who claim that value is created, not found. Reading his account of how natural it was for him to continue what his grandfather and father have been doing reminded me of Samuel Scheffler's book Death and the Afterlife, in which Scheffler argued that many of our standard activities - work, learning, healing, saving, and building houses for example - only make sense because we believe that others will engage in the same ways of life which we live and value, and imagine to go on. In a sense of course Scheffler's point is obvious: how could we imagine what it will be like to live in, for example the EU or India in 200 years? Naturally, we imagine that despite all the inevitable technological, political, economical, and fashion-related changes there will be core elements of life such as the ways families live (together or separately, close or far, etc.) or the way we treat individuals (with respect, with demands, with empathy, etc.) which will be similar to ours.

Rebanks makes a good case for the position that it is possible and should be seen as a respectable option to say no to the current ideal of striving for a career in management, finance, business, law or something else that earns big money and is done in a busy city. The alternative he highlights is that of carrying on with something that is working, keeping things going, and adopting to changes when that is important, without discarding a whole way of life just because other options seem to be easier or more lucrative at the moment.

As someone who is/has making/made the attempt to become the first academic in my family, and doing so in the UK, not in my home country, not somewhere where my own language is spoken, away from my family and childhood friends, this message awakes interest. Maybe I should have taken on the low salaries at a Hungarian university - way below EU average and even more below UK average - and struggled with paying the rent but fulfilled a role in that society? On the other hand I know that the answer is clearly no. The option that Rebanks depicts is only open as long as one has a comfortable enough life to go on. Being a shepherd comes across as fantastic. And it must be. It must also be rewarding, and hard work. It also has a function and it is valuable. But such choices are only viable as long as they provide the basics. When the shepherd's life will change to be more like the miner's in the UK, no one will write books like this anymore.

This is not to say that Rebanks isn't right. As long as the option of living such a life is a meaningful - and not a harmful - option, it should be fine for people to resist the pressure of uniform careers and dreams. Still, this can't be done when need and poverty kick in. It can't be done in 90% of the world right now. Hence I'm of two minds about the book. I applaud the sentiment and there is a message with which I heartily agree. On the other hand, I think everyone reading the book has to be careful not to mistake it for an argument for going back to old professions or to stay where she is at. We should consider keeping traditions going as long as they provide lives worth living for us and our communities, but not beyond that. We need to be able to put up with change when we have to. Hence, the book should be considered as a particular story about a group of shepherd's in one region of the UK, and nothing more.

Just a minor update at the end: Some people might read my review and not recognize the book they've read or get the impression that The Shepherd's Life is a philosophy book. It is not. It is a lucidly written, entertaining, emotional, informative and imaginative journey through the family life, community, work, and landscape that frame shepherding. And of course there are the sheep and the herding dogs. Lovely stories, great characters, all written in an easy to follow and pleasant way. I warmly recommend it.

A short follow up on Cameron in China

The BBC, naturally, covers David Cameron's trip. Cameron mainly came out with visions about great economic success resulting from closer UK-China cooperation. Read here. It is a fair bit of reporting, but if you look at the comments chosen to be displayed on top a funny picture emerges: only comments cautiously and 'cleverly' calling attention to the importance of economic development and the need for larger scale access to Chinese markets are displayed. No critical comments, no condemning comments. It is hard to believe there weren't at least a few reasonable ones.

The Independent also has a short cover on the trip. It sticks to the facts and what the politicians said, but there is an interesting small bit at the very end of the news: "Chinese government spending on medical services accounts for only 2.7 per cent of GDP, compared with 8.4 per cent in the UK, and Beijing has made increasing health spending a priority."

Take into account what the 2.7 per cent of the GDP can cover in a country which has a fragment of the established infrastructure needed to provide normal health care services. Bad roads, bad public traffic, not enough doctors and hospitals, expensive treatments. Not the type of policy we should advocate or look away from, if that serves our short-term interests.