Is Farage’s New ‘Brexit’ Party Fascist?

A lot of people, including me, have been pointing out that Nigel Farage’s new “Brexit Party” has some very strange members.

 

Claire Fox, a former leading light of the Revolutionary Communist Party, and two other RCP graduates, have been put on the Brexit Party slates for the EU Parliament elections. (for more on this see John Rogan’s excellent exposes here).

The Communist Party of Great Britain (Marxist Leninist) has apparently endorsed his new Party (although I’m not sure if they really exist anymore?).

This all seems slightly odd, and most of us who remember the far-left from the 1970s and 80s (because in my case I was part of it) have concentrated on exposing their extremist positions.

Most obvious of which was the RCPs and Claire Fox’s effective endorsement of the Warrington bombing by Irish Republicans in March 1993 that killed two children. Continue reading

Questions about EU Elections from Spain (El Confidencial)

I did an interview (online) with a journalist for El Confidencial in Spain. The article appears here.

Here’s the exchange in English for those (like me) who don’t read Spanish).

1) What are the chances for a pro UE party in UK at the moment?

With both the main Parties – Labour and Conservative – committed to implementing Brexit, although on slightly different terms, there is a big political space for ‘Remain’. Both the main Parties have also moved away from the centre of politics, which makes the space even bigger.

BUT – there is already a well established ‘centrist’ national Party – the Lib Dems. And well established nationalist Parties in Scotland (SNP) and Wales (PC) who are also pro-Remain. Continue reading

Petition for an Inquiry into the Conduct of the 2016 EU Referendum. The Government’s Response and a Reply

A few weeks ago I set up a Petition to call for an Inquiry into the conduct of the 2016 EU Referendum. At last view it had gathered 37,985 signatures. You can see the Government’s response at the same location.

https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/250178

Subsequently Andrew Kemp has written a great letter to the Chair of the Petitions Committee (and all Committee members) demolishing the Government’s reply. Andrew has allowed me to publish it in full here: Continue reading

That Petition – what does it mean?

A quick response to some of the comment that has appeared in the media and online.

Its only got 2.3 million signatures – 17.4 million voted Leave

It is a petition, not a referendum. Comparing it with the Referendum is comparing apples and oranges. As a petitionit is quite extraordinary.

Over 2 million signatures in 24 hours is unprecedented for a Petition and clearly represents something? But what? Continue reading

REASONABLE SOCIETY – creating an independent, virtual, ‘think tank’?

Screenshot 2019-03-16 at 13.07.09British politics is a mess. It’s increasingly polarised between hard right and hard left.

Trying to make reasonable public policy, based in evidence and expertise rather than just ideology, has become ever harder.

Various political groupings are trying to fill the vacuum and the sensible centre, but they are mostly under-resourced.

We are creating something to try help this process. A sort of virtual Independent Think Tank.

The initial idea is simple.

  • A moderated panel of academics and experts who are willing to give at least some time and help on particular policy issues.
  • A set of moderate politicians who need help and advice (initially involving the new Independent Group and the Liberal Democrats).
  • Bring them together on a secure platform so that the politicians can pose questions or ask for help from the experts, and they can give it if they can.

We’ve called it REASONABLE SOCIETY because you can read it in several ways – all of which resonate with what we’re trying to do. Its about applying reason, rather than ideology, to solving societies problems.

It may or may not work, but we think it’s worth giving a try?

If you want to join us, or just know more, email colintalbot@mac.com

 

 

 

 

 

 

Consilient Science? Confronting Global Challenges

41QCRQTJF7L._SX299_BO1,204,203,200_Many of the big challenges and issues confronting humanity are only solvable using all available knowledge – across disciplines and paradigms of knowledge. Edward Wilson set out an agenda for better integration of all sciences in his book “Consilience” two decades ago.

In 2018 the World Economic Forums annual global risk assessment was published. It identified a large number of issues. The top eight concerns are listed below. If we crudely divide academic disciplines into three groups – physical sciences, engineering and technology and social sciences (including humanities) it is easy to see that any solutions to any of these eight issues require inputs from all three areas of academic research and expertise (see below).

WEF Annual Global Risk Assessment – Top Few Risks and Possible Contributions from the sciences?

Top global risks according to WEF 2018

Physical
Sciences

Engineering & Technology Social
Sciences

Extreme Weather

x

x

x

Natural Disasters

x

x x

Mitigation failure

x

x

x

Water shortages

x

x

x

Cyber-attacks

x

x

x

Ecosystem failure

x

x

x

Mass migration

x

x

x

Food crises x x

x

There are some who would argue that it is sufficient for individual academic disciplines to make their distinct and unique contributions to these problems and their policy solutions and leave it to others – policymakers? – to integrate their offerings.

More-over many of the most interesting developments in knowledge, of both practice and theory, are coming from inter- or trans-disciplinary domains.

There have been huge developments in the practical integration of knowledge across many disciplines often outside of academia – examples like rare species preservation, ecological management, space exploration, etc come to mind.

In addition the existence of multi-disciplinary social science ‘vocational’ University departments – like social work, business administration, public administration and public policy – have encouraged more cross-disciplinary working and created their own ‘spaces’ (conferences, journals, etc) where such fusions can occur (although that is not a given even in these schools – disciplinary boundaries can still persist).

There have also been increasing attempts to address the theoretical issues involved in integrating knowledge across disciplines, especially in the social sciences. Some adopt what might be called a strong inter-disciplinary approach – that is that individual disciplines such as anthropology, economics, political science, social psychology, and sociology should maintain their separate identities but collaborate more across disciplinary boundaries.

41yt4Gt7myL._SX336_BO1,204,203,200_
Others have taken a more radical approach to trans-disciplinary, or even fully integrated, social science – which is more in keeping with the approach of ‘Consilience’ – i.e. the unity of knowledge. Although few acknowledge it explicitly, this is precisely what has happened in practice in the big applied fields of business, public administration, public policy and many specific domains such as health services, education, criminal justice and other policy and practice arenas.

Such efforts at integration have, however, been made even harder by paradigmatic differences (which cut through many academic disciplines, especially in social sciences). By paradigmatic differences we mean the big debates over ontological, epistemological and methodological issues.

Integration Across Disciplines and Across Paradigms?

Single Discipline Inter- or Trans-Disciplinary

Single Paradigm 

Simple

Moderately simple

 Multi-paradigm/method Moderately challenging

Very challenging

A variety of terms and concepts are used to characterise this paradigmatic cleavage (indeed the term ‘paradigm’ is itself controversial): positivism versus post positivism; scientific realism versus social constructionism; etc. We would contend that cross-paradigmatic dialogue and integration is in many respects far more challenging than cross-disciplinary working within the same paradigm? (See Figure 1)

It might be thought that adding an additional challenge – that of making integrated knowledge accessible to policy-shapers – would make things even more difficult. On the contrary, we would argue that adding a practical focus to the problem of cross-disciplinary and paradigmatic working provides a spur to better integration.

The big examples of successful bringing together of various knowledges for practical purposes – whether it be landing humans on the Moon or preserving rare species, of managing complex businesses and government agencies or addressing complex policy problems – suggest it is this practical focus that provides the incentives needed.

51QTmI2sDLL._SX331_BO1,204,203,200_

This will be the focus of a new journal we are developing: Consilient Science.

The purposes of CONSILIENT SCIENCE are:

To promote dialogue and integration amongst academic disciplines through a focus on significant problems and challenges to humanity

To promote dialogue between academia and policymakers to enable both sides to better understand both possible challenges and feasible solutions

To critically but positively examine the processes by which both of the above take place to improve them.

CONSILIENT SCIENCE will be open to all academic disciplines but its focus is on trans-disciplinary contributions and dialogue. (This does not exclude contributions from a single disciplinary perspective, so long as they also engage with other disciplinary viewpoints).

CONSILIENT SCIENCEwill be academically rigorous, through open peer review, but also to accessible to both academic and non-academic audiences, especially policy shapers and makers in the media, politics, business, civil society and the wider public.

The initial Editorial Advisory Board includes:

Honorary President: Edward O. Wilson (Harvard)

Members: Diane Coyle (Cambridge), Brian Cox (Manchester), Athene Donal (Cambridge), Robin Dunbar (Oxford), Steven Pinker (Harvard), Dan Davis (Manchester), David Sloan Wilson (Binghampton), Henry Mintzberg (McGill), Mariana Mazucato (UCL), Mike Kenny (Cambridge), David Schultz (Manchester), Mark Collard (Simon Fraser), Jennifer Rubin (ESRC UK), Beryl Radin (George Washington), Kiyoshi Yamamoto (Tokyo), Reito Gotoh (Hitobashi), Edward Slingerland (British Colombia), Bobby Duffy (Kings, London), Lord Michael Bichard (London), Geoff Mulgan (NESTA, London), Ralph Heintzman (Ottawa), Seán Ó hÉigeartaigh (Cambridge), Catherine Rhodes (Cambridge)

(*All those listed have all agreed to participate).

If you want to follow how this develops, sign up to our twitter feed @ConsilientS 

The Interdependence Party?

 

TIGersThe new break-away group of ex-Labour MPs have called themselves “The Independent Group” (TIG).

This may make sense in a narrow, Westminster, way. They are clearly not trying to capture the Labour brand by calling themselves ‘Independent Labour’ or some such. And they are leaving the door open for Tory MPs of like mind to join them.

But ‘Independent” has unfortunate connotations outside of the Westminster bubble. Continue reading