Skip to main content

Theresa May's luck is about to run out

In spite of all the dire warnings and practical consequences, the UK prime minister Theresa May is determined to push through with Brexit. Although there are a lot of warnings that things could go badly wrong, I get the sense that she thinks the UK will muddle through and it’ll all work out in the end. No matter how adverse the situation, one can always pull through.

This got me thinking about where this blasé attitude comes from. The problem is that the Prime Minister has lead a privileged life, with a good dolloping of luck, where indeed everything has worked out for the best. It goes deeper than this though. 

Conservatives themselves tend to be hard-working and better off. Nothing wrong with that, but the feeling seems to be that if only the poor would apply themselves more, they too could be rich. Consequently, the poor who choose to not apply themselves are therefore poor by choice, and conversely, the rich have only got there due to merit and work.

Conservatives believe that the poor deserve to be poor, and the rich deserve to be rich.

With this mindset, Brexit is simply another obstacle that work and ingenuity can overcome. Theresa May has never personally encountered much failure and hardship, and does not consider this a possibility.

This mindset is of course wrong. Luck plays a tremendous role is people’s fortunes. From birth (so-called privilege), to random events and situation. And no matter how hard you apply yourself, sometimes you cannot win. The poor do not deserve to be poor. (That said, capitalist levers to guide people’s behaviours are still necessary.)

Brexit is a hand that cannot be won. There’s no such thing as British privilege that will get Britain through this. The days of British Empire were due to good judgement and luck. Right now, we are down on both.


Brexit is a step into the dark, where no one quite knows where we’ll end up. I suspect that even the most ardent Brexiters are having doubts by now. What if it goes wrong? When you need it the most, sometimes your luck just runs out. 

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Breaking the Article 50 Impasse

Andrew Tyrie overestimates the UK's control over when the UK government can invoke Article 50. As with much of the Brexit debate, hope and aspiration trump cold hard reality. The next few months will see a lot of work by the UK government setting up new departments and policy positions relating to the triggering of Article 50 and Britain's exit from the EU. This is a sensible and necessary delay. However this article by The Independent makes the case that the UK should delay invoking Article 50 until we establish an informal agreement with the EU on our exit terms. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-theresa-may-andrew-tyrie-must-manage-unrealistic-expectations-warns-tory-mp-a7220681.html This is very desirable from the UK's perspective, but flatly contradicts statements by the EU (including direct statements by Jean-Claude Juncker, Donald Tusk and Cecilia Malmström, as well as official EU policy) that no talks can happen prior to invoking Article 50
3 comments
Read more

Simulation independence

I recently came across Nick Boström's article about the simulation argument , which goes that there is a non-zero chance that we are actually simulated individuals, and not actually made of carbon at all. It was spun out of The Matrix series of movies, though is a recurring theme right from Descartes and the Brain in a Vat. Key to this idea is the argument of substrate independence , that is, carbon-based cells are not the only possible way of conjuring consciousness. Surely it isn't the carbon-based molecules per se that cause consciousness, but rather their configuration, and the kinds of computation (if that's the right word) being performed. Surely any "computer program" that reproduces the workings of the brain sufficiently well would suffice, since its operation and outputs would be essentially identical to the biological brain. The simulation argument goes that we are not all that far from achieving that level of computation, so therefore there may wel
3 comments
Read more
Accosted by Jehova's Witnesses The old ring at the door. "Are we expecting anybody?" asks my dad. The answer is no. Instead it's Jehova's witnesses, which I answer. Let the sport begin! Opening gambit: they ask what is the name of God? I answer Yawhe. They seem impressed, then correct me when I also say "God", which they say is only his title. Ok. Then they ask about morality. This is an excellent topic of debate. Where do morals come from? They say God, and he is a person. I argue that he is not human, or that he has thoughts and morals. They ask if I have thought about God seriously, I answer yes, and have rejected the idea, saying that it is a mistake to give God human characteristics. Is society going downhill? They claim it is going downhill, I claim humans have always been fairly rotten to each other. I immediately lay my cards on the table. I say that psychology, and morals are evolved, and did not come from God. They claim morali
1 comment
Read more