Hong Kong Teeters. Different views of democracy.

Hong Kong Plc. is teetering closer to an edge than its pro-democracy and Occupy Central protesters may fully realise. Whatever the merits of their campaign which is now seriously affecting at least some businesses in the Central district , the outcome will not be decided locally. It will depend on conclusions reached and decisions made in Beijing. Apart from balancing domestic and future Taiwan implications they will also be influenced by events and experience in other parts of the world.

For now things are calmer than when the police used tear gas on some of the crowds on Sunday. That was a public relations disaster and to many of the activists literally a red rag to a bull. The visibly heavy handed tactic has been put aside at least for the moment and the police presence scaled back. The protesters, whose average age appears to be around 22, remain in place though and that means disruption, something most Hong Kongers do not like. Two public holidays, on Wednesday and Thursday could see even larger crowds on the streets but the hope is that after that the affair will then subside with both sides able to claim some honour, the protesters having made their point and the authorities having acted with restraint. If calm does not return by the end of next weekend the pressure on both the Hong Kong and Beijing governments to "do something" to restore normal life in the former colony may become iresistable.

The outcome isn't all about Hong Kong, China and Asia though.

 Beijing is faced with enormous pressures in holding together a vast and disparate country. Its first priority has always been to maintain a central grip on law and order above all else. It will therefore  be looking at other pro democracy and separatist movements, notably those in the Middle East and Ukraine. The analysts and decision makers won't be too impressed with what they see and their conclusions are likely to run along the lines: "Just as we thought,- street demos get out of hand, vehicles and buildings get burned out then wrecked, cities and villages converted into heaps of rubble, infrastructure destroyed for decades to come, business stops and runs and what was championed as democracy turns out to be unworkable anarchy and the only movement is fast backwards. Enough is enough. This must stop".

Regardless of the merits of the case and the high profile enthusiasm of the young, it is likely that a large majority of Hong Kong residents would also say "Enough is enough". They just want to get on with their lives, -and making money. They are not generally impressed with things that get in the way of those activities. Predictably but unfortunately this democratic reality is getting scant attention from even the more serious parts of the global media. The demos are so much more exciting. The downside of the unbalanced coverage is that it encourages the protesters to continue disrupting Hong Kong life at a time when they would do better to also say "Enough is enough"and quit this battlefield with honour and face intact, realising that continuing is dangerous.

The effects of the "Go for it" tone of the media have been seen all over the world many times before. Come the day when the complained of authority bites back and clips its or other peoples' citizens around the ear, the journos, cameramen and the rest head for the airport, leaving the unfortunate residents to take the hit. Never mind, another opportunity will come along somewhere else soon so why should they worry about what they have left behind? Governments have been guilty too but that's another (sorry) story.

Despite Beijing slowing down progress towards democracy, the Special Administrative Region ,- aka  city state,-  remains conspicuously ahead of all of its regional rivals in almost every respect. Above all people are free to go about their daily lives and businesses without fear, hindrance or adverse government intervention while all the elements of the well planned and organised infrastructure work 24/7/365. The protest movements have done a good job in sounding alarm bells about Beijing's political interference and that may have some effect. Now they need to pause and take stock of how good things really are for most of Hong Kong's people most of the time and what they risk losing for everyone if they push Beijing just a fraction too hard. There's another hard fact they should remember. They've never asked the electorate, especially those older than themselves, what they really want and what they are prepared to risk in this particular spat. The democratic answer would probably not be what they expect.

Tories rocked by defection and scandal ? Unlikely.

The British media has gone into an excited "shock, horror "frenzy over the defection of Rochester MP Mark Reckless to UKIP and the exposure of another  MP, Brooks Newmark, for having, well, exposed himself on social media to a lady posing as a friend he for some reason thought he would like to have.

As ever the BBC, that organisation who's license payer funded news function should be to deal in facts rather than speculative drama, is in there with the worst of them.

The reality is that the Conservative Party is, or should be, pretty relaxed if it were never to see either of these two gentleman or the previous UKIP defector, Douglas Carswell again. None of them was ever likely to be of great note in any serious party. Their self selection for departure, or in the case of Mr. Newmark, stepping down in the ranks, should be put down as nature taking a desirable course. Their change of status is of no importance or significance.

That's one reality. Hopefully this little flurry will now drop into the "Of little interest" box and focus can move onto real policy issues and the plans for dealing with them on offer in next May's election.

That could be difficult though.  Another reality is that it is the lack of exciting big picture visions that the electorate can enthusiastically sign up for (nothing of substance came out of the Labour or UKIP conferences) that makes a bored media run with anything it can get its hands on. If the Tories don't come up with good meaty stuff this week there's only the LibDem conference left to go. No comment needed.

Referendum,- What was that?

Just a week ago the United Kingdom woke up wondering if it still existed. A momentous occasion as the nation reached out for its radio or TV "On" buttons.

To the relief of those who saw the split as a potential disaster for all concerned, the Scottish pro-independence vote was confined to the western end of the Clyde-Forth Valley, surprisingly perhaps not even extending as far as Falkirk in the middle. The only other "Yes" outpost was the city of Dundee, encircled by the "No " voting rural areas of Angus and Fife and the rest of Scotland.The "Yes" maths were fatally wounded by only 75% of "Yes" voting Glasgow turning out against  84.4% of "No" voting  Edinburgh.  Most "Don't Knows", freed from the at times less than friendly attention of their neighbours and SNP activists revealed themselves as "No". Game over.  Alex Salmond's proposition was decisively defeated by 55/45. % .All the scares and very likely the generous special offers made since Mr. Murdoch's Sunday Times' one off poll suggesting a possible "Yes" majority proved to be unnecessary.

Most of Britain rolled over and quickly moved on to enjoy the weekend as if the danger of a split were over for all time. Mr Salmond lost no time in reminding everyone that "No, it isn't" and then , surprisingly to many just when a top flight SNP negotiator is needed to extract the maximum from David Cameron (not difficult), falling on his sword. Salmond accused the devious ( usually true) people of Westminster of trickery before also taking a day or two off. The immediate drama is over but there's a lot to play for and for Scotland to gain over the next few months before the final deal is signed. That might be a bit painful for the rest of Britain as, true to form, Gordon Brown signed the three terrified "leaders " up to giving away the shop in their moments of blind panic.

Why the panic?

For Cameron it was the possibility of going down in history as the man who agreed to gamble the future of the United Kingdom in a Referendum dictated by Salmond. The over lengthy timescale, the phrasing of the questions so that "Yes" was for independence, the agreement that 16 year olds could vote all favoured Salmond far more than Cameron seemed to even begin to understand. He won but it could easily have gone the other way.

For Miliband Junior and New Old Labour the loss of 40+ Scottish MPs could have scuppered dreams of imposing socialism on England in the forseable future.

For Clegg, well, who knows but he joined in anyway.

Putting all that aside, the Scottish deal and now the bombing of the bad guys in Iraq, will at least give MPs something to do in what was looking a decidedly thin legislative period between now and May's General Election.

No sooner had the visiting leaders and their entourages fled the Highlands and Lowlands and returned to their laagers inside the London Congestion Zone , never mind the North and South Circular or, at its extremity, the M25 than the Labour  contingent had to pack their bags again and go to Manchester. Presumably most went by train devoid again of First Class branding. It is doubtful if many went by coach via a refreshment break on the M1. Too many common people there and no photo ops though it might have given Ed the ideas for a few more "I spoke to real people and they said to me..." quotes for his dreadful conference speech.

Ah, that gathering and that speech. Both were true Labour and true Ed even if the leader substituted the word "Friends" for the much loved "Comrades". The false bonhommie for the cameras, the minders, security zones, Trade Union sponsors and masters. The carefully planted "real people" for the media. The moving of less photogenic disabled people to make way for for others more in keeping with the desired image. And then, on Tuesday, THAT speech. 2.30pm is the dreaded slot for any speaker especially after a party or three the night before. To his credit, Ed spoke without notes other than a few headline prompts on the lecturn.  It would have been helpful if these had included words like"The Economy" or "Immigration". Maybe they did, in which case he should have gone to SpecsSavers.

 We were promised Labour's great 6 point plan to change and save the nation . This was offered in exchange for giving the party which only four years ago brought the country to the edge of ruin not just five, but ten please, years to weave their magic. Borrowing from an American Presidential theme and more recently the Scottish "No" ed intoned more than fifty times that "Together" we can do all sorts of things and the hated Tories would just do whatever in a dark corner on their own while ignoring the desparate plight of the rest of society.

What else did we get?

Sixty five minutes of the tedious , downbeat ,"It's all awful", part preaching, part hectoring, totally moralising style that is Ed's trademark. Lots of dreary tedium. Politically incorrect cameras picked up pictures of afternoon nap taking,fidgeting or pure boredom. Only Harriet Harman, famous for her nodding at everything Ed says , managed to look adoringly and with glistening eyes at her leader throughout,- and nod of course.

Yes, Ed did set out his stall only too well . It's not a pretty sight. The most significant feature was the Freudian omission of any agenda to fix the economy or sort out immigration. He really doesn't want to talk about these things. What's wrong with tax, borrow and spend after all. Far better than new thinking, reform, re-energising.

 Ed's stool has just two main legs,- First the NHS and the mythical threat to it of the Tories and use of private facilities , now about 6% of total activity, originally sensibly introduced by Labour during his time as a Brownie. Second the Class War, an essential creation which must be kept alive if socialism is to have any appeal to anyone. There is no third leg other than a mish mash of odds and ends. There is certainly no vision of a better, greater Britain achieved by really tackling the issues.Nothing to excite, inspire or really get people going. Just more of the dreary old same.

In the real world the Tories have pumped much the same amount as he proposes ,-£2.6 billion,- into the NHS this year. It is not clear what the additional money has achieved in terms of output or performance. Ed intends his bung to pay for personal health plans for all and 36,000 additional front line staff by 2020. No mention where all these people are to come from in just 5 years or of the root and branch review and redesign of almost everything the huge organisation does which almost everybody knows has to happen. No mention of dreadful inefficiencies, waste, the legacy of Labour's disastrous high cost/lower productivity deal with GPs and Consultants. The Labour answer to it all is unchanged,- lots  more people as demanded by the unions and lots more money.

The class war will always attract and inspire Hampstead socialists in the Miliband mould. They grew up with it, know that they have to perpetuate it, and they love it. It's what the singing of the Red Flag at the end of "Conference" every year is all about and it gives them nice warm feelings. Dangerously it reminds non believers that Labour not only dislikes some other sections of the electorate but more actively loathes them and will do all they can to land blows upon them. Hence Ed's claims to be gung ho for entrepreneurs rings hollow. Shrewd minds  know that once they are successful despite all the personal risks of bancruptcy, unending hard work and the obstacles in their way and have made a bit of money, bought a nice house , paid private medical insurance, put their children into private schools  and gained a few other deserved goodies they will morph from being heroes to despised class enemies. So much for encouraging and supporting an aspirational society. Labour doesn't and in its current form never will.

There were a few passing titbits during the 65 minutes. One was the complete removal of carbon emissions from electricity production by 2030. No how or by whom of course. That's down to the pariah power companies whose incentives to invest diminish by the minute. Another was the appointment of a global lesbian, gay and trans gender ambassador. Ed managed to remember those things but not fixing the economy or immigration. Freud was on form. Ed was not.

All this in just a week. Scotland has saved itself,- and the United Kingdom,- for now at least. Labour has saved us from getting excited about its offerings. Dave has got us back into the Middle East just as we thought we were getting out. Nigel Farage and UKIP are having their conference in Doncaster, while, cleverly Dave, the media are busy with Iraq. Next up is the Conservative Conference in Birmingham which is almost becoming a suburb of London. North(ish) but safe. About as far as a London Tory can safely go,- or wants to go. More on the proceedings there later.

More on Scotland.

Suddenly last weekend the YES cat seemed to be among the unwary NO pidgeons. Mr Murdoch's Sunday Times produced a poll showing the YES men and women to be in the lead. Alarm spread through the (Eng)land and desperate measures were rushed forward. All three main British party leaders and their teams fled north on Wednesday, pushing even Prime Ministers' Questions aside. The trio didn't exactly stand together anywhere but were at least abroad in the same country at the same time,- just for a bit.

Dave probably flew in. Not risking even the refined streets of central Edinburgh he went to speak to a room full of financial people and then swept away back to the airport or station in a sleek Jag sandwiched between two sinister black 4x 4s containing his immediate support team and maybe other sinister people. He and his PR people must have been asleep to walk into the trap of being seen to jet in, speak to the besuited wealthy, and flee  back across the border as if there were not a moment to lose. With a name like Cameron you would think he might at least risk a cup of tea and a scone with a carefully selected and frisked pensioner or two in a Princes Street teashop and then take the new highly over budget and years late billion pound tram, naturally swept of bugs, bombs, YES folk and common people in general to the airport, or at least just up the road for show.

We didn't see Ed arrive either but his frightening backup team were seen riding in the comfort of state owned East Coast Rail. There was no sign of any class branding in the TV pictures but First Class headrest covers are routinely removed when the Labour inner circle are on board. He did though stay on until Friday though also well protected by heavies from any real conflict or the uncommitted. There wasn't much point in going back to Westminster as the next day, Tnursday, it was tuck boxes at the door time again as it broke up for another months' hols for the Party Conference and party season,- and the Referendum of course.

Nick's mode of arrival and departure are totally unknown but somehow he popped up in the old LibDem David Steele sort of heartlands around the borders. Good choice maybe. As these counties back onto England it's relatively easy to slip back there along the back roads and river banks if the YES dogs get close and threatening. Quite what he said we can't remember but something about more independence within the UK anyway and of course a few more free this and that.

Whether this raid by the three worthies did anything to steady or increase the NOs isn't yet clear but, like the YES people all of them probably enjoyed being out of Westminster, even if just for a day or two.

What being out of Westminster for ever means is still unclear if one were to rely on the claims and counter claims of either side. Sadly the debate isn't about grand visions for the future of Scotland or the UK. None of our politicians seems to have any of those -or even consider them desirable. It's all about "how much?" and "Our wonderful NHS" which in socialist Scottish and New Old Labour eyes should see no change, even for the good , regardless of any shortcomings or poor performance in any sphere.

The ebullient Salmond, chest further expanded and swagger the more alarming by the day stood in front of a banner proclaiming it was all about Scottish decisions being made in Scotland. To most of the British onlookers beyond the borders they already are,- and not just the Scottish ones either. Scottish MPs vote on English issues and generally the country punches well above its weight in the UK as well as providing a pretty good proportion of Prime Ministers, Ministers and Shadow Ministers. The 1997-2010 Blair/Brown government is a good, if not excellent, example. Does Mr Salmond not understand that if he gets his way next Thursday and manages to persuade the EU to grant Scotland quick entry under some kind of grandfather rights he and his eight million citizens will then just have swapped being subject to Westminster (which in reality they have scarcely been for years)- they will now be a minnow among the 27 or so states of Europe. Nice Mr Junker will replace the hated Cameron as the real boss of Scotland and he will do what Mrs Merkells on the one hand and the tells him to do. Financially he will have no choice but to accept the euro and the European Central Bank  as his controllers rather then sterling and the Bank of England.

Does that look like more independence to more power for Edinburgh to plough its own furrows and determine its own destiny? It gives Mr Salmond and his friends more opportunity to (expensively) strut their stuff and ride in nice limos across the Channel but does it really make the proud nation more powerful or better off in any way than it is now?

Our view remains that, away from all the emotion, (which is where the voters need to be between now and marking their papers)  the Scotland's departure from the UK would detract from both countries. British politics, behaviours ( too often dull and negative) and vision (lack of) need a dramatic shakeup but not this one. 

Scotland the Brave...It's going to have to be if.....

... the numbers in the present blindfolded sleep walk towards the pro-independence "Yes" vote precipice continue to grow.

It's all very well many Scottish residents feeling good about the country after not too bad a summer(anything less than dire is quite good), a successful and good humoured Commonwealth Games, the stimulating and entertaining Edinburgh Festival and Fringe and countless heartwarming and stirring ceilidh's with singing and plentiful refreshment far into hazy late light evenings. From that happy state of mind a heady "Why not give it a go" feeling can gently wash over the smiling voter who then sets foot for the polls full of national enthusiasm and optimism. The X goes on the paper and they stride out, maybe back to the pub for the hair of the dog.

The next morning on waking to initial results indicating it's a "Yes" for independence it all might suddenly feel terribly different. A mistake maybe. What then? Can we predict something like the morning after any very cheery and well fuelled party. "Oh my God. We're on our own. Did my vote make the difference?Was it me?"

 The second TV debate went badly for the Darling  the"No" man  who did much better in the first. The "Yes" leaning BBC Scotland's studio audience had helped give the shouty SNP leader the impression of having "won". That though is just one debate and  should be meaningless in the context of the real big issue.

The big issue. There's the rub. There's little sign of it. Anywhere. Not just in this debate. There's little about what what the UK really is how and why it punches above its weight internationally, the advantages to Scots ( and everyone else) of being an integral part of a bigger entity in which the country and its people have played a prominent part for several centuries. There has been nothing about the scope the UK gives for wider and better employment and powerful roles. This absence of well drawn pictures of the real big issues has allowed the debate to descend into the narrow cul de sacs of health ("our" NHS) and to a lesser extent education, benefits, free this and that and whether Scots are a few hundred quid a year better off one way or the other. Then there is also the "Let's make the country Tory proof" which appeals across both the "Yes" and "No" camps and pushes some of the latter into the former. Forget that. Scotland is Tory- proof anyway. It's a state of mind thing and includes things like a paranoia about privatisation and countless things that could deliver modernisation. Like many of the country's perceived ills these things are wrapped up in a bundle and dropped at Margaret Thatcher's feet.

Objectively the the current greater UK normally works pretty well for all its constituent parts. It's not perfect or going to satisfy everyone and the north v the south and London arguments are just as valid points for debate as the ones about Scottish independence. In reality the Scots, with their own parliament,  have a large amount of freedom already without the downsides of being on their own .They will certainly get more after the Referendum whatever the outcome.

Even now it looks as if "NO" should come in with a majority ,even if a slim one. If it doesn't it's going to take a very brave heart to genuinely say through that morning after hangover "That's wonderful". The even worse news is that five or ten years down the line the sufferer is likely to be saying "Why on earth did we do that?" Then that awful rebuff:  "Too late".

Meanwhile down south, with Ed Miliband in his bid to woo the Scottish left promising us all a high tax socialist nightmare, the English may well be shouting "Vote Yes" but that's another story. We will come back to it.

They said it,- The Mayor of Calais.

British citizens have known it for a long time, politicians of all major parties deny it but now Natacha Bouchard the Mayor of Calais has said it.

Britain's immigration laws,-and couple that to its benefits regime,- makes the country an Eldorado to prospective immigrants. Add in the fact that thanks to a plethora of very human rights based laws and judgments and an oversupply of lawyers who deal in such matters, few who reach the country's shores are ever actually deported. Rights to a family life, belonging to a group that is under pressure at home,being guilty of murder in a country which still has capital punishment all guarantee being able to stay once you've arrived and uttered the magic words "asylum" at the border, usually a well marked line in arrivals halls. No wonder Ms Bouchard, faced with the long term problem of accomodating and feeding the growing queues of people awaiting their chance to climb aboard or even underneath a UK destined lorry is saying enough is enough and the British must do something about it. In the meantime there is talk of the French setting up a centre in Calais to advise the hopefuls on how to maximise their chances of a successful plea for asylum. It's unlikely that, having got this far, they need it but it's the thought that counts.

Britain's greatest success in reducing immigration has come through classifying students as immigrants. Very few actually have any intention of staying much beyond their education and any subsequent allied training. They support themselves and don't ask for state benefits. They and their visiting parents make a major contribution to the national economy while studying and their early links can be of lifelong benefit to the country in subsequent years. Their immediate fees also do a lot to finance and maintain Britain's highly successful private education industry. Just the sort of people to keep on a tight rein then while Calais remains and open tunnel (or ferry) mouth.

One might hope for Dave, Nick and Ed to also say it how it is. Dream on. That needs political boldness and honesty. Don't you know there's an election coming? Unfortunately for them,- and ultimately the electorate,- that nice Mr Farage down the pub might take a different line.