By Chris Trotter*
Are you a Brahmin or a Merchant? Or, are you merely one of those whose lives are profoundly influenced by the decisions of Brahmins and Merchants? Those are the questions that are currently shaping the politics of New Zealand and the entire West.
It was Thomas Piketty, the French author of Capital in the Twenty-First Century (2013) Capital and Ideology (2019) and A Brief History of Equality (2022) who devised the Brahmins versus Merchants dichotomy, drawing his inspiration from the Indian caste system. Brutally simplifying Piketty’s argument, his contention is that the evolution of modern capitalism has divided its ruling class into those who make, and those who manage.
The vast expansion of higher education and the multiplication of professional and managerial specialisations made necessary by the growing technological complexity of contemporary capitalism have radically restructured the social architecture which upholds it.
In the Western nations where capitalism first took root, the classic Marxist schema of an ever-increasing working-class doing the making, and a steadily-shrinking ruling-class doing the managing, has been superseded by a society in which a vastly expanded class of technologists, professionals and managers superintends a much diminished working class which no longer makes but serves. A working-class without factories (off-shored by capitalists for obvious economic and political reasons) is a working-class without power. All the action, politically-speaking, now takes place in the hugely expanded socio-economic layers above the downsized proletariat.
Hence Piketty’s Brahmins and Merchants. Those tasked with the financing, design, maintenance, management, sales, and distribution of physical production: bankers, accountants, engineers, software-designers, marketing, sales and distribution managers; the people tasked with producing real goods and services; are the Merchants. Those tasked with preserving and enhancing the socio-cultural conditions in which profitable production can take place: judges, senior public servants, lawyers, architects, academics, teachers, journalists, social workers, counsellors, probation officers; the people who keep society on an even keel; are the Brahmins.
The politics of these two groups are relatively straight-forward to map. The production, distribution and exchange of profitable goods and services requires a society in which practical decisions are able to be made with a minimum of state interference. It requires hierarchies responsive to the exigencies of command and control. A system in which the needs of workers and the environment come well down the pecking order – along with every other potential impediment to the realisation of profit. Accordingly, Merchants veer towards the Right.
What the Brahmins understand is that a society constructed solely for the realisation of profit is likely to be a harsh, even violent, place, and subject to the constant political disruptions attendant upon systems that rely upon force and intimidation to keep the wheels turning. Wherever possible, the Brahmins prefer to deploy the techniques of persuasion and pacification, rather than the blunt-force trauma of coercion.
It is their contention that the hegemony of capital is more effectively maintained by giving ordinary people the fewest possible reasons for attacking and overthrowing it. Brahmins provide the social lubricants that keep the capitalist machine operating smoothly. While not being of the Left themselves, they’re responsible for maintaining the institutions and practices that contemporary leftists tend to identify, erroneously, as their own.
The upshot of this pragmatic compromise between the people responsible for the steel wheels and the people responsible for the grease-guns, is that the principal ideological battleground has shifted from the factory to the campuses of higher education. Not all university and polytechnic students will vote for the parties subscribing to the ideas of the Brahmins (Labour, Greens, Te Pāti Māori). Engineers and accountants still tend to take their capitalism neat, without ice or mixers. But, given the huge numbers of graduates required to keep capitalism sweet, it is hardly surprising that those identifying as left-wing in the Twenty-First Century tend to be the holders of tertiary qualifications.
And those without tertiary qualifications? Which way does the working-class, or what’s left of it, break – Left, or Right? On the face of it, all those benefitting from the Brahmins’ emollient interventions should be voting for their parties. And, to be fair, a majority of them still do. Labour, in particular, whose history spans the era of factories and freezing-works, to the era of warehouses and call-centres, continues to attract significant working-class support. It is, however, worth noting that the union movement, largely responsible for creating the Labour Party, is now almost entirely composed of those who do the Brahmins’ business: public servants, teachers, nurses.
But, not all workers will vote for what logic suggests is in their own best interests. This is due, primarily, to the other massive change that has transformed capitalist society. When capitalism ceased to be bounded by the borders of the nation state (thanks primarily to the off-shoring of production) the opportunities for both Merchants and Brahmins expanded to encompass the entire globe. Qualified professionals and managers could work anywhere, providing they were willing to embrace the new culture of globalism. The options for those with limited education and low skills were much more constrained. For them, the nation state, alongside religion, remained one of the few accessible sources of consolation and pride.
The sudden emergence of “Identity Politics”, and its growing power over the lives of professionals and managers, may be nothing more than the codification of what it means to be a good global citizen. Racial prejudice, sexism, homophobia, extreme ethno-nationalist beliefs: none of these attitudes are conducive to getting-on and getting-along in institutions staffed by men and women from wildly diverse backgrounds and all countries. Acquiring globalist values and expectations appears to have become as vital to a rewarding international career as a first-class university degree. Certainly, it would pay those hailing from countries that were colonisers in the past, to become firm advocates of decolonisation in the present.
Clearly, the present National-Act-NZ First coalition government is more sympathetic to the values and aspirations of the Merchants than it is to those of the Brahmins. Indeed, it owes its majority in the House of Representatives to the ability of its component parties to appeal variously to the Merchants’ growing impatience with the sheer scale of Brahmin grease-spreading; the deep resentment of those on the receiving end of Brahmin condescension and control (especially during the Covid-19 pandemic) and the intrusion of Brahmin “wokeness” into the Merchants’ domain.
The degree to which the Coalition has rewarded its Merchant supporters, attacked the Brahmins’ strongholds in the public sector, and indicated its intention to extract the cost of its self-rewarding policies from the pockets of the largely friendless working-class, does however suggest a growing conviction among at least some in the Coalition Cabinet that the Brahmins’ emollient functions have become much too irksome and expensive. Those who see themselves as the best hope of rebuilding New Zealand’s ailing capitalist system, appear to have convinced themselves that a little bit of blunt trauma is what their mollycoddled country needs if it’s to recover it “mojo” and get “back on track”.
Politically, this is an extremely dangerous notion for Christopher Luxon’s coalition to entertain. Historically, New Zealand could almost be called the birthplace of Brahminism. What else was the Liberal Government of 1890-1912 and its Labour successors, if not an international exemplar of the wisdom of greasing the wheels of capitalism’s excessively brutal machinery? It may be tempting to run roughshod over well-educated and working-class New Zealanders, but it’s a temptation this Merchants government would be well-advised to resist.
Attacking the smartest and most resilient people in the room is never a good idea.
*Chris Trotter has been writing and commenting professionally about New Zealand politics for more than 30 years. He writes a weekly column for interest.co.nz. His work may also be found at http://bowalleyroad.blogspot.com.
51 Comments
The trouble is Chris, is that the Brahmin class no longer work for the people or the nation.
Their priority is their own interests. So they expand their numbers, expand their control, and cement their positions.
Underneath the bluster, they don't give a stuff about workers.
We have large numbers of the Brahmin class, at high incomes compared to the makers, and yes they won't go easy.
Our politics suffer the curse of the "Student Presidents".
And where exactly does bureaucracy sit and function between these two factions because neither can operate without it. An Auckland councillor recently blurted on TV something like - how else are we going to change the way people behave which reveals a motivation of command and control rather than service. A bureaucracy that is self serving, opinionated and unaccountable is a threat to society and democracy itself. We are now seeing government departments virtually telling the new government to nuff off because no one tells them what to do, it’s the other way round don’t you know. This was as an example, a very unfortunate aspect for the last government throughout the pandemic when they had to take the MoH’s continuous blundering on the chin. The two factions that Mr Trotter describes and explores here are both at the mercy of the bureaucrats any way you want to put it.
At the mercy of the bureaucrats any way you want to put it.
AMEN. And no one learned that better than President Trump. Its why in a 2nd term the imperative is to redo the 19th Century protections in place for the US Bureaucrats, and make thousands of these positions subject to political appointments by the incoming Administrations. Given the 1930's Roosevelt Administrations expansion of Federal Control the hundreds of thousands of Washington DC workers have now become so entrenched and layered that its impossible to effectively manage your own Administrations election promises.
Trump's proposal is nothing but straight-out corruption and abhorrent.
The government's proper job is to put in place legislation and policy for the bureaucrats to follow.
The government will always have leverage if it ties funding and the policy together. e.g. NZ Transport GPS.
The term deep state comes to mind. I think of US origin but applicable to most Western democracies including NZ. It's a pity NZ can't have a mix of executive orders and the normal style parliamentary system as it operates now in NZ. That's an exercise for some constitutional lawyers.
Astute observation, and I concur with the govt departments bit. Too many people feeling too important that, like a child at times, they no longer feel they should have to listen to their superiors. But we all know feelings are not facts, and we cannot live in a world without offence as this would be monoculture world without difference. Once again the culture within govt will have to take their medicine and learn that they had a free ride for 6 years with excessive budgets and lax controls or accountability, and now we are coming back to BAU.
The subversive nature of the Fabian project is illustrated by the Fabian Window, a stained-glass composition showing Fabian leaders Edward R. Pease, Sidney Webb and Bernard Shaw (in the green coat) forging a new world out of the old, while other Fabians kneel worshipfully before a stack of Fabian writings.
The window carries the logo: "Remould it nearer to the heart's desire", the last line from a quatrain by the medieval Iranian poet Omar Khayyam which reads:
"Dear love, couldst thou and I with fate conspire
To grasp this sorry scheme of things entire,
Would we not shatter it to bits, and then
Remould it nearer to the heart's desire!"...and which expresses the Fabians' plan to destroy and reconstruct society along Fabian lines.
Does this?
Blame Canada? Justin Trudeau Creates Blueprint for Dystopia in Horrific Speech Bill
Life sentences for speech? Pre-crime detention? Ex post facto law? Anonymous accusers? It's all in Justin Trudeau's "Online Harms Bill," a true "threat to democracy"
Is the above a fear based perspective of the Fabian ideals?
There doesn't appear to be anything wrong with their values;
Purpose: "To promote greater equality of power, wealth and opportunity; the value of collective action and public service; an accountable, tolerant and active democracy; citizenship, liberty and human rights; sustainable development; and multilateral international cooperation"
For those with the ears to hear, eyes to see, the poem is quite apt.
The sudden emergence of “Identity Politics”, and its growing power over the lives of professionals and managers, may be nothing more than the codification of what it means to be a good global citizen
Interesting to note in his last interview, Singapore’s Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong criticizing the Western woke wave, arguing that it undermines societal solidarity.
“In the West they’ve got a movement called Wokeness where you are super sensitive about other peoples issues… It leads to very extreme attitudes and social norms particularly in some academic institutions, universities.”
Any chance you could give a timestamp? It is an hour long video.
Here is a condensed summary of his comments on Western wokeness (from X).
“In the West they’ve got a movement called Wokeness where you are super sensitive about other peoples issues…"
Is not the current demand for sensitivity the consequence of insensitivity and disrespect? It can be seen that a person's opinion is disrespected for reasons entirely unrelated to the formulation of the opinion. Diminishing an individuals contribution because they are gay, trans, Maori, Indian, not catholic, not christian, not qualified or whatever is nothing more than disrespectful and arrogant. If we are persistently rude and dismissive to some parts of society, why would we be surprised when they push back?
A part of this is what is 'truth', and where facts support an input, then irrespective of the messenger surely that input has merit?
A part of this is what is 'truth', and where facts support an input, then irrespective of the messenger surely that input has merit?
This is the issue, where many believe that because they feel something intensely, it must be fact, or they hear the same self-reinforcing messaging on social media that they believe it to be fact at the expense of logic, reasoning, and being receptive to other viewpoints, arguments and assertions. The other issue being that this mentality is reinforced by social media, and even the mainstream media, in a world that has commodified human attention. The more one is aware of this at all times, the more of a person one will be and less of a product.
I agree. I would add however that when we hear an opinion that we do not agree with, we should initially suppress the urge to assume there are no facts supporting it and call BS, and instead ask for any supporting evidence. Most on this site are pretty good at that. There are a few who would dismiss a view simply on the basis that the person making it is "unqualified". In my experience I have seen many occasions when 'unqualified' individuals making a dissenting view have turned out correct, while qualified individuals expressing views are wrong. Unfortunately the second one seems to occur too often for comfort. Evidence based discussion is the most relevant.
One could easily observe our economic beliefs, our financial system and environmental issues, etc and suggest that our logic and reasoning is rather flawed.
Feelings are valid, only most have not been taught how to manage and communicate these experiences, both internally and externally. As much as we think we believe in facts and data, most human interactions and decision making are emotionally based. Public relations, advertising is all based on appealing to or manipulating ones emotions. Most of our societal constructs rely on fear or a subset thereof, to coerce or enforce behaviour.
Economic theory was a social science based on human behaviour. Now it's included in the business school as fact.
This article takes some reading? Certainly a thought provoker as it seemingly contains contradictions and some dire implications. Perhaps too extreme? But I think possibly more of a challenge?
Overall though my preference is for more democracy. CT presents a view of a divided society that cannot change, or if it does, only under tension from rival groups. But those groups cannot survive without the other. Wealth, heritage or breeding cannot and is not a predictor of how talented and smart people can be (or how stupid, although some times one does wonder). A society is strongest when everyone gets the opportunity to shine and unfortunately I do not think the current course of politics is tracking to reduce societal division.
I have to admit I get somewhat wary when someone throws in the suggestion that is what "Marx" wanted. Karl Marx's ideas tended to translate into various degrees of extremism and was used as the basis to form what were essentially fascist, authoritarian states. At least the capitalists are more subtle, but in the end I would suggest their intent is no less!
Avoiding left and right wing labels, I am very much an advocate of democracy where everyone in society has the opportunity to shine. Where the wealthy are as important as the workers. But the wealthy should not become so by paying their worker slave rates of pay, or force them to work in appalling conditions. Equally people should expect to have to have a job to support themselves. People should not expect the state to support them if they have children, but understand it is their responsibility. Child poverty is mostly a choice of the parents, not something beyond their control.
Economies can only work when people have money, preferably surplus funds, to spend. Crime reduces when people can earn sufficient to have a decent lifestyle, thus societal waste is reduced. People become their best when given these opportunities.
There are of course counter points, and this is a simplification, but i do not believe this is not achievable.
I'm referring to his ideas of expanding democracy into the workplace. The idea of the workers having some ownership of the means of production, not 'the state' as we've been misled to believe.
The current model of disconnected shareholders seeking extraction returns only, exacerbates your points above.
The alleged extremism was not the fault of Marx's ideas. He had no template for "communism" and the fascist, authoritarian examples were the result of those translating for their own benefit. No different from the flawed interpretations of Adam Smith leading us on a similar path to where we are now.
Smith and Marx were probably more similar in seeing the issues, only with differing ideas how to solve/negate them.
At some point we've got to be willing to try something new. It's pretty obvious that nearly everything said about the negative aspects of capitalism is true and only being made worse. We already have components of socialism (not directed very well to actually offset capitalism's flaws), and it's not about an entire new system but incorporating some of the ideas that empower the people and workers better.
It's been laid out in front of us for so long and CT touches on pieces of it. It's the command and control, the power imbalances. It's so bloody obvious.
"" Those tasked with the financing, design, maintenance, management, sales, and distribution of physical production: bankers, accountants, engineers, software-designers, marketing, sales and distribution managers ""
will be replaced by AI. My 15 year old grandson has decided the future is being a tradesman.
The title's "smartest and most resilient people in the room" with a photo of Winston Peters flanked by Christopher Luxon and David Seymour led me to anticipate praise for them. Without actually liking them an argument could be made for their resilience and thinking about some MPs the adjective 'smartest' might apply so long as 'the room' is restricted to parliament.
On rereading I was struck by Mr Trotter's description of the Brahmin's roles as "greasing"
I see work of our civil servant class (Brahmins) not as greasing. More like putting sand into the productive works.
It's not 'Grease' it's 'Sand'. It's not an objective to make things work.
Rather they need to make things more complex to cement their position.
Obstructionist bureacrats are a global disease who have forgotten they are civil SERVANTS not masters and are there to serve the interests of their paymasters - Tax and Rate payers, Luxon has started out but surely the removal of all the extra bureacrats 16,000 installed by the ardern disaster should be stage two exempting any who can demonstarte their employment has actually provided a value of meaningful use to NZ.
If you attempt to remove bureaucrats the really good will move on and the really bad will dig their heels in and one way or another stay. To reduce the admin overheads don't try cutting the off the fat - remove the entire limb if it is unnecessary.
For example what is the cost of council consent? Cost in staff and delay and risk of corruption? Could they be replaced by a system of insurance? My retaining wall was approved and consented by council 20 years ago, it was covered by insurance who would not pay because it failed slowly not by an abrupt earthquake or flood. Three years later is has been reconsented, rebuilt and reapproved but all at my cost ($76k). I had hoped to be retired mortgage free. Incidentally I met the council engineer on site - a really pleasant intelligent friendly young man but if my wall fails a second time will he care?
I have recently looked at a retaining wall design ranging from 1.5 to 2m above ground. Its design is like a brick dunny. It does have to take a surcharge. In layman's terms, a load and in this case a vehicle moving right next to the retaining wall. if anything it'll be over designed so the structura/geotecnical engineers neck won't be on the line. Pity you didn't give a breakdown of the $76k in cost between engineer, council and construction.
Was it timber? From Auckland Council
"Council has in the past, required H6 treated timber for pole retaining walls. The reason is to ensure
that the retaining wall would have an expected service life of at least 100 years. ....
However, Ellis Gould in their legal opinion, dated August 2014, argued convincingly that the demand
for a 100 year service life for pole retaining walls is untenable under both the Building Act as well as
the Resource management Act."
Then we have the politically clever but mathematically challenged former Labor minister trying to deny basic facts about the growth of the public service versus population size and the perception amongst the public (outside Wellington) that the services delivered just got worse as they set fire to billions to keep those inside the Town Belt warm and toasty.
How do you count bureaucrat? Public servants include teachers and nurses. They can include street sweepers if it has not been contracted out. Is there a way of measuring bureaucrats who do not face the public? So the superb service my family has had with the NZ passport office - are they all bureaucrats since we didn't meet them but they did produce internationally accepted passports promptly? Or the malelovent sub-humans who laze in the INZ processing visas arbitrarily.
If only we could find a crap load of oil off our coast to extract and sell to the world. Then we could employ an army of Bureaucrats to administer electric vehicle subsidies to our citizens and overtake Norway as number 1. We could call it the Department Of Irony.
Somewhat earlier than Piketty, Paul Hohenberg made the distinction between Merchant cities and Princely cities, observing that they attract different people, serve different functions, and have different cycles. Sometimes they are both (London, Tokyo) but in many western countries there are clear splits (New York, Los Angeles and Chicago vs Washington; Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane, and even Wagga Wagga vs Canberra; Auckland vs Wellington). In contrast with Piketty, he argued princely cities depend on coercion, via taxation or judicial and military power, whereas merchant cities rely on the persuasion necessary to sell people things and establish trade networks. Merchant cities are also more prone to boom bust cycles, as Auckland may be demonstrating at the moment, and attractive to foreign immigrants and boom when foreign immigration is important.
Given the sub-par performance of many high profile NZ corporations as well as the performance of the government, one may suspect that New Zealand isn't very good at either. Perhaps the problem is too little willingness to copy what is done well overseas, and too much willingness to come up with home-grown solutions that simply don't work quite as well.
The key question concerns the aspirations of the younger generations. If they are attracted to and focus their attention on merchant problems, we may return to a New Zealand that seeks to first use the private sector rather than the public sector to solve major problems such as poverty, healthcare, environmental degradation or climate change. Where this is successful, it is hard to argue that this would be a bad thing. In this case Auckland, Christchurch and the Waikato will continue to grow at the expense of wellington in any case.
Andrew
Andrew, are you serious?
"we may return to a New Zealand that seeks to first use the private sector rather than the public sector to solve major problems such as poverty, healthcare, environmental degradation or climate change."
NZ is already running individualistic neoliberalism lite BS.
The USA is a perfect example of where we will end up if we go further right.
What we need is cost benefit driven evidence based policy to address the social ills of NZ.
If we want economic productivity we need a sustainable immigration rate, a fair tax system across all assets, and a real economy, not a tax advantaged property market with a tiny economy tacked on.
I'm normally serious, and almost always fairly boring. In this context i have written about housing and tax in NZ for a couple of decades, and have been fairly consistent arguing (1) immigration shouldn't be higher than the capacity to successfully absorb new immigrants (a group that happens to include both of my daughters), which has been limited due to capacity constraints in the construction sector, and (2) that our tax system is one of the most distortionary towards owner-occupied housing investment in the OECD, which makes little sense and is particularly bad for young people. So i agree with your conclusions, at least to some extent. As to labels such as "neoliberal", i don't usually find them very helpful when it comes to economic policy, as most policies need should be evaluated on a case by case basis and judged by their effectiveness, not their ideological content.
As Chris argues, there is a balancing act between the enthusiasm, energy, and inventiveness of people working in private markets and domains, and the need to have regulations and interventions that limit adverse externalities (such as pollution) and promote useful cooperative gains. Adjusting the balance as circumstances change is never easy, particularly when there are a lot of competing views about desirable ends, and when new technologies have unknown consequences. But some things work better than others, and well performing societies seem to be those willing to change what they do in light of evidence about what does and doesn't work, at home and abroad. New Zealand hasn't been particularly good at analysing, evaluating and dropping potentially poor performing policies for some time. In the policy space, we seem to prefer occasional seismic shifts, do a lot in a short time, and then sit back and congratulate ourselves - rather than seek continuing improvement. One of the advantages of the private sector is that there are often greater incentives to drop poorly performing ideas - despite the pain this causes for affected people. (Since the tradeoff between the long-term advantages of technological improvements, and the short/medium term pain of adjusting to these disruptions is as old as history, there does not seem to be an easy solution.)
ac
Good point about admitting making mistakes and dropping poorly performing policies. Whatever your opinion of Covid shutdown isn't it obvious that it should have been a little faster (debateable) and once in place it was very difficult to put into reverse. At least NZ found that reverse gear faster than China. Another example may be governments being slower than car companies at finding the optimum EV -v- ICE balance.
Well written CT [once again]. Poetic as always & both challenging & confusing, right & wrong at the same time.
Most of us have to do something useful to make ends meet. That's our sad reality. While all you knowledge-ables [brahmins] prance around with your publications, positing this & suggesting that, without ever having to get involved in of the the delivery of all your wonderful written pieces of paper.
Beware:
The problem with having too much knowledge is that you can tend to believe yourself all the time. This has lead to a failing of families by the millions, a now sub-standard education system, pretty much across the board - & worse the further up the tree you get, a [world record] divorce rate that is a shame on the behaviour of all those who believed everything they saw on the big screen[m] & the telly, & then played around just like they did.
Having great knowledge doesn't necessarily lead to a better society. Look at what Steve Jobs has done to the west since he left the planet.
PS: Now you're going to tell me he was a merchant aren't you?
Definitely not a brahmin.... which is interesting given his early interest in Zen Buddhism and Eastern mysticism.
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/steve-jobs-terrible-ceo-jamie-turner
What do you call it when the Brahmins set themselves up to perpetuate the reproduction of Brahmins and the Brahmin culture before the performance of their ostensible jobs?
And what if the culture perpetuated becomes ever-less tolerant of dissent and less linked to the reality of the mass of the people?
Put another way - "Service" in public service has been a core tenet, like a credo in religion. Like religions, that core credo gets surrounded by complex structures and cohorts of insider functionaries. That can cause the core credo to die. Many people don't notice and keep worshipping the structure.
Hmmm. Rather than Pikkety, who has made a some rather gross errors in his economic analysis, I'd prefer a local lefty, Danyl Mclauchlan, who pointed out the problems of the Professional Management Class (PMC) in this 2020 article, An Administrative Revolution, as he lambasted the Labour government about the fantastic waste and incompetence in the healthcare, firefighter and polytech re-structurings.
Read the whole thing, which includes his description of the PMC, which sounds a lot more accurate than overcooked analogies about "Brahmins" and "Merchants":
In 1994 the US historian and cultural critic Christopher Lasch died, and a year later his final book The Revolt of the Elites was published. Lasch started his career as a socialist and ended it as a hard-to-categorise hybrid of anti-capitalist, anti-consumerist pro-environmental conservative. The revolting elites in his book are the professional managerial class: the educated technocrats who occupy a commanding position across post-industrial economies, not by direct ownership of capital or overt command of the political system but by managerial control of all our institutions. They run everything.
I’ve written about the professional managerial class [PMC] before – I don’t think you can understand 21st century politics without them – and for Lasch their most important qualities are:
a) they’re a global class;
b) they’re more concerned with the virtual and abstract than the physical, and,
c) the primary purpose of their politics is therapeutic.
More such problems identified here in The Administrative (Deep) State and a more recent Mclauchlan article, Unjarndycing the State.
We welcome your comments below. If you are not already registered, please register to comment.
Remember we welcome robust, respectful and insightful debate. We don't welcome abusive or defamatory comments and will de-register those repeatedly making such comments. Our current comment policy is here.