Scottish

In all the media coverage of the release of the Libyan bomber, it is very clear that the Americans do not take the Scottish "government" seriously. All attempts to deflect attention to Edinburgh are met with irritation by American politicians and commentators, as if they are being given the runaround. Most of the Americans (interviewed on Newsnight, Today, The World at One etc) sound as if they are unsure where Scotland is, or whether it might be a marketing concept for whisky and biscuits, or a brigadoon fairy story starring Gene Kelly and Maureen O'Sullivan.

A measure of Scotland's unimportance came on election night when Emily Maitlis produced a digital map of the constituencies in the United Kingdom with each constituency given the same size blob. Scotland looked tiny. Completely insignificant.

To understand why Scotland attained political significance in recent years you have to look at the collapse of the Labour Party in the 1980s. Following the 1983 election Labour was greatly reduced in the House of Commons and over-reliant on Scottish contituences (where it did relatively well). Thus Scottish MPs filled a large number of Shadow government posts, and when the electoral tide turned these Scottish MPs became government ministers, giving the impression that we had a Scottish government with a few English and Welsh tokan appointments.

This is unlikely to happen a second time. The balkanisation of the United Kingdom, resulting from the policy of devolution, is leading to reduced Scottish representation in the House of Commons. The banking crisis and subsequent recession has reduced Scottish economic importance (there can be no government significance without economic significance).

The Scottish population is expected to decline to below five million by 2025. Thirty percent of the Scottish workforce is employed in the public sector. The much-vaunted "arc of prosperity" has completely evaporated.

Manage popular expectations in dire economic circumstances

Above: old guidebook to Hughendon Manor in Buckinghamshire, which is preserved as a Benjamin Disraeli museum. This booklet has a pre-decimal price so must date from the 1960s. It lists hundreds of Disraeli books, pictures and mementos, and is an example of a scholarly guidebook from the pre-dumbed down era.

David Cameron intends to model his premiership on that of Benjamin Disraeli, the only British Prime Minister from a minority background. There was a distinct Young England tone to his speech in Downing Street yesterday – the need for effective and sustainable social justice in an industrial society. It’s an interesting ideology.

He will also have to manage popular expectations in dire economic circumstances.

The challenge will be to make austerity and restraint desirable, rather than encouraging people to expect an early return to the boom and bust cycle.

Although consumerism is constantly portrayed as a “good” there is no rational reason for this. Consumerism has brought a lot of problems to society, to the environment and to individuals. It is irrational for people to over-eat until they are fat, over-shop until they are burdened with debt, over-work themselves until they become stressed etc.

Consumerism relies for its power on the trigger of Maslow’s needs for Esteem and Self-Actualisation.

If the government can deliver to its population access to “Esteem” and “Self-Actualisation” without the purchase of consumer goods (which do not actually satisfy either of these needs) not only will many economic and environmental problems be solved, they will also have established a political usp that will be of value at the next election in 2015.

Pundits

I will miss the election campaigns once they all stop.

And I will especially miss all the pundits, who have almost become familiar friends.

Most of all I think I will miss the sense of narrative running through the day - Today on Radio 4, Daily Politics if I can take an early lunch, PM on Radio 4, Channel 4 News, Newsnight, This Week, The Daily Mirror, The Guardian, The Independent.

The Labour vote is collapsing

Above: even the New Left Review is saying there is no point in voting for this version of the Labour party (click on the image to read the text).

The general election is on Thursday.

There is a growing awareness in the media that the Labour vote is collapsing. Writing in today's Daily Mirror even diehard socialist Kevin Maguire said he was undecided whether to go on supporting Labour. The fear in Labour must be that they are facing a complete rout.

However, a collapse of this kind has been inevitable for some years. The loss of thousands of seats at council elections over the past five years has deprived the party of county and local councillors. These councillors were the committed activists who got the vote out on previous elections - without them an election win this time is highly unlikely (impossible in fact).

Full page essay in today’s Observer

Full page essay in today’s Observer by David Cameron on the Big Society policy (if you click on the picture you might be able to read it, for some reason there isn’t a copy of it on the Observer website).

Of all the ideas generated by this general election, the Big Society interests me the most. I am convinced of the argument that smaller groups of involved people will run state funded services better than directly employed state servants (thus delivering economic value). But I think the main values of this policy will be psychological and social.

Aldous Huxley has said: “To associate with other like-minded people in small, purposeful groups, is for the great majority of men and women a source of profound psychological satisfaction.”

Voluntary work brings psychological satisfaction. A society of satisfied individuals is likely to be a more stable society. Also a social economy based on voluntary units will be much less vulnerable to fluctuations in government policy or funding.

Miranda Sawyer, writing in yesterday’s Daily Mirror, wrote a completely incoherent critique of the Big Society policy. Her main point seemed to be that people are too busy to do voluntary work, without explaining what is more important than helping to run social institutions. Her biography on Wikipedia includes writing for Smash Hits, appearing on The Weakest Link, and appearing on The Culture Show (a programme so bad I can’t watch it) – this list makes me wonder whether she has got her life priorities right.

The debates should be scrapped

The "candidates' debate" is a long-standing part of American political culture, noted in Simon and Garfunkel's Mrs Robinson. On Thursday the United Kingdom introduced this device into the general election campaign. Since then media coverage of the event has reached hysterical levels.

Later on Thursday evening on Andrew Neil's This Week the most interesting analysis came from James Purnell, but he mumbled so much that his points were often overlooked, especially as the other people in the studio were talking over him.



On Friday the newspapers were full of the debate and the effect it seems to have had on voting intentions. Lots of commentators kept saying it was good for democracy (when what they really mean is that it was good for the media). Nick Robinson on the Today programme effectively said that Cameron was mad to have agreed to participate (since the British public will always support an underdog). On Channel 4 News Krishnan Guru-Murthy chaired a panel that completely deconstructed the debate - "Leadership Consultant" Ruby Wax (ridiculously over-dressed, as if she was Margot Channing in All About Eve) clicking her fingers and spouting psycho-babble. On Newsnight Emily Maitlis frowned seriously and talked about the Clegg breakthrough. The entire journalistic world seemed to be going mad.



Today Polly Toynbee soberly reminded Guardian readers that we have seen this sort of political blip before with the SDP in the 1980s. On Dateline London Janet Daley (who always gets things right) predicted that the Liberal-Democrat bounce would be a 48-hour wonder. On a Newsnight special Jeremy Paxman reminded people of the rash David Steel hubris of "go back to your constituencies and prepare for government".



But it was Tony Parsons, writing in today's Daily Mirror, who raised the one-man-band issue.

For me this is a major cause of concern. We are not electing a President in this country, therefore presidential-style leader debates must be unconstitutional. Especially if they can sway voter intentions by large percentage points. They must be unconstitutional because unlike an elected president who enjoys tenure of office (unless impeached) a party leader can be deposed by a small internal clique. Nick Clegg's immediate predecessor as Liberal-Democrat leader was ousted in mysterious circumstances (reportedly partly because he wore sock suspenders). I have lost count of the number of coup attempts against Gordon Brown, and were he to remain as Prime Minister it is likely that the plotting against him will continue.

If leaders' debates are to continue, Prime Ministers must be given security of tenure between general elections - otherwise the debates should be scrapped.

And from an advertising point of view, doesn't the experience of this debate prove the power of mainstream media as opposed to all the pro-digital garbage we have been subjected to!

Go back to your constituencies and prepare for government: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CxyQqDik2rs

The Independent rather likes the Tory manifesto

Out of all the political manifestos launched this week, the only one that has caused a stir in intellectual circles has been the Conservative one.



Above: Looking for a realistic critique, I looked in The Independent where the editorial yesterday focused on the Conservative programme. I have read this editorial several times, and I think The Independent actually rather likes the Tory manifesto. There are a few leftist mantras, and three stock examples we have heard before, but on the new stuff I think they are intrigued more than anything else.

If it had been possible to tear the Conservative manifesto apart (I'm talking rationally, not just abusively) The Independent would have done it.



Above: And in today’s Independent the praise (very subtle, never overt) seems to continue.

As I write this I am half watching the first of the Leader’s debates. Each of them is doing fairly well. Nick Clegg is a bit too abrasive.

Jam today

Above: "The rule is jam yesterday or jam tomorrow, but never jam today" (Lewis Carroll).

This is the week that most political parties are publishing their manifestos. Labour have produced a "Blair-Plus" manifesto that emphasises their delivery of jam yesterday. The Conservatives are offering jam tomorrow. No-one is promising jam today.



Above: the front cover of today's Guardian.

Personally I am attracted to the Conservative programme. In particular their promises to devolve power down to local communities, including use of local referendums and election of local officials. Unsure whether they would extend these rights to Scottish communities (it would certainly pull the rug out from under the SNP - and the SNP could hardly oppose the principle of devolution).



Above: Kevin Maguire writing in today's Daily Mirror damns Gordon Brown with faint praise, giving him only an outside chance of winning. The campaign poses a problem for left-of-centre journalists. Although they want to encourage Labour's supporters they do not want to lose personal credibility by getting their predictions wrong.



Above: the Guardian is less hesitant. Not sure if Julian Glover wrote this headline himself. He very rarely gets things wrong.

Daily Mirror columnist Tony Parsons

Writing in Saturday's Daily Mirror columnist Tony Parsons identified that the most important factor in the general election is the mood for change. It may seem a contrary way of choosing a government, and there may well be regrets later on, but the desire for change is probably now unstoppable. And who is to say the people are wrong.

This causes a difficulty for commentators who need to go on finding things to talk about (endless speculation about the unlikely scenario of a "hung Parliament"), but already there is a sense that the outcome is decided and we just need to get on with it.

The reference in the title to "mess" relates to the pudding Eton Mess, which is made from strawberries, meringue and cream (it's actually very good).

A few gems

Among all the pages of election coverage there are a few gems.



Above: Paul Routledge in the Daily Mirror employing a convoluted argument justifying the imposition of Old Etonian toff Tristram Hunt as Labour candidate for Stoke on Trent. You can tell Paul Routledge hates loathes and detests Mr Hunt, but has to back him for the greater good of the party. Personally I would like to see a residence restriction for candidates - you can only apply for the seat you currently live in and only if you have lived there for at least three years (that would stop the professional carpet baggers).



Above: I am also enjoying David Hare's election columns in the Guardian (and I silently cheered when I read Brian Binley's comments about Kraft).

The other noteworthy event today was the defenestration of a candidate for failing to understand that Twitter is a medium that needs to be managed: http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/apr/09/stuart-maclennan-sacked-twitter-general-election

Party manifestos

Above: Kevin Maguire in today's Daily Mirror discusses the publication of the party manifestos - another of the ritual moments of an election campaign. Kevin Maguire also writes for the New Statesman. He appeared on this lunchtime's Daily Politics, making the point that new media is going to count for less in this election than most people think (which reinforces the view that what works in America will not necessarily work here - the two cultures are different).

Even so, Kevin Maguire does have his own Twitter account: http://twitter.com/kevin_Maguire



Above: report about investment mis-selling (appeared some days ago in the Guardian).

If it is possible to draw up rules preventing financial mis-selling surely it must be possible to have rules to prevent political mis-selling?

My own suggestions are:

1) If a politician is found (by a panel of judges) to have made false or misleading remarks during an election campaign he can be struck-off, fined or imprisoned.

2) All proposals published in manifestos must be measurable, costed, and have an independent evaluation measure.

3) Key manifesto proposals (involving constitutional changes, taxes, irreversable social changes etc) to be formally identified as such.

4) All key proposals in the manifesto of a winning party must be carried out in full within the parliamentary term (failing to do so could lead to a charge of political mis-selling - see item 1).

5) No new key proposals to be introduced within a parliamentary session without a national referendum.

6) Funding of political parties to be limited to one £200 donation per individual party member.

But who is going to take any notice of me...

Desire for something more exotic.

The general election was called today. The Queen has dissolved Parliament and new elections will be held on Thursday 6th May. It is an exciting moment, and I will be blogging my thoughts on the cultural aspects of the election period.

Watching the early reports, John Sopal standing on a raised platform (on what must be the steps of the George V statue on College Green) made much of the fact that class is going to be a factor in Labour's election campaign. Gordon Brown in his opening announcement made the point that he is from an "ordinary" background. John Sopal asked Home Secretary Alan Johnson whether Labour would be running a toffs-in-top-hats negative campaign against the Tories.



Above: The Guardian at the weekend promoted a "step outside posh boy" t-shirt showing an agressive Gordon Brown.



Above: There is further evidence of this negative campaigning on the Powerpoint for Labour site: http://powerpointforlabour.wordpress.com/

I am not sure this approach is going to be successful. It didn't work in the Tatton by-election. And Labour also have their share of rich and privileged leaders (this fact has not gone unnoticed).



Above: the top hat as a symbol of poshness may not resonate particularly well - Clement Attlee (a secular saint among socialists) even wore a top hat in the supposedly egalitarian 1960s.

And there is an increasing body of evidence that the "poshness" and privilege of the Tories may play in their favour.

In part this is related to the death (in the United Kingdom) of "mainstream urban" as a cultural influence. Why this is happening is open to debate. Possibly it stems from Barack Obama telling young men in America to "pull their pants up"; possibly it is related to lack of authenticity for the style when transplanted across the Atlantic; possibly it is due to the recession and a consequent mood of seriousness and formality.

But the reason may simply be a mundane boredom with the urban style and a desire for something more exotic.

The famous/infamous Bullingdon photograph showing David Cameron and Boris Johnson in ethnic costumes as exotic as any feather-bedecked New Guinea tribesman seems to have inspired curiosity rather than ridicule.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/newsnight/2007/03/bullingdon_and_blair.html



Above: the Spring/Summer 2010 issue of the influential magazine GQ Style reproduced the Bullingdon photograph as a cartoon, together with a quote from Evelyn Waugh's Brideshead Revisited. I have looked for some minutes at this image and I cannot detect any irony. This combination of image and text seems to be genuine homage (the ridicule from Anthony Blanche has a psycho-sexual undercurrent and is not ridicule at all...).



Above: also in the Spring/Summer 2010 issue of GQ Style is a fashion photo spread based on the Bullingdon look. Being in such an influential magazine we have to take seriously the idea that this is one of the key themes for the months even years ahead. There will, no doubt, be much wailing and gnashing of teeth in some quarters, but there you are.

Finally, just on the subject of the demise of mainstream urban I was interested in John Harris's article about suburbia and the non-metropolitan condition:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/culture/2010/apr/03/suburbia-pop-betjeman-john-harris

Caught red-handed

Above: cartoon in The Guardian - Prime Minister Gordon Brown threatens his former Cabinet colleague Stephen Byers (who has been caught red-handed offering to influence government Ministers in return for cash).

Last night I watched Dispatches on Channel 4. Three former government ministers were set-up by the Sunday Times newspaper and made to incriminate themselves. Each of them said they would influence government policy in return for cash.

On one level this wasn't really surprising. Corruption is now so routine at Westminster that you assume most of the government are taking bribes of one kind or another most of the time. It is all on a par with ministerial behaviour in Abuja or Kabul.

But I WAS interested in the connection with Tescos. It has long mystified me how such an abusive and anti-social organisation can get away with outrageous behaviour that damages the national interest (bullying farmers, trashing High Streets, deceiving customers etc). Stephen Byers revealed that they do this by bribing government ministers, and gave the specific example of Lord Mandelson intervening to protect Tescos over recent labelling legislation.

And yet Tescos does not seem to have come under any pressure to explain Stephen Byers's statements. Lord Mandelson waves the accusation away as if it is a silly exaggeration. We are supposed to accept that this is all just election fun got up by the press.

It is illegal to conspire to commit a crime in this country. I would like to see the conspiracy laws used to arrest Stephen Byers and make him explain on oath, in a court, what lay behind his statement about Tescos. And I would like to see the Sunday Times digging around among Tescos head office staff (particularly in their corporate affairs department) to see if any of them will break ranks.

I am especially interested to know whether Tescos has ever paid any money to Stephen Byers, and if so what for, and when.

Also - am I being cynical in thinking that the government expelled an Israeli diplomat today in an effort to knock Stephen Byers off the news headlines? Will the British media fall for this? Are British journalists really so malleable?

More about these evil people: http://www.corporatewatch.org.uk/?lid=254

The absurdity of the House of Lords

Above: Joseph Chamberlain stands in isolation above the desk in the Upper Waiting Hall.



Above: The worthies on the staircase wait expectantly, but no-one comes.



Above: The Committee Room corridors are utterly deserted and silent.

Parliament has voted itself ten days holiday, on top of all the other time off they get.

I’m very interested in the research that indicates the people who put themselves forward for elected office seem to share the same personality profile as serial killers.

You can read more: http://www.examiner.com/examiner/x-2684-Law-Enforcement-Examiner~y2009m6d12-Serial-killers-and-politicians-share-traits

And as I walked through the empty (almost) Palace of Westminster, taking photographs (which is strictly forbidden but which I got away with possibly because I am so completely unimportant), I began thinking about the absurdity of the House of Lords. It scarcely seems possible that in the twenty-first century one of the world’s major democracies still has hereditary peers sitting in the legislature. As a way of choosing our representatives it appears to be a crazy anachronism.

Except that everybody says it works.

Which made me ask: why does it work?

And that made me think about the research by Jim Kouri. If the majority of people who put themselves forward for elected office have the personalities of psychopaths, surely it is an advantage to have a balancing chamber chosen by the accident of heredity. Over the years this would produce a complete cross-section of personality types – introverted-types, neurotic-types, genius-types, compassionate-types, idiot-fool-types, cautious-types, emotional-types, curious-types, irritable-types etc.

The House of Lords is often accused of lack of diversity, but in terms of personality-types the accident of heredity delivers far more diversity than the party political system.

"Traitor" and "murderer"

Above: the Queen Elizabeth II Conference Centre where the Chilcott enquiry is being held (the florid building on the left is Westminster Central Hall).

Tony Blair has appeared at the Chilcott enquiry into the Iraq War. Pages of newsprint and hours of broadcast coverage have analysed his appearance and the answers he has given. It would be pointless for me to add to this commentary.

I can however talk about where (in my opinion) Tony Blair fits in our political culture.

As he left the enquiry there were shouts of "traitor" and "murderer".

Societies function much better when there are scapegoats onto whom all the ills of the people can be loaded. The scapegoat is then sacrificed, society is cleansed, the people can "move on". Sir James Frazer wrote about this sacrificial proxy ritual in The Golden Bough (particularly Chapter LVII Public Scapegoats, the expulsion of evils).

Whether this will work depends upon proving the point that Tony Blair acted unilaterally and "presidentially" in taking the decision to go to war. He seems to have admitted as such in his answers yesterday. In any case, the genius of New Labour was to take the unwritten British constitution (which functioned like Common Law in terms of precedents and agreed understandings) and to say "if it is not specifically prohibited we can do it" - and so almost by stealth they installed a presidential style of government.

Under a representative parliamentary system we are all guilty of the Iraq War. If however it is established that Tony Blair usurped the parliamentary system and established a presidental system then he (and one or two others) are guilty and the rest of us are off the hook. It's an important point in terms of the future of the Labour party (which is tainted by the war), the future of relations with the Middle East, the national sense of morality etc.

But Tony Blair is a slippery individual, and it is not clear how his sacrifice could be carried out (except in terms of his reputation, but that seems irredeemably trashed anyway).

In the Guardian George Monbiot endorsed this campaign http://www.arrestblair.org/

Greedy liars

Above: the home of Labour grandee Quentin Davies.

I watched the Politics Show at lunchtime today, hoping they would cover the belltower expenses scandal (Labour grandee Quentin Davies has been charging restoration of his belltower to the public purse on the grounds that a belltower is necessary for him to carry out his duties as an MP). The Politics Show made no mention of the Labour grandee's greed, and barely covered the expenses scandal except as a discussion topic in the last few minutes. Parliament will shortly go off on another long holiday (they seem to be unaware that most people only get 21 days plus bank holidays).

I was interested in the belltower expenses scandal as a couple of years ago I made a visit to the village where Quentin Davies lives to look at his Queen Anne mansion (Pevsner writes approvingly of the architecture, although he makes no mention of a belltower). The park is screened from the road by a thick hedge but there was a gap where I managed to take the above photograph. Had I realised how much public money had gone into the upkeep of the property I might have been sufficiently enboldened to go closer.

However I now realise that taking a picture of a government minister's home was a foolish thing to do. Under new "anti-terror" legislation (which must have been passed in secret as I have never heard of it before) the police can now arrest people for taking photographs, even from a public road. By taking this picture I risked being seized by the "anti-terror" police, taken to Paddington Green police station, and from there "disappeared" into the gulag of rendition ghost camps in eastern Europe.



Above: satirist Rory Bremner as Tony Blair in a restaurant in Edgware Road. The area is a centre of London's arab community. Rory Bremner was satirising Tony Blair's appointment as "Middle Eastern envoy" for George Bush (note the hookahs).

One of the Politics Show's lead items this lunchtime was Tony Blair's shameless admission that he had made up the jusification for the Iraq war, and that if the WMD argument hadn't worked he would have just made up something else instead.

Can nothing be done about politicians who tell lies and make fools of the electorate? Certainly Tony Blair should get none of the usual honours that go to past Prime Ministers (no peerage and certainly no Garter). Perhaps the courts can confiscate the vast sums of money he has made from speaking tours on the grounds that they are the proceeds of a crime?

So in the past week British politicians have once again been exposed as greedy and as liars, with government ministers leading the way ("whiter than white my arse").

St Andrew's Day

Above: there is a section of Scottish society that sees the country as continually pushed behind England (although were Scotland to ever achieve "independence" it would still remain a small country immediately alongside a much bigger one).

Today is St Andrew's Day, and in Edinburgh the First Minister of the Scottish Executive (Alex Salmond) called for a referendum on Scottish independence. I watched Daily Politics at lunchtime and the First Minister was interviewed on the programme wearing an ethno-nationalist badge and silly ethno-nationalist tie. In appearance Alex Salmond gives the impression of being a jovial buffoon, but if you listen to what he is saying you realise he is promugating the evil doctrine of communal competitive prestige.

During the interview Alex Salmond became rattled at one point, and repeated the libel that "Scottish oil has been stolen by the English" (he said this very obliquely, but that was undoubtedly the slur he was making).

There has been no net benefit to ANYONE in the United Kingdom through possession of North Sea Oil. Having the oil has pushed up the value of the currency, and a strong currency has in turn destroyed British manufacturing industry - the one cancels out the other. Lord Kaldor demonstrated this in a speech to the House of Lords in the early 1980s (you can read the speech in the two images below, if you click on them they will enlarge).







Above: on the whole the SNP is given an easy ride by interviewers. Possibly it is because it is hard to take seriously a political movement dressed up like a tin of tartan shortbread. But these politicians represent the politics of envy, divisiveness and implicit communal violence (always strenuously denied).

SNP policies, like most "ourselves alone" political movements, are also economically crazy.

For instance, if they were to win a majority in a referendum on independence (highly unlikely) and took Scotland out of the United Kingdom they would also be taking Scotland out of the European Union. Are they proposing to have immigration borders and import tariffs at Berwick? Or do they imagine they will fast-track membership of the EU ahead of Turkey?

These people are mad and evil.

Musical incompetence

Against a bright red background Prime Minister Gordon Brown spoke to the Labour Party Conference. An impressive recital of policy achievements over the last twelve years (but no mention of the Iraq war, which is one of the key reasons the party is going to lose). We saw an overhead view of the audience clapping and cheering - an odd view since it appeared that many of the women delegates were wearing red clothes the same shade as the red carpet.

Conference speech crescendos are an anthropological category worthy of more study.

At the end, during the standing ovation, "Gordon" was joined by his popular wife and they kissed and chatted and acknowledged the crowd like Akhnaten and Nefertiti at one of their audience windows.

However, just as the acclaim was approaching triumph (these sessions have an escalating format) some idiot put on "upbeat" music and we heard Heather Small bellowing out Who do you think you are, stop acting like you're some kind of star...

The delegates were clapping along as Heather was telling Gordon ...you're moving on out, it's time to break free...

Heads should roll for that musical incompetence.

Akhnaten and Nefertiti at their Window of Appearances: http://www.mfa.org/egypt/amarna/akh_tour/akh_tour_page3.html

Those lyrics:

You've done me wrong, your time is up
You took a sip (just a sip) from the devils cup.
You broke my heart, there's no way back.
Move right outta here baby.
Go and pack your bags.
Just who do you think you are?
Stop acting like some kind of star.
Just who do you think you are?
Take it like a man baby if that's what you are.

[chorus]
'Cos I'm moving on up.
You're moving on out.
Movin' on up.
Nothing can stop me.
Moving on up.
You're moving on out.
Time to break free.
Nothing can stop me,Yeah.

Crumbled to dust

Liberal Democrat Treasury spokesman Vince Cable's seemingly impregnable reputation crumbled to dust yesterday. On BBC Radio 4's PM programme they played an interview where the female interviewer (I didn't catch her name - I was driving at the time) comprehensively demolished his arguments and reduced him to whining complaints and vague generalities. This interview was re-staged, almost word for word, by Jeremy Paxman on Newsnight, indicating that Vince Cable had made no effort in the intervening hours to improve his defence.

It was shocking to witness someone normally so astute and well-informed effectively fall flat on his face.

Getting up again is going to be difficult.

The degradation of the office of Speaker

Above: Bremner Bird & Fortune have stopped trying to satirise the Expenses Scandal. They simply portray what is actually happening and the audience falls about laughing. The Expenses Scandal is beyond satire and the feelings raised go very deep.

After a few days in Scotland I have gone down with ’flu. I am very weak, and have an incredibly sore throat and hacking cough. All I want to do is sleep.

Nevertheless I have been following the shenanigans at Westminster as the Expenses Scandal and its fall-out continues.

The House of Commons finally published all the material relevant to MP’s expenses but in such a censored and bowdlerized format it was widely seen as an insult to ordinary people.



Above: in response the Daily Telegraph brought out a glossy publication listing the outrageous greed of the “Honourable” members of the House of Commons. This magazine reminds me of the souvenir issues produced after royal events or great sporting occasions. I certainly intend to keep my copy – as an historical document it will be sought-after in fifty years’ time as a relic from the most serious constitutional crisis of the post-war era (“constitutional crisis” seems to be justified, as the people have lost all confidence in their representatives).



Above: the latest fiasco involves the “election” of a new Speaker.

Yesterday the House of Commons elected a new Speaker in an attempt to “draw a line” under the Expenses Scandal and “move on”. However John Bercow appears to be such a controversial figure that the uproar is likely to continue. Certainly he appears to have only factional support from Members of Parliament.

Little is known about John Bercow apart from the fact that he was a white supremist in his youth and is now characterized by an extreme political correctness and sympathy for New Labour. His early racist indiscretions are portrayed as youthful exuberance, but this was no reactionary backwoodsman unthinkingly supporting the status quo. As a national student leader John Bercow advocated removing black and brown people from British society, and his defence of the apartheid regime in South Africa (sustained over several years) represented an ideological commitment to the doctrine of white supremacy.

In addition he has behaved badly over Capital Gains Tax (a crime in my view, despite being “within the rules”), and has alienated the Conservative MPs in the House of Commons (not a crime obviously, but hardly the behaviour of a unifying candidate).

Is he not to be questioned about all this?

And what of the precedent that is being set - are we now supposed to overlook and forgive the racist excesses of Andrew Brons on the grounds that they were just silly things he did in his youth?

While I can accept that someone might go from being mildly racist to mildly liberal during the course of a lifetime, to go from extreme racism to extreme liberalism does not inspire confidence. Either he is mentally unstable and lacking integrity (literally his integrated world-view must have come apart). Or he is just chasing power and money and changes his political views to maximize benefits to himself.

When I saw him on Newsnight last night I thought he looked a spiv.

Is this the person we are supposed to accept as Speaker, in a “within the rules” fixed election?

Are the ordinary people to have no say in this?

One consolation of the degradation of the office of Speaker is that it should dissuade the lobby that wants to abolish the monarchy and make the Speaker head of state.