G4S the bungling former supplier of security services to the Olympics was awarded the contract in March 2010.

It would have been helpful if, when he made his statement in the House of Commons yesterday, Keith Vaz MP had admitted that this was a contract Labour awarded, and Labour set the terms on.

Lies of ommission are still lies.

The John Terry verdict

Within minutes of the John Terry verdict being announced it was re-announced by Diane Abbott MP on her Twitter microblog.  Note that she did not write anything, she merely "retweeted" what someone else had written, therefore sidestepping making an actual comment (having been given a good kicking by Ed Miliband earlier this year for making racist statements herself viz "white people like to play divide and rule").  Perhaps she is being archly ironic with this "Just saying" form of commentary, perhaps she is being intellectually dishonest.

Personally I am pleased John Terry has been found not guilty.

I am more than pleased, I am delighted.

Since the incident occurred John Terry has been treated by many people as if he was guilty.  In particular, left-wing commentators (in the Mirror, Guardian and Independent) have been salivating over the prospect of a guilty verdict.  It has been a witch-hunt, both unpleasant and unjust.

It benefits no-one if the principle of innocent until proven guilty is abandoned.

Some of the nastiest vilification of John Terry has been carried out by Guardian writer Marina Hyde (she practices a Roland Freisler style of journalism).  Is she now going to apologise for her evil words? (rhetorical question, of course she won't).  But at least we can be pleased for John Terry and happy that he has an unblemished character and will continue as a great player and (I hope) great future manager.

Presumably the FA will have to apologise, and there will have to be resignations at the highest level.

Nauseating piffle from Michael Portillo on This Week about long-term care for the elderly.

This is obviously someone who has never struggled to pay a mortgage and does not realise the effort working class people have made to buy their own homes.

And if the Conservative party cannot protect private property from state seizure then what is the point of it? 

State seizure of private property ("in the collective interest") is what fascist and communist regimes do.

Bizarre

Bizarre statement by Labour activist and Independent columnist Owen Jones on his Twitter microblog "massacres have never been committed by self-described atheists".

Considering that Hitler, Stalin and Mao were all atheists and pursued official atheist policies (to the point of eradicating religious people in the territories they controlled) this assertion is difficult to understand.

Owen Jones studied history at Oxford - this sort of tweet does not reflect well on his alma mater (or perhaps an Oxbridge education is just a bogus affectation without the intellectual rigour of less self-publicising educational institutions).

https://twitter.com/OwenJones84/status/223521728758951937

UPDATE

The tweet was meant sarcastically.

Just shows you how careful you have to be.  

Return of Tony Blair to a position of influence in the Labour party

What should one make of the possible return of Tony Blair to a position of influence in the Labour party (he has always been influential of course, but I am referring to the position of formal influence he has apparently been offered).

There are advantages - unique experience of winning elections, a huge and effective network, a charismatic ability to motivate people.

On the downside the Blair brand is associated in the popular mind with "duplicity".  In my opinion it is not possible to change this perception.  It might be possible to modify it to "wily ruthless competence to get things done" but that will require a skilled campaign.

There is also the issue of the Blair "package".  Tony Blair will not re-enter politics as an individual but as a magnetic force that will attract (and no doubt repel) others.  He cannot help but change the nature of the current Labour party as an institution.

Have we not been down this road before?  When Gordon Brown brought Lord Mandelson back into government it was to bring some "magic stardust" to a lacklustre party image, and to bring a sense of competence to the organisation.  Has the Mandelson come-back been analysed properly?

It is difficult to avoid the suspician that Nick Boles is an idiot.

What must the constituents of Grantham & Stamford think of his crackpot idea to take welfare benefits away from "wealthy" pensioners?

Presumably he has overlooked the fact that a lot of the "wealthy" in his own constituency are going to be from farming familes who can never realise the wealth tied up in their land unless they disinherit the next generations.

If he upsets the local farmers he will be deselected quicker than you can say "The NHS is safe in our hands".

I am tempted to do a quick survey standing outside Burtons the Bakers in downtown Bourne.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-18778359

Someone's appearance should have no relevance to how their statements are received by others.

Usually if a critic makes a reference to someone's appearance they are conceding they have lost the argument on substantive points.

However Diane Abbott MP is probably not the best person to appear on Newsnight lecturing about obesity.

Yes, food companies need to be condemned for the foul way they have corrupted the eating habits of the general population.

But probably Diane Abbott does not have sufficient credibility to talk convincingly on the subject of overcoming obesity.

I am not an expert in body language, but watching on Newsnight Paul Tucker's evidence given earlier today to a Commons committee it seems he is not telling the truth.

When asked about Ed Balls and Shriti Vadera he looks down and to the right, which supposedly means he is accessing the creative side of the brain (in other words telling lies).

Article in today's Guardian in which Mehdi Hasan expresses bewilderment

Above:  article in today's Guardian in which Mehdi Hasan expresses bewilderment and regret at the amount of abuse currently being hurled at the Muslim community in the United Kingdom.

I think Mehdi Hasan is reading the situation wrongly when he says that the abuse (which is nasty by any standards) is directed specifically at Muslims.  The abuse is intended for all immigrant communities, and all spokespeople from those communities will have the abuse directed at them if there is an opportunity.  The reason that Muslims are on the receiving end at the moment is due to a number of factors that "allow" Muslim-averse statements to be made by people who would normally keep their true feelings about post-war immigration well hidden.

This is not to condone hostility towards immigrant communities or verbal / physical abuse of individuals from immigrant communities.

But the liberal elite are deluding themselves if they think that only an isolated extremist minority are likely to indulge in this sort of behaviour.

Post-war immigration is an issue about which the majority feel completely disenfranchised.

This is not a situation that can continue indefinitely.

Disenfranchised populations must eventually rebel. 

Perhaps it would help Mehdi Hasan to understand the situation if he were to compare post-war Britain with post-war Palestine.  In both territories a controlling elite, ignoring the wishes of the majority, allowed unrestricted immigration.  The result in Palestine was the creation of the state of Israel and the subsequent intifada by the people who call themselves indigenous Palestinians.

Therefore, to continue this analogy, Mehdi Hasan should regard the abuse being directed at him as a sort of British intifada, with insults being thrown instead of rocks and bombs (I realise this is a tendentious comparison).

The tragedy of post-war immigration into the United Kingdom is that we are now in a situation where we cannot go forward and we cannot go back.  We cannot go forward because in my opinion if large scale immigration continues a very serious situation will develop (and you only have to look at Northern Ireland to realise that British "tolerance" is capable of breaking down).  We cannot go back because to reverse immigration would require levels of state violence that most people probably would not accept.

But we can at least stop fooling ourselves about a "diverse multi-cultural society" that does not exist.

Prunella vulgaris

Have been at a small conference yesterday and today, looking after the Institute's stand.

Because of the dogs I had to drive home yesterday, then get up at 6am this morning to get back to the conference before today's sessions started.

So I am totally exhausted.

I only really had to be on the stand during the refreshment breaks and the lunch, and the rest of the time I mostly sat in on the seminars (which were very earnest and ever so slightly dull).

But I skipped one session yesterday and went for a walk.  The weather was warm and humid, torrential showers alternating with intense sunlight.  In the woods around the conference centre I found a wide clearing covered with bright blue flowers (see above).  I later identified these as Prunella vulgaris, a wild flower indigenous to northern Europe.  Apparently these little plants were used to flavour soups and stews.  The sap is antibacterial.

I'm working at an exhibition this weekend, not getting home until late.

So I missed seeing the film Nice Guy at the East London Film Festival.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RgAv4oRhLKE&feature=youtu.be

Long-term care for the elderly

I'm not happy with either the Coalition or Labour proposals on long-term care for the elderly.

This needs to be free at the point of delivery for everyone who needs it, either in a claimant's own home or in good-quality residential homes for the elderly.

There is no point in saying this is unaffordable - it is the will of the majority (as you can prove for yourself by just carrying out a poll of the options) and so the government must MAKE it affordable.

Having any kind of charge, even one that is "capped", will just lead to subsequent increases and qualifications so that it becomes as unfair as the present system.

Social welfare (NHS, unemployment benefits, as well as long-term care for the elderly etc) needs to be funded entirely by National Insurance, and when the costs go up National Insurance should be increased to pay for it.  This was the original concept in the wartime plans and post-war implementation of the welfare state.  Unfortunately both the Conservative government of Macmillan and the first government of Harold Wilson funked increasing National Insurance for short term political reasons (now long forgotten).

The result is that National Insurance has become just a meaningless extension of general taxation.  Right-wing politicians (all parties) attack the welfare state on the general libertarian premise that "taxation is theft".  Labour politicians manipulate and corrupt the system to buy votes, particularly bloc votes from immigrant communities who have no right to welfare assets they have not paid for.

And yet the popular will is for long-term care for the elderly free at the point of delivery (and if it were paid for by a hypothecated tax the funding would not be controversial, unlike the present system of general taxation where it all goes into a big pot and we are told "trust us, we are politicians, we will spend the money wisely on your behalf").

Unfortunately the politicians are so stupid they cannot see what a vote-winner this would be.

The moral state of the Establishment

Interesting discussion on Newsnight this evening about the moral state of the Establishment.

Disappointed that no-one defined the Establishment - there was just an assumption that it is a collective entity made up of individual institutions.

Owen Jones dominated the discussion and made all the running, although Anne Atkins expertly corrected him on the Victorians as reformers rather than exploiters.

Neil Hamilton, appearing like a caricature roue, called Owen Jones a spartacist.

A banker (whose name I didn't catch) made conciliatory noises without really saying anything.  He mentioned the origin of Cadbury's as the caring face of capitalism, but failed to point out that globalised capitalism has trashed Cadbury's and asset-stripped the company.  And I think he was right to mention unbridled globalisation as a source of moral corruption but he did not develop the idea.

But the discussion needed at least an hour, not just twelve minutes or so.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b01kn957 

The new roof at Kings Cross

I can't make up my mind about the new roof at Kings Cross.  It is undeniably beautiful, but not as beautiful as the central court at the British Museum (and I even have mixed feelings about that).  Also I think I agree with Rowan Moore that it obscures the facade of West Side Offices - it dominates rather than complements.

There is a hint of the Henry VII chapel at Westminster Abbey.  Also the Long Gallery at Strawberry Hill.  But gothic revival sits awkwardly on the stiff wedding cake facades of West Side Offices and the Great Northern Hotel.

As David Watkin advised us, architecture is important to Society (big S) because of its relationship to morality.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Watkin_%28historian%29

Kirsty Wark interviewed Labour Leader Ed Miliband about the Barclays Libor scandal

On Newsnight this evening Kirsty Wark interviewed Labour Leader Ed Miliband about the Barclays Libor scandal.

Several times she asked Ed Miliband whether he had spoken to Gordon Brown about what happened and whether the Labour government was involved in the Libor fixing.

Incredible as it may seem, Ed Miliband said he had not asked Gordon Brown.

Which makes you think he didn't ask because he didn't want to know.

Shard

The Shard skyscraper opens today.

There was a rather vacuous item on the Today programme this morning, entirely uncritical.

Doesn't the Shard tell you everything you need to know about the last government.

Toweringly remote, prestige for the sake of prestige, "modernity" for the sake of modernity, intimidating big "solutions" unrelated to individual concerns, pushed through with a contemptuous regard to opposition voices, all surface dazzle, awash with money from dubious regimes etc.

No wonder they had to go.

"The riots one year on"

There is a wistful recherche tone to the Guardian's coverage of "the riots one year on", as if it were an exquisite case study in popular revolution, with all attributes the Guardian most approves of (anarchistic insurgency, ethnic grievances, cutting edge use of social media etc).

It's almost as if they are hoping for it all to kick off again.

The police, especially the Metropolitan Police, would have to be very negligent to allow any repeat of the riots of last summer.  Especially with the Olympics about to take place.  The consequences would be very serious - not just for anyone caught rioting, but also for the police hierachy.

Mournful experience walking the dogs (one by one, they are too much trouble to take together).

Dark overcast gloomy evening, trying hard to rain.

Hundreds of black slugs on the wet surface of the lane.

The air very mild.

Archway to Highgate 6

The last part of my walk took me through the former Burdett-Coutts estate and up to Highgate tube.

The "Tudor cliffs" built in the 1920s along Langbourne Mansions, Makepeace Avenue and Oakeshott Avenue are in fact social housing.  They were originally constructed by Lady Workers' Homes Limited to provide accommodation for single women living in London (flats and bedsits).  The blocks are now owned by Camden Council on a 150 year lease and the single-women-only restriction has been lifted.

Wide private roads (protected by gates), generous provision of trees and garden areas, and use of high-status "Tudorbethan" architecture make this a highly-desirable location.

Above:  the Tudor detailing is just a facade, and round the back you see utilitarian 1920s services, enlivened by a few balconies.  Modernists would hate this estate - for them the idea of a facade is anathema.  And yet any philosopher will tell you that to be fully human is to live behind facades (both metaphorical and literal) and no-one can survive for long in the full glare of "truth" and "honesty". 

Above:  I love this mini recycling centre.  It appeals to my sense of order, categorisation, care for the environment.  If I have my way I would put a Grade 2 order on this little area.

Morality and ethics among the elite

On Broadcasting House this morning (BBC Radio 4) Patience Wheatcroft and Owen Jones discussed morality and ethics among the elite.

The discussion just skirted around the issues. 

Owen Jones said the elite had a sense of "one rule for them" without really explaining how this "rule" had developed.  It is counter to the noblesse oblige of the traditional ruling classes, and also counter to the public school ethos (service, duty, sacrifice) that is supposedly instilled in the independent schools.  Although I am perfectly willing to accept that wide swathes of the establishment have become corrupt (the evidence for this is overwhelming) I want to know why and how this has happened.

Patience Wheatcroft said "people without ethics are more prevalent".  This implies that society has become less ethical.  Which makes you ask how ethics are transferred from one generation to another and why this transmission has broken down (is it a failure in the schools? or the receding influence of the established church? or the collapse of family life? or a lack of role models? or a crisis of confidence? or a lack of political leadership? etc).

Earlier in the week I read the Owen Jones article on the Independent website in which he talked about his days at Oxford. http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/owen-jones-if-rigging-rates-isnt-antisocial-behaviour-what-is-dude-7897001.html

In one paragraph he describes how when he left his door unlocked an inebriated member of the rowing team urinated in his bed (presumably involuntarily).

This mirrors the moment in Brideshead Revisited when Charles Ryder leaves his study window open and Lord Sebastian Flyte, drunk after a dinner, puts his head through and vomits copiously.

Which makes you wonder, in the Owen Jones case, what happened next...