We have to make sure we can pay our bills tomorrow

Increasingly I am convinced of the view that one of the key differences between left and right is short-term vision vs long-term vision.

Socialists are concerned with immediate gratification, conservatives are more prepared to plan for the future.

Very interested in a statement issued today by American politician Paul Ryan:  "Our challenge is twofold: We have to pay our bills today, and we have to make sure we can pay our bills tomorrow".

The left would say we can avoid paying our bills today by rolling the debt through into the future and by the magical Keynesian process of gentle inflation the bills will disappear (except that this never works in practice - the politicians are too greedy, the inflation is stoked too high, and the debts just accumulate until payback time arrives - in more ways than one).

http://budget.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=317187

Asinine comment by Diane Abbott MP

 

 

 

 

 

Completely asinine comment by Diane Abbott MP, referring to a Guardian article that quotes someone called Thom Yorke boasting about legal action he would take IF his copyright was infringed.

 

Why is something that has not happened, and not likely to ever happen, being reported so gleefully by Diane Abbott?

 

Is this woman a fantasist?

 

Doesn't she have enough to do?

Ed Miliband on the Today programme this morning talking about the EU

I listened to Ed Miliband on the Today programme this morning talking about the EU.

He has developed a very effective style of parrying questions by reframing them as alternative questions and then giving the answers he wants to give.  Many politicians attempt this technique but few are able to do it as successfully as Ed Miliband this morning.  You could sense in his replies that he is someone who seriously analyses texts (one can imagine him indulging in the FR Leavis habit of close reading).

Of course, any discussion about the EU must address the issue of unrestricted immigration, and Ed Miliband was duly asked about the accession of Bulgaria and Romania and the expected migration to the United Kingdom of hundreds of thousands of people from this region over the next few years.

His answer was to say "I'm in favour of a multi-ethnic diverse Britain".

This is of course a non-sequitur as Romanians and Bulgarians are not a different ethnicity to other Europeans. 

What we see here is the usual Labour trick - as soon as someone tries to discuss immigration they turn the subject to race.  The implication is that anyone who questions immigration is a racist.  Therefore they can be ignored as "bigots".

However the arrival of even a quarter million desperately poor Romanians and Bulgarians is going to have an impact on job opportunities in the United Kingdom, particularly for young people, the unskilled and the semi-skilled.  This may well agitate traditional Labour voters (C2s, Ds, Es).  If the Conservatives are taking a hard line on the EU and Labour is being "intensely relaxed" about EU migration the result could be interesting in 2015.

Ben Page from Ipsos MORI demonstrates that C2s, Ds and Es are not enthusiastic about the EU.

Leftwing firebrand Owen Jones articulates some of the issues Labour has with the EU http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/we-need-nothing-less-than-a-revolution-to-make-the-eu-serve-democracy-and-working-people-again-8282781.html.

 

 

 

 

 

The Green Benches site warns against Labour complacency http://www.greenbenchesuk.com/2013/01/ordinary-labour-voters-want-eu.html

Grandeedom

What is the "grandeedom" that Toby Helm refers to?  Michael Heseltine has no popular following in the Conservative Party, not even a residue from the days when he was Deputy Prime Minister (everything he touched in those days withered and blackened like some cursed unfortunate created by the Brothers Grimm).  Nor can grandeedom refer to the old buffers in the Carlton Club, most of whom even now would prefer Margaret to return to the helm.  Possibly grandeedom is a reference to the Tory benches in the House of Lords, but again I think you would struggle to find much sympathy for Baron Judas of Thenford in the County of Northamptonshire.

Alex Salmond interviewed by Sarah Montague

I listened to Alex Salmond interviewed by Sarah Montague on the Today programme this morning.  As a unionist (both big and small U) I hope Scotland stays within the United Kingdom.  However this will not happen without intelligent arguments from the pro-union politicians.

The answer to the "the case is unarguable" is to develop coherent arguments, not this silly yah-boo response from Ann McGuire MP - unfortunately Anne McGuire and her party are failing to argue effectively against the SNP (as anyone who has watched the Scottish Parliament debates on the Parliament Channel can testify). 

Emily Thornberry MP is being disingenuous here.  The EU is a bully, and like most bullies they will back down when confronted.  If Alex Salmond were to be successful in winning a Yes to the independence referendum then he is quite right to suggest that all sorts of backstairs deals, secret huddles, and clandestine arrangements would ensue - this would be quite separate from the public posturing for public consumption.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sundar Katwala seems unaware that in tests of public opinion in Scotland a majority would favour leaving the EU.

Ed Miliband has a lot to learn about "One Nation" ideology

I have been reading Ed Miliband's One Nation speech to the Fabian Society as reported on the New Statesman website http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2013/01/ed-milibands-speech-fabian-conference-full-text

Especially the section that looks at the private rental market and has three clauses that sort of comprise a policy.

Rooting out rogue landlords?  Of course.  Everybody wants this to happen.

Stopping families being ripped off by letting agents?  Absolutely.  Letting agents are too close to estate agents, and we know how dodgy they are.

Giving new security to families who rent?  Sounds good, but security at whose expense.  Note Mr Miliband is referring to "families" here, which implies children.  If a family in rented accommodation suffers during the economic downturn and their income drops significantly (perhaps through redundancy or illness) they are going to look to save money.  Currently if they do not keep up with the rent they could be given two months to leave and then have to seek help and housing from social security.  With "security" of tenancy they could simply stop paying the rent and coast along without any undue consequences.  Ultimately presumably even Mr Miliband will acknowledge they should be removed from the property, but by that time many months, perhaps years will have elapsed at the expense of the property owner. 

Socialists will argue that this is good.  Buy to let landlords are bad for society.  Who cares if they lose money.

But what Mr Miliband is actually advocating is that private landlords should take on the burden of housing families who cannot afford to house themselves - this is a duty properly of the state, and to push this onto the private rental sector is immoral.

You also cannot describe as "one nation" a policy that encourages one section of society (tenants who can't afford their rent) to steal from another section of society (private landlords).

Ed Miliband has a lot to learn about "One Nation" ideology.

Perhaps he should devote some time to reading Coningsby.

So much for Sky - the dish is so encrusted with snow I can't get a signal.

I will have to watch Newsnight via the laptop (if the battery will last forty five minutes).

Did the squarial have this problem?

Sundar Katwala is not justified in his claim

Sundar Katwala from the think-tank British Future was allocated a column of commentary in two full pages of yesterday's Observer that discussed issues around immigration http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/jan/13/immigration-diversity-state-of-nation

"Nobody is complaining" says Tracy McVeigh fatuously (who would they complain to? - they can only complain to politicians and they will either ignore you or call you a bigot).

There is so much woolly thinking in Mr Katwala's column that it would take a considerable amount of time to address everything.

But I do wish to examine one point he makes:

"...a multi-ethnic and multi-faith Britain is an ineradicable fact" he tells us.  "It ain't gonna change" Bonnie Greer said when discussing immigration on Newsnight (raising her voice as she did so, indicating she was trying to convince herself as much as convince us).  Mission accomplished, as President Bush might say. 

Let us leave on one side the fact that post-war immigration is founded on an injustice (the setting aside of the democratic will of the majority), and that a society built on an injustice cannot endure.

Let us just focus on the proclaimed ineradicability of multi-ethnic, multi-faith populations.

Is this supported by the historical record?

I would suggest it is not.  There might be less anxiety about post-war immigration could anyone point to a happy, stable multi-ethnic multi-faith society in the world today (the best you could hope for is Canada, and that is not an example that would inspire any indigenous peoples).  Here is a very brief overview of multi-ethnic multi-faith societies over the last hundred years:

1920s - the multi-ethnic multi-faith society in Turkey was eradicated following the 1922 war with Greece, and the Greek and Jewish populations who had lived alongside their Muslim Turkish neighbours for centuries were expelled (or worse).

1930s - the multi-ethnic multi-faith society in southern Ireland was eradicated (via burnings, shootings, boycotts etc) as Eamonn de Valera reversed centuries of English Protestant immigration into Catholic Ireland.

1940s - the long-standing multi-ethnic multi-faith society in Poland was eradicated in circumstances too infamous to need detailing.

1950s - the multi-ethnic multi-faith society in Egypt was eradicated following the events of 1956, and Greek, Jewish and other communities that had lived in the area for millennia were expelled.

1960s - the multi-ethnic multi-faith society in Zanzibar was eradicated and the Arab and Indian populations destroyed in a now forgotten act of genocide.

1970s - the multi-ethnic multi-faith society in Uganda was eradicated by the expulsion policies of the Ugandan government.

1980s - the multi-ethnic multi-faith society in Zimbabwe was eradicated as a consequence of the Africanisation policies of Robert Mugabe.

1990s - the multi-ethnic multi-faith society in Bosnia and Herzegovina was eradicated.

2000s - the multi-ethnic multi-faith society in Iraq was largely eradicated in what can only be described as a war of unintended consequences.

And today?  Burma is carrying out a process of eradication against the Rohingya (with the apparent complicity of secular saint Aung San Suu Kyi).  Fiji is an unhappy land that has already experienced convulsions.  Israel-Palestine hardly needs any comment.  Syria is an on-going crisis.  Northern Ireland appears to be experiencing a process of cultural cleansing.

Of course, I am aware that a marxist historian could take each of these examples and "prove" they are the result of capitalist exploitation of the workers, the legacy of imperialism etc.

But there is enough in the historical record to allow us to say that Sundar Katwala is not justified in his claim about ineradicability - sooner or later, in a moment of national crisis and breakdown, one group of people will attempt the eradication of another group.

The only sure way of avoiding this is through an overt policy of assimilation.  But assimilation is not even being considered.  We are not even considering integration with any degree of seriousness.

In the bland words of Tracy McVeigh "no-one's complaining" therefore let's do nothing. 

I know it is cold.  I know it is inconvenient.  I know it is potentially dangerous.

But the falling snow is at times so beautiful it can break your heart.

When you are in an abusive relationship the ONLY option is to walk away

Robert Shrimsley from the Financial Times points to data that suggests a referendum on EU membership would result in a majority wanting to stay http://yougov.co.uk/news/2013/01/14/britain-europe-fear-factor/

There is no doubt that fear of the unknown will influence some people to opt for the status quo.

But as any feminist will tell you, when you are in an abusive relationship the ONLY option is to walk away - no matter what threats are made about loss of income, of no home to go to, of how everyone will laugh at you etc.

Welcome to the reader currently accessing this site from Georgia (in the Caucasus).

Northern blueness

A winter sky of such northern blueness that despite the freezing air it exhilarated me.  I felt giddy with the blueness of it all.  And that precious moment when I am about to explore somewhere new, and see marvels for the first time (for there are always marvels, even in the most humble places).

Also in today's Observer I was amused by the irony of Nick Cohen's article in which he used 1,114 words to ask why people are obsessed with gay sex.  One thousand one hundred and fourteen words seems like pretty obsessed to me.  Is it possible that Nick Cohen's article is part of the problem not part of the solution?

"Why this obsession with what gay people do in bed" is a question we could ask Mr Cohen himself, with considerably more justification.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/jan/13/why-cant-homosexuals-have-sex-life?INTCMP=SRCH

Julie Burchill makes a defiant defence of her "brilliant" friend the writer Suzanne Moore

An unusual article in today's Observer in which writer Julie Burchill makes a defiant defence of her "brilliant" friend the writer Suzanne Moore who has been accused of defaming a minority group.

Julie Burchill is now herself on the receiving end of hysterical invective (as she must have known she would be).

Well now they know what it is like.

For approximately twenty years the left has used the bogus cod ideology of political correctness to silence debate and shut up opponents.  Over this time offenders against political correctness have been denounced in ever-nastier and dehumanising terms so that people are damaged, careers are ended, whole categories of people are negated as "nasty" and unworthy even of life (I am not exaggerating). The fact that political correctness is nothing more than censorship is irrelevant to the perpetrators.

To understand why you should realise that socialism cares nothing for individuals.  The collective is everything, and ordinary people are mere economic units within a predictable theory of society.  The eternal soul is dismissed as an opiate fairy-story and human personality is simply a bourgeois invention.

This is what these people are like.

This is why they must never get back in.


http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/jan/13/julie-burchill-suzanne-moore-transsexuals 

Update 14th January - Suzanne Moore writes an article about her previous article, but without once mentioning Julie Burchill.

   










http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/jan/09/dont-care-if-born-woman 

Those who live by political correctness shall die by political correctness, to paraphrase the old saying.

If you look at any one project in isolation nothing seems to be getting done

Monday

On the drive to work, the road a straight line across the flat empty rural plain, I saw high in the air two swans flying and the sight filled me with an anxious hope that they would be alright.

A hurried cup of coffee when I arrived in the office and I spent twenty minutes tidying up the communications report, most of which I had written at the weekend.  Then into the monthly campaigns meeting.  I gave my report which was (if I say so myself) interesting and compelling and completely masked the fact that I have not done very much over the last month.

Everyone else who gave a report came under attack from Director Vijay Singh.

The meeting lasted four hours, and afterwards Vijay Singh, Abi Reed and myself had another of the secret huddle meetings to discuss the Institute's AGM planned for April.

A late lunch mostly consisting of collecting dry cleaning.

In the afternoon I prepared for the Competition meeting tomorrow, sending out by e-mail an impressive agenda.

Tuesday

Unexpectedly there was no Vijay Singh in the office today, which made the Competition meeting rather flat.  In the absence of our Director I chaired the meeting myself.  We spent two hours working our way through the agenda.

Most of the day I found it difficult to get anything done, mostly because e-mails kept arriving with issues that needed to be settled quickly.  The Exhibitions programme soaks up a huge amount of my time.  Also I wrote up the minutes from this morning's meeting.

Wednesday

Most of the morning I spent on writing literature for a training course the Institute is to offer volunteers.  I read through the modules (which had been put together by Deputy Director Marcia Walsh) and translated the dry prose into something reasonably attractive.  The course is to be offered free, as a way of identifying possible supporters for the Institute.

In the afternoon I reviewed my To Do list.  Each week I seem to make a tiny amount of progress in each of a wide range of projects.  Cumulatively the work is significant, but if you look at any one project in isolation nothing seems to be getting done.

Thursday

I kept my desk completely clear, wanting to just concentrate on one thing at a time ("that'll never work" said Librarian Stan D helpfully).

Lunchtime it was far too cold to go out, so I just worked through.

Friday

Generally the office was busy, with lots of meetings taking place.  I took the first steps in producing a new supplement (we update key publications as new research becomes available).  I rang Maria B at Head Office - she is supposedly a firebrand but seemed quite meek when I spoke to her, quite unlike her ferocious e-mails. 

I went for a walk at lunchtime, which was a mistake as it was still below freezing.

In the afternoon the proof copies of the Training Course Guide arrived - at last I have something tangible to show people.

Michael Heseltine is undermining the government

Of course, left-wing writer Sunny Hundal is delighted that Michael Heseltine is undermining the government on the economy and on Europe.  Heseltine has always followed his own agenda, which is not even remotely Conservative but is corporatist, federalist, syndicalist - and much closer to New Labour than you might think.  As someone once remarked, Heseltine can never pass a back without wanting to stab it.

The one consolation is that throughout his long and eventful political life he has failed at every political project he has ever managed and been wrong on every political view he has ever held.

Dateline London earlier today discussed the forthcoming speech by the Prime Minister on the European issue and the intervention of the American government in British affairs.  Maria Margaronis from The Nation (an American magazine with a tiny circulation of 145k) actually used the inept phrase "punching above their weight".  Why is an obscure magazine like Transport Times given such a platform - are we to see correspondents from Hair & Beauty or the Rabbit Fanciers' Gazette joining the Dateline London panel?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b01q0gzt/Dateline_London_12_01_2013/

John Bird on Question Time

Very interesting comment by Big Issue founder John Bird on Question Time yesterday evening. 

He said that governments are finding it increasingly difficult to govern.

One thinks of the Blair government where endless laws, edicts and directives were issued only to be ignored (so that now hardly anything tangible remains of the Blair years, with even Northern Ireland regressing).

The United Kingdom used to be a broadly self-governing system in which laws and customs were implemented through an all-pervasive network of institutions (thousands of institutions) known collectively and informally as the British Establishment. 

It was often slow and ponderous, perhaps even stifling, but the system worked because people wanted it to work - they felt it was their system, owned by them. 

With the abolition of grammar schools the traditional routes into Establishment institutions became closed to ordinary people, and gradually the Establishment (including Parliament, including the media) became a self-perpetuating ruling caste drawn from Oxbridge-educated self-important nincompoops.

The result has been a gradual withdrawal of support (a withdrawal that has now become acute) by the ordinary population for an elite that tries to tell them what to do.

Zoe Williams claims to be puzzled

In yesterday's Guardian Zoe Williams has written an arbitrary piece on "Skivers vs Strivers" http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2013/jan/09/skivers-v-strivers-argument-pollutes

It is meant to be a polemic in favour of "a better world" and perhaps most of it should just be regarded as uplifting guff for the edification of the left (perhaps the journalistic equivalent of a Celine Dion ballad).

However there are a few points that need to be clarified.

Zoe Williams claims to be puzzled (indignantly puzzled) by the transformation of Social Security into Welfare.  Is she unaware that Social Security was an insurance scheme paid for by National Insurance?  But the original Social Security scheme is long gone.  Governments (all of them, all parties) funked the challenge of putting up National Insurance when the cost of Social Security went up, preferring to just make up the shortfall from general taxation.  Thus over decades Social Security was transformed from a scheme for workers and funded by workers to what we have now - welfare handouts distributed as largess by governments who want to buy votes.  Labour is the chief architect of this slight-of-hand, but all governments have been at it.

It is both unreasonable and cynical for Zoe Williams to talk about "misinformation" just a few lines after a paragraph in which she castigates with righteous-seeming anger the views of Mitt Romney.  Mr Romney is an American, living and working in America, and has no role in forming Coalition policy.  To include his views in an article on British government social policy looks like an attempt at misinformation to me.

In the most farcical line of the whole piece Zoe Williams urges "If you want to make sure work pays, wouldn't it be better to force up wages than force down benefits?"  How on earth, in a globalised world, does she propose to do that?  You might put 10p or 20p onto the minimum wage, but that is hardly "forcing up" wages.  You could have a Prices and Incomes Policy but without import tariffs all that would happen would be a rise in the costs of goods and services originated in the United Kingdom and a rushing inward flow of foreign goods and services at cheaper rates.  You could close the labour market and over a period of time allow the market to compete for increasingly scarce labour (due to demographic trends), but to do this the left would have to end its addiction to immigration and we know that's not going to happen - immigrants are too useful as voting fodder.  No other argument illustrates the economic illiteracy of the left than this meaningless line "force up wages".

Philip H. Gordon, American Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs

Lots of coverage in the media about the very public comments by Philip H. Gordon, American Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs, that the United Kingdom should not leave the European Union.

Everyone is being terribly polite about this foreign intervention in British affairs.

Presumably they all think a diplomat (even an undiplomatic diplomat such as this) should be treated with courtesy.

Perhaps I could be a little less courteous and say:  fuck off Philip H Gordon and fuck off Obama Administration.

And is it not the case that British-American relations since 1941 have been a one-way street, with all the giving on one side and all the taking on the other?  What exactly do we get out of the trans-Atlantic relationship (entirely unspecial from my point of view) apart from the ability of scumbag politicians to "punch above their weight"?  Wouldn't a period of American isolationism be a great relief to everyone?

And while we are on the subject I am not happy about the monstrous new American embassy being constructed in London - this is the sort of structure an occupying power would construct in a quasi-colonial possession.  It is going to be hideous in appearance.  Why, in an era of instant electronic communications, do they need such a vast structure?

Labour MPs are required to give a proportion of their salary to the Labour Party

Clive Betts MP on the Today programme on BBC Radio 4 this morning made the surprising statement that Labour MPs are required to give a proportion of their salary to the Labour Party.

How much do they have to give?  Is this a flat amount or does it vary according to the financial circumstances of each MP?  How long has this levy been in operation?

Especially I am interested in whether there is any correlation between what MPs were giving to their party and what they were claiming during the expenses scam - effectively were Labour MPs making exaggerated (and in many cases downright false) expenses claims to compensate for the money they had to give to central party funds.

Twitter is not paying its fair share of tax

It seems that Twitter is not paying its fair share of tax in the United Kingdom.

I take the point that there is no actual proof they have behaved in the same way as Amazon or Starbucks, but even so £16,500 is laughably small.

Presumably the Reverend Giles Fraser and all the other supporters of Occupy are now going to stop using Twitter until the organisation starts paying tax?

Multi-billion-pound market in foreign students

The Guardian newspaper chose to put a story about immigration on the front page today.

Since they have raised the issue, perhaps I might be allowed to ask some questions about the "multi-billion-pound market in foreign students".

Obviously since the introduction of the Rhodes scholarships overseas students have been welcome to study in the United Kingdom, and of course foreign students are expected to pay the full rate for the course.

However there is a world of difference between thirty or so foreign students per year per university and the "multi-billion-pound market" that has grown up in recent years.

British universities are national assets, supported and subsidised by tax-payers over many decades.

1  How have academics been allowed to turn state assets into a "multi-billion-pound" private market, and where is the multi-billion-pound revenue going? (please don't say into inflated salaries for fat cat academics and administrators and also I am not accepting that foreign revenues are "somehow" paying for the education of British students, this would be a mad and unsustainable model).

2  What is the point of having a state university sector that is providing university education for foreigners? - we need to focus on providing education for British students not cramming universities with overseas students so that there is an acute shortage of places each year.  If academics want to provide private degrees for overseas students they should do it through private institutions and not use state assets.

3  Is it not the case that the "whole multi-billion-pound market" in foreign students had become a scam, whether the foreign students went to la-di-da Oxbridge or Cricklewood University of the New Age the objective was not to get a degree but to get a fast-track easy-access path to British citizenship and that far from selling high quality education the universities had become dependent on a racket selling British citizenship?

Also, perhaps Nicola Dandridge from Universities UK could explain why the average working-class person in the United Kingdom should care whether overseas students go to the US, Canada or Australia rather than coming here.  Is this some rarefied variation of the "punching above our weight" argument?  Is she not aware that the average person does not care about all this punching but does care about immigration being brought under democratic control and (if the majority wish this) effectively stopped.

Debate on Newsnight just now about immigration.  The discussion was entirely about the finessing of the immigration process, with no questioning of the validity of immigration (it has no democratic validity).  Bland statements going unquestioned by Gavin Esler - WHY is it that the British economy can only grow by importing "skilled" workers from abroad (what is wrong with the British educational system that we cannot produce skilled workers here?).

It is not enough for members of the Labour party to preen their ideological credentials and claim that they opposed the Iraq war and that the motion in favour of war only got through the House of Commons with the support of Tory votes.

Those Tory votes were cast in favour on the basis of information supplied by the Labour government - information that was later proved to be untrue (lies upon lies upon lies).

Therefore any Labour party member who did not resign from the party over the Iraq war has Iraqi blood on their hands.

The welfare state cannot survive globalisation.

No politician, from either main party is telling the electorate this, but it is behind all the manoeuvring we currently see at Westminster.

The squeeze in access to welfare in the West is going to be permanent, and presumably on-going.

Of course, the left would argue that the solution is to extend high standards of welfare to all the poor people of the world, and this is a laudable goal.

But we are going to wait a long long time (a century or more) for this to happen.

Only educational experts should write about education

"Luton NUT" https://twitter.com/LutonNUT seems to think that only educational experts should write about education.

This would be very convenient for teachers, as then they would be able to avoid scrutiny.

However Luton NUT overlooks the inconvenient fact that state education is paid for by taxpayers, and therefore all taxpayers have a perfect right to comment as much as they want (and more than just comment - they have a right to insist that bad schools are closed and bad teachers are sacked).

As it happens, I have first hand experience of education in Luton having attended Icknield High School between the ages of 12 and 16, leaving that comprehensive with NO qualifications of any value and having the daunting prospect of starting my education over again in the evenings while I worked at dead end jobs during the day.

So perhaps a little more humility from Luton NUT would be welcome.

Mary Seacole should be removed

Hugh Muir uses his column in the Guardian today to tell us about the iconoclasm (his description) aimed at historical black person Mary Seacole.  He suggests that there is an attempt to "expunge" black people from the historical record.  He is irritated at the charges of political correctness.

That there have been black individuals in every part of the globe throughout all ages no-one can seriously doubt.

What cannot be allowed is the insinuation (an insinuation that was well on the way to becoming an orthodoxy during the New Labour period) that there has always been huge numbers of non-white people in the United Kingdom, that the post-war mass migrations were an entirely legitimate continuation of this historical trend, and that anyone who denies this is a racist.

Therefore Mary Seacole should be removed from the national curriculum.

The post-war mass migrations into the United Kingdom were against the wishes of the democratic majority.  Hugh Muir (among many others) needs to accept that this was an injustice, apologise for this injustice and attempt to make amends.  Until this step is made there can be little improvement in community relations and the whole of society is placed in an impossibly false position.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2013/jan/06/gove-mary-seacole-black-florence-nightingale

 http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2257668/PETER-HITCHENS-How-multiculture-fanatics-took-Mary-Seacole-hostage.html

Extensions of Labour's syndicalist corporate state

Jon Trickett MP tells us that because "big" charities are complaining about funding issues that the Big Society is "going nowhere" http://www.jontrickett.org.uk/cameron-betraying-values-and-work-of-voluntary-and-community-sector/

This is a disingenuous argument.

It is unfortunate that during the thirteen years of Labour administration the third sector became co-opted to the delivery of socialist policies.  This has meant that the state-charity nexus has had to be unpicked, and inevitably this is painful for the charities involved.  But it is arrogant in the extreme for major charities to claim that they are identical to the Big Society.

In many ways during the period 1997-2010 big charities became extensions of Labour's syndicalist corporate state.

An illustration of this politicisation of charities can be seen in Save the Children, which a few weeks ago was claiming that children in the United Kingdom were starving and an urgent aid campaign had to be launched to "save" them - closer examination reveals that the charity is now under the control of New Labour apparatchiks who are using the charity as a platform for party politics.

The Reverend Giles Fraser tells us, in an article in today's Guardian, that truth is a relative concept, thus setting aside the ninth commandment.

Lord Strathclyde

I think it is important to remember that Lord Strathclyde has never been the most loyal of Conservatives and has played brinkmanship games in the past ("Do as I want or I'll resign").

Presumably this time David Cameron has called his bluff.

It is a lesson the EU Commissioners need to be aware of, given the sabre rattling that is currently going on (viz http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/jan/06/cameron-absurd-eu-membership ).

Magical timeless landscape

The roads were, as usual on a Sunday afternoon, deserted.  Past little rows of houses sheltering under the high river banks (which date from Anglo-Saxon times when the marshes were first drained).  A little watery sunshine which made the isolated red brick houses and barns look mellow and warm.

Arriving at the hamlet, I was immediately conscious of an element of timelessness.  The small church (no tower, only a little bellcote) had been built in 1850 of rough-hewn stones, to a design by Butterfield.  Inside it was very intimate, with at the west end little stalls selling home-made produce, plants and vegetables.  A local artist offering very good local landscapes in watercolour for £5 each (to go to church funds).  Like most rural communities it is very conservative and resistant to change - people can still recall church feasts with decorated farm waggons pulled by beribboned horses.

A restrained white and grey marble tablet to an eleven year old girl who died in 1857:  She was a most heavenly-minded tender-hearted child, ever dutiful to her parents, loving and beloved, the Lord gave and the Lord hath taken away, blessed be the Name of the Lord.

Then the sad little verse:

Ere grief could blight thy op'ning bloom, 
Or Sin thy charms destroy,
Thy Saviour called an Angel home, 
To realms of peace and joy.

There was a large memorial on the back wall and I had to read it several times to get the sense of it.  First inscription referred to a magistrate who died in 1868 and his three wives.  Second inscription described his eldest son who practised at Chancery Bar and died in 1898.  His five wives (!) were listed.  The family coat of arms, three gold arrows on a blue background, were displayed on various hatchments impaled with the coats of arms of the women they had married.  Anthony Trollope satirised greedy lawyers who married heiresses, but even he would have been shocked by such a blatant example.

Talking to the lady pouring the teas, there is supposedly an inland sea in the area - one of the great lakes that appear and disappear in this magical timeless landscape depending on the caprice of the local climate.  The event is looked for with great anticipation by the local population who regard it as a happy and auspicious phenomenon.  She could remember as a child in the 1940s being taken to a picnic on the beach of this secretive expanse of water one splendid summer when the lake had lasted the year round.

Bleak but also lovely

Pausing on the bridge, the river looked more swollen than I have ever seen it before.  The normally clear water a muddy brown colour.  The water meadows were flooded, with rain water I think rather than the river bursting its banks (the field is higher than the river).

Bleak but also lovely - pearlescent greys, organic browns, muted greens.  The air mild, damp, fresh.  Blackbirds calling.

This is January 2013.

Julie Bindel rather dominated Sky News Press Preview this evening.  Adam Clyne was overwhelmed.  There seemed little point in having him there.

Slightly depressing, but only slightly - the past week at work

Wednesday

First day back in the office after the long Christmas break.  It was slightly depressing, but only slightly.  Immediately I arrived Deputy Director Marcia Walsh (who normally ignores me) came over to ask to my desk to ask how I was, and later wanted to make me a cup of coffee.

The morning was just a matter of plodding through various tasks.

Lunchtime we started the Management Meeting, which I knew in advance was going to be difficult.  I was called on to give a report about the joint marketing project, and I was able to do this very convincingly even though nothing has really been done.  Then Martin B from Head Office was brought into the meeting and we all had a discussion on the relaunch of the Institute's website (this was entirely an exercise in dissembling, as Director Vijay Singh does not want Head Office to have anything to do with the relaunch).

After Martin B had gone back to London we had a break and then the meeting reconvened to discuss the Institute's AGM in April when we will make an attempt to break free from Head Office control.  The planning for this event is currently a bit of a mess, but there is still time to retrieve the situation.  Vijay Singh told us all firmly that we are certain to lose our jobs if the Institute moves back to London (an obvious statement as commuting is so difficult and I have no desire to work in London again).

Another break then we had a presentation from Liz M from Head Office who talked about fund-raising.  She was very competent, but made sarcastic and cynical comments throughout.  Not a pleasant person I suspect.

After the Management Meeting came to an end I had a discussion with Peter Whitgift from the Birmingham office to discuss his literature requirements for 2013.

And then it was 5pm and I could go home, feeling exhausted.

Thursday

The office very quiet today, with lots of people out.  I had two things to attend to: a report for the real Management Meeting on Thursday (yesterday had just been a sham for the benefit of the visitors from Head Office); and a report on public attitude trends for a meeting next Monday.  I managed to get most of the work done - enough to get me through the meetings.

An evaluation survey from the Finance Department pinged into my e-mail In Box - I marked them down quite severely.

We have two temps in Admin, and Gary from the Library downstairs seems to be finding many excuses to talk to them.

Friday

I had to get up early (5pm) as I needed to get into the centre of Cambridge by 9am - two hours to drive to the outskirts of the city and an hour to actually get into the centre and find somewhere to park.  Shabby hotel, Victorian with 1950s extensions.  A cup of coffee among the other attendees, none of whom I knew (it was a regional training course, mostly for voluntary workers).

During the lunchbreak I walked as far as the Fitzwilliam Museum, up the great flight of steps and under the Corinthian portico, and a quick look at the Hellenistic mummy cases.

The afternoon session was a bore and I slipped out soon after it started on the pretext I needed to reply to e-mails.

The thoughts of atheist MP Denis Skinner

Above is a modified tweet - I have removed some offensive iconography https://twitter.com/BolsoverBeast.

Here we can see the thoughts of atheist MP Denis Skinner "helpfully" giving some advice to the Church of England.  He seems to think that Anglicanism is about "increasing congregations", as if numbers were associated with validity.  He also seems oblivious to the fact that the Church of England has vastly more members than the Labour Party.

And is there not a contradiction in atheists who regard the Church as irrelevant wanting it to have "21st century values" - if it was truly irrelevant these atheists would not bother to get so worked up (no-one cares whether atheists have 21st century values).

I am not a theologian, and so cannot say who should or should not be an Anglican bishop.

But I do know that the Scriptures warn us there will come a time when The Beast will be set up in the temple.

This beast will not be a horned monster breathing fire and with a forked tail.  Nor will it be in the shape of a self-important loud-mouth like "beast" Denis Skinner.  It will be subtle and innocuous, as innocent-seeming as the clauses of employment legislation, but its impact will be devastating and irrevocable.

Which is why I am not happy with this endless tinkering with the Church.

Who exactly are the hypocrites

Bizarre logic of The Green Benches accusing the Conservatives of being hypocrites over the fat, salt and sugar content of fast foods:

http://www.greenbenchesuk.com/2013/01/why-tories-are-hypocrites-for.html

Perhaps "Eoin" (his second name does not appear on the piece) is unaware of Ed Miliband, Rachel Reeves and Ed Balls fulminating with outrage over the prospect of savoury pastries (which are loaded with fat and salt) being taxed.

We even saw pictures of Ed Miliband, Rachel Reeves and Ed Balls outside Greggs the Bakers with plastic bags filled with pastry products insisting it was the inalienable right of lunchtime shoppers to consume this sort of food.

Above pic a screenshot from the Daily Mirror website http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/david-camerons-attempts-to-pose-as-a-pasty-eating-775431

So who exactly are the hypocrites Dr Eoin Cl?

German economic success

Independent journalist Owen Jones, in an article on LabourList tells us that the government should be "looking to examples like Germany, which avoided the “let the market decide, Government doesn’t pick winners or losers” approach of New Labour and the Tories. As a consequence, Germany avoided the wholesale trashing of manufacturing we experienced in this country".



Owen Jones is mistaken in his analysis of German economic success. 

German economic success is not due to the German government "picking winners", but is because the German system does not favour mergers and acquisitions.  This means that many more small and medium businesses in Germany are family enterprises, and these tend to have a long timescale on investment (literally for future generations) rather than the quick-profit short term economic culture that has arisen in the United Kingdom.  If you are interested in who created the framework that has allowed mergers and acquisitions (including hostile takeovers) in the United Kingdom you need to look at the policies introduced by Tony Benn when Minister of Technology in the 1960s when he was instrumental in the setting up of the Industrial Reorganisation Corporation (IRC) which was "given the role of promoting or assisting the reorganisation of industry, based on the assumption that British firms were often too small".

Therefore far from Margaret Thatcher being responsible for the asset stripping of British industry this had begun in the 1960s and 1970s using the policy framework initiated by Tony Benn.

Family companies that had taken many decades to build up were destroyed by the Labour government's stupidity.

But of course it is easier to blame the wicked Tories for everything instead of acknowledging the profound economic illiteracy that exists at the heart of the Labour Party.


http://labourlist.org/2013/01/labour-will-never-credibly-out-do-the-tories-on-a-tough-approach-on-welfare/

WHY should Britain care about punching its weight in the world?

Richard Angell, Deputy Director of Progress, tells us that "it is through the EU that Britain can really punch its weight in the world".

For a 140 character statement this sentence is loaded with concepts.

But the most pressing question he needs to be asked is:  WHY should Britain care about punching its weight in the world? 

Freud told us that if you let someone talk long enough eventually they will tell you their most secret desires, and the violence implied in this "punching" metaphor is revealing.

Who does Richard Angell want to punch, and what have they done to deserve that punching?  With four liberal-interventionist wars waged by the last Labour government (Bosnia, Sierra Leone, Iraq, Afghanistan) you would think that the Labour party would be done with punching.  Presumably Richard Angell, through the EU, wants to punch other countries economically as well as militarily; perhaps even giving some people a sociological punching (from a right-on lefty perspective).

It is a matter of course that Richard Angell / Progress / Labour will not seek a mandate from the people before they indulge in their policy of punching above the nation's weight.

This has got nothing to do with serving the people.  This has got everything to do with testosterone-fuelled ego-maniac politicians wanting to get into power so that they can strut the world stage and push other people around.  Richard Angell should be ashamed of himself (but of course he's not).

Give me politicians who are interested in lunching rather than punching - the world would be a lot safer.

The last Labour government made positive discrimination by ethnicity a legal requirement

On BBC Radio 4's PM this afternoon Camilla Batmanghelidjh, founder of Kids Company and The Place2Be, criticised any suggestion of positive discrimination by ethnicity.

Presumably she also supports repeal of the Public Sector Equality Duty which despite the weasel words in which it has been framed is a covert way the last Labour government made positive discrimination by ethnicity a legal requirement in the public sector and for all organisations which receive taxpayers' money.

Listen to PM:  http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b01phlgd

There cannot be anything more annoying in a conversation than to have someone repeat what you have told them just a few seconds earlier, telling you as if you were hearing it for the first time.

Patagonia

An expert on the Today programme, discussing the latest stunt by the Argentine president to advance her territorial claim over the Falkland Islands, drew attention to the Argentine record on colonialism.

Presumably the Argentine colonisation of Patagonia should be examined carefully by the United Nations committee on colonisation, and self-determination granted to the inhabitants of that hapless region.

Perhaps the Falkland Islands Government should recognise the Patagonian independence movement.

Former Home Secretary Jacqui Smith waffling away on Sky News press preview.

To listen to her outraged tone at the inequity of the education system you would think that Labour had been in opposition for the last fourteen years, instead of being the architects of the current mess.

Understanding the B demographic 13

There is a significant difference in outlook between the older generations who are parochial, inward-looking, insula (families literally originating from islands in most cases) and the demographic which has a more global outlook - and has absorbed a Londoncentric view of the world.

The gulf in the minority community between those who have an adequate standard of living and those we can term deprived is greater than the same gulf in mainstream society (or in other words, "middle class" people in the minority community are relatively much wealthier than the community's "underclass" - the rich are comparatively richer and the poor are comparatively poorer).

Incomes of unskilled workers in the minority community have plummeted over the last decade, adding to the hopelessness the demographic expresses.

With traditional unskilled and semi-skilled employment disappearing, the demographic has shown entrepreneurial ability in creating alternative streams of income, although these are often bordering on legality or in some cases are actually illegal.

Almost all of the demographic interviewed knows someone in prison or who has recently served a prison sentence.

Equalities legislation has made no effective difference to their lives and they frequently refer to "slavery" as a way of describing their present state.

As soon as you start to analyse UKIP it seems to evaporate

Jon Cruddas MP, writing in the Daily Mirror, is suggesting that UKIP are a threat to the Conservative party and will be a game-changing factor for the next general election http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/jon-cruddas-ukip-boss-nigel-1512694

It would of course greatly benefit the Labour party if UKIP were to take away Conservative votes.

But possibly Jon Cruddas may be over-optimistic.

As soon as you start to analyse UKIP it seems to evaporate.  No leaders apart from Nigel Farage, no substantial reserves of money, little in the way of established organisation in the constituencies.  UKIP appears to be practising a variation of blitzkrieg politics - everything thrown into the front-line attack with a certain amount of "shock and awe" generated but nothing in reserve and no permanent occupation of ground gained.

Given the MEPs gained at the last Euro election we should, by this point, be hearing from UKIP about the Westminster seats within those Euro constituencies that they expect to win in 2015.  But so far there is nothing.  This suggests that there is no party organisation within those newly-won Euro constituencies that they can focus on more conventional electioneering.

Look at the quality of the UKIP shadow cabinet.  Apart from Nigel Farage there are no recognisable names.  Polices seem to be a mish-mash of me-too Conservatism and wacky ideas thought up on the spur of the moment.

The comparison often made with the SDP of the 1980s is entirely invalid.  Whatever you think of Shirley Williams, she is at least a significant intellectual figure able to take raw political ideas and formulate them into a coherent philosophy integrated into every area of policy.  UKIP has no-one that even comes close to matching the intellectual under-pinning that supported the SDP.

And we should not forget that ultimately the SDP failed - the first past the post system has prevented the emergence of any serious new party since the creation of the Labour party over a hundred years ago.

Probably the current UKIP surge will continue until the next Euro elections.  And the party is likely to do well in those elections (mainly due to failings in the Labour and Conservative offerings on Europe).  But afterwards the UKIP tide will probably recede.

And do not discount the possibility that UKIP implodes before the Euro elections.  Managing political parties is messy.  Volunteers are difficult to command, especially where there is no existing tradition of loyalty.  Door-step supporters are fickle unless you keep going back to them (and above all have the organisation to get the support out on the day).  Mainstream media is supposed to be waning in influence, but UKIP will struggle unless they are endorsed by at least one major newspaper.  Some Conservatives have "gone over" to UKIP, but no major figures and if you look at the defections they tend to be the dissatisfied loud-mouths who will make trouble whatever party they are in. 

So I'm afraid we must conclude that Jon Cruddas is indulging in wishful thinking by trying to big-up the UKIP threat to the Conservatives. 

A specific New Year Resolution

First day back in the office.

It is very obvious that one of my work colleagues has made a specific New Year Resolution to be nice to me.

It is both comical and alarming in equal measure (I still don't trust her an inch).

Helping the lowest paid

Frances O'Grady is now General Secretary of the Trade Union Congress, and has begun her period of office with a facile attack upon the Coalition government ("The Tories are the “nasty” party for reducing the living standards of the poorest while calling them scroungers, the new TUC general secretary claims today" http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/tuc-chief-frances-ogrady-in-blast-1513040 ).

In many ways this is just predictable hyperbole aimed at reassuring Ms O'Grady's constituency of trade union members.

It is of course an ironic remark to make considering that trade union membership tends to depress the wages and conditions of workers in relation to comparable workers who are not members of a union.  I wish I had the resources to do a definitive survey on this.  Far from helping the lowest paid, most indications suggest trade union membership holds them back.

"Leadership" in political terms is used as a euphemism

Deputy Prime Minister (and leader of the Liberal Democrat Party) Nick Clegg says in The Times today that British politics now offers the electorate two choices - "The real divide is between those who offer leadership and those who offer only dissent".

This is an attack upon the Labour party's lack of a coherent policy on the economy, an area where they trail behind the Conservatives (the Labour answer to every difficulty is "spend more money").

There should of course be three choices on offer:  those who offer leadership, those who offer dissent, and those who are willing to implement the public will irrespective of the pain this might cause to vested interests (too often "leadership" in political terms is used as a euphemism for ignoring the electorate and implementing policies based on expediency and sectional interest).

Childish Loves by Benjamin Markovits

One of the books I read over the Christmas break was Childish Loves by Benjamin Markovits.  I chose this book for three reasons: firstly Markovits is connected to Royal Holloway (and actually uses the name Founders in the novel); secondly it is about Byron; thirdly it was recommended by Mark Lawson.  On the whole the book is good, although not the same quality as Playing Days.

In his review Mark Lawson describes the novel as "odd".

Which seems to echo a section in the book where one of the characters describes the narrator as "odd".

The other book I am reading at the moment is Microcosm by Norman Davies.  It is a history of the Silesian city of Bresslau (or Wroclaw as it is currently called).  Everything in the book is new to me, which is good.

Understanding the B demographic 12

When considering whether assimilation might be possible, important to recognise that assimilation has already taken place in several key cultural aspects - in this the demographic is more advanced than their parents or grandparents.

Assimilation is more likely among young males than young females.

Is there a connection between the cultural output of the demographic (which is significant) and the negative behaviour the demographic is known for - violent, anti-social, criminal.

Need to understand why the demographic under-performs in terms of participation in society - is it simply a matter of discrimination; or lack of self-confidence; or is there another factor we should look at?

The demographic is so constituted as to act against the emergence of leaders other than at the very local level - this sense of localism is interesting as it indicates that individuals within the demographic are very strongly motivated by a sense of place (and perhaps indicates that the first organisation to offer a relevant kind of political leadership might succeed in prising the demographic away from the traditional political allegiance of the older generations).

Important to look at the cultural output of the demographic (music, video, fashion etc) as this indicates a dissatisfaction with the community they belong to and a desire for a new identity.

"The UK is still short of doctors..."

Articles in yesterday's Guardian by Amelia Hill about the high incidence of foreign doctors in the United Kingdom being "struck off".

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2012/dec/30/majority-of-doctors-disciplined-trained-abroad?INTCMP=SRCH

The final paragraph was astounding (not least in the incuriosity of Amelia Hill in not pursuing the obvious question raised).

Someone called Dr Vivienne Nathanson tells us "The UK is still short of doctors..."

STILL short?

With two million unemployed?

Of course, I know that it takes many years to train a doctor.

But we have HAD many years to get this right.  We have had the last Labour government pouring money into the NHS.  We have seen them giving doctors the most generous salaries you can imagine.

So why is the educational system not turning out enough doctors?  Where exactly in the system from pre-school to university are things going wrong?  Who exactly has been responsible for this shortage? (let's have some names please Amelia Hill).

These are not low skilled jobs where "British people don't want to do the work" (to use the lie usually trotted out by the left to explain why immigration should be completely unrestricted).

Doctors have massive incomes and complete job security.

So why is the educational system not turning them out?

Someone somewhere needs a bloody good kicking.

My resolutions for 2013

New Year's Day and all the decorations are down.

I have been ruthless about getting rid of any left-over Christmas food, throwing out anything that has been opened, freezing anything that can be kept for later in the year.  I am left with half a Christmas cake, which seems wasteful to just throw out.  Not sure if I can freeze Christmas cake.

There is a distinctive sound when you pour spirits and wine down the sink - not the usual glugging, but more a whooshing sound.

I have put on 8 lbs in December and intend to get rid of this by the end of January.  Perennial problem over whether to rejoin a gym.  There are only two choices within twenty miles - either Fitness First or a very intimidating gym where everyone already has a perfect physique.

Anyway my resolutions for 2013 include:

• Go to a gym at least once a week (I know you need to go three times a week, but I'll gradually build up to this).
• Run three miles a day (again I will have to build up to this as one mile is about my current limit).
• Save at least £500 a month, and preferably £800.
• Find another source of freelance income.
• Stop getting involved in office politics at work - I'm just going to let it all wash over me.
  Look for an alternative in case this job comes to an end (as it could in April).
• Read more books - I have a huge number waiting to be read.
• Put family and friends before work colleagues and acquaintances.

Oh, and I decided to keep this blog going for another year.

A non-story

Channel 4 seem to be over-hyping their "fact-check" about tax credit fraud http://blogs.channel4.com/factcheck/factcheck-ids-tax-credit-claims-discredited/12160

All they have done is come up with an alternative set of statistics.

Therefore it depends who you think is more reliable - the Department of Work & Pensions or HM Revenue & Customs.

Anyone who has had dealings with HMRC will know they are not exactly the most efficient of government departments.  Half-witted incompetence combined with a lackadaisical attitude towards accuracy.  I am inclined to think that Cathy Newman is reporting a non-story here.

What she needs to do is obtain the source of the government statistics and prove them wrong, not come up with an alternative set of numbers which might or might not be relevant.