The stuff is coming from within the Labour party

Celebrity Bonnie Greer writes in the Huffington Post an 804 word article entitled Ed Miliband Polls: We're Being Played.

However 284 words of the 804 word article are an entirely irrelevant meandering account of American politics.  Why has this been tacked onto the front of a piece supposedly about Ed Miliband?  Is it just ballast to make up the word count?

The rest of the article does at least discuss British politics, but with hardly any relevance to Ed Miliband.  Instead Ms Greer just talks about how the Conservatives are in "deep trouble" (this is at a time when we have a Conservative Prime Minister, the economy is recovering, and one can hardly hear oneself think for the howls of lefties seeing their state-funded satrapies cut down to scale).  We are led to believe, against all the evidence of previous general elections, that the six point lead Labour have in the polls will remain firm as the election campaign gets under way and Labour is forced to present their policies to the electorate.

"So why is all this 'play the man not the ball' stuff rolling out from Tory HQ?" asks Bonnie Greer.

The "stuff" is not rolling out from Tory HQ Ms Greer.  The stuff is coming from within the Labour party - from the hard left, from the Blairite right, from the bemused activist foot-soldiers, from the Unite union, from old-timers like Blunkett and Prescott, even from celebrity lefty dilettantes such as yourself.  Indeed, did you not write on your Twitter microsite "wake the fuck up" with reference to Mr Miliband and the Labour front bench?

It seems you want to run with the fox and hunt with the hounds Ms Greer - and that is not an honourable position for you to be in, nor one that is going to win you any respect from your Labour friends.

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/bonnie-greer/ed-miliband-polls_b_3790605.html?ncid=edlinkusaolp00000003 

How much diversity is good?

Article on the Vox website (Research-based policy analysis and commentary from leading economists) on diversity and immigration in which the authors (Alberto Alesina, Johann Harnoss, Hillel Rapoport) ask the question:  How much diversity is good?


The answer is of course:  exactly the amount of diversity that has the democratic consent of the majority.

If it doesn't have democratic consent then don't even think of forcing it through as it will all have to be reversed, with much pain all round.

It is possible that Alberto Alesina, Johann Harnoss, Hillel Rapoport (and Jonathan Portes) don't actually believe in democracy.  It's possible they believe in rule by a benign technocratic elite, perhaps with a little democratic dressing to bamboozle the lumpen proletariat.  However all regimes that have subscribed to this belief have eventually come to grief (and dragged a lot of other people into grief along with them, as elite technocrat President Assad is currently demonstrating).

http://www.voxeu.org/article/immigration-diversity-and-economic-prosperity

Impressive pronounication of the word "Ypres" by Victoria Derbyshire.

This "election" was made irrefutable law

In this critique by David Aaronovitch of an article by David Freedland he makes the statement "when the Christian churches wanted to modernise, they stopped holding their services in Latin" ( http://www.thejc.com/comment-and-debate/columnists/110333/learning-hebrew-just-a-minor-lamentation ).

This is a misreading of history.

The English Reformation was not an attempt at 1960s-style modernisation but the realisation that England was an elect nation - the elect nation.

As I understand it the Anglican narrative goes:

God called Abraham out of the city of Ur to found his chosen elect people.

Over the millenia the chosen people grew in numbers, encompassing other nations (the Jebusites etc), experiencing purgations and purifications.

The Temple was built, the trials and exiles were endured, the prophets spoke.

The Messiah arrived fulfilling all the prophecies.

At this point the chosen people became those who accepted the Messiah ("I am the way, the truth and the life, except through me none can enter the kingdom of Heaven").

Once again the chosen people grew in numbers, encompassing other nations (the Armenians, the Romans, the Anglo-Saxons etc), experiencing purgations and purifications.

The Early Fathers interpreted the scriptures, the patriarchs governed the church, the Apostles confirmed their successors - an unbroken Apostolic line of successors bishop to bishop leading to the confirmation of the bench of bishops that sits in the House of Lords to this day.

The One Holy Catholick and Apostolick Church encountered snares and fell into error, requiring the catharsis known as the Reformation.

From the Reformation the Anglican church emerged (in the eyes of English people) as the true elect nation - purged of error, anointing monarchs, maintaining intact the Apostolic Succession.

This "election" was made irrefutable law in the Thirty-Nine Articles.

At this point a new language was necessary for the elect nation to speak to God, and hence the King James Version and the Book of Common Prayer.  Even at the time of composition these writings were regarded as holy (holy meaning set apart) and consecrated in the sacraments ("This is the word of the Lord, thanks be to God").  That is why David Aaronovitch is mistaken in describing the Anglican holy books as modernised - no modernisation can be possible in a linguistic election that was intended from before the beginning of time.

Of course, you either believe this or you don't.

And if you don't believe it you are welcome to your own beliefs - there is complete religious toleration in the United Kingdom (although toleration is as far as it goes).

You are welcome to interpret your own religion Mr Aaronovitch, but what you are not entitled to do is interpret someone else's religion for them.

The Guardian is suppressing the story

Steven Erlanger, writing in the New York Times, tells us:  "Alan Rusbridger, the mop-haired, soft-spoken editor of The Guardian newspaper, finds himself in a shadowy battle with the British government over purloined secrets..."

Mr Erlanger should be advised that the battle is only shadowy because the Guardian is suppressing the story.

The smashing of the computers occurred in July, but was only reported yesterday.  The involvement of the Cabinet Secretary (one of the most important people in the United Kingdom) has only been reported today.  What else is the Guardian sitting on?

In terms of dramatic incident and compelling narrative the story would normally be very valuable to a national newspaper - the Luddite smashing of machines; the menacing presence of secret agents holding hammers; the elusive involvement of the Cabinet Secretary; the global movement of foreigners (homosexual BME foreigners!) allegedly stealing "our" secrets;  the use of oblique legal powers to apprehend the courier of the enemy cabal;  the threats of retaliation against the United Kingdom by the mouthpiece of an American traitor (traitor to the Americans that is) based in Russia and beholden to the Russian government...

As a story this is worthy of Le Carre.

And yet the Guardian is coy about reporting it - and in a slow news season!

What on earth is the Guardian up to?

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/21/world/europe/british-news-organization-has-advantages-in-secrets-battle-with-government.html?hp&_r=0

Suppressing the news

And now we learn that the Cabinet Secretary was involved in the attempt to make the Guardian give up the illicit files it was holding - and yet the Guardian did not see fit to report this exchange.

Why?

When a national newspaper that claims to be a fearless reporter of the truth starts suppressing the news one has to wonder what is going on.

But it's in the Independent:  http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/david-cameron-told-cabinet-secretary-to-get-guardian-to-hand-over-edward-snowden-documents-8777216.html

Giving her evils

Was Shadow Business Secretary Chuka Umuna ambushed on Newsnight last night?

Was he inveigled onto the programme on the pretext of talking about zero hours contracts and then subjected to a slew of questions on the state of the Labour party?

During the interview with Kirsty Wark he went deep red, his replies became increasingly terse, and at the end when Kirsty Wark said "thank you" he said nothing in reply but just gave her a look ("giving her evils" is I believe the colloquial expression for looks of this kind).

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b038xr2s/Newsnight_20_08_2013/

Answer that question Mr Prashar

Ashish Prashar (Account Director and Head of Comms at Westbourne Communications) writes an extremely benign and positive pro-immigration piece for the Huffington Post:

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/ashish-prashar/immigration-let-them-in_b_3783570.html?utm_hp_ref=tw

However he rather undermines his argument by telling us that his grandparents were Kenyans. 

Why were the asians obliged to leave Kenya Mr Prashar?  If immigration and diversity and all its supposed economic benefits are so obvious why did the Kenyans tell your grandparents to go?  What was it about the way asians behaved towards the indigenous people of Kenya that led to their expulsion? (an expulsion that was wildly popular, despite the economic ruin that followed).

Answer that question Mr Prashar and you will understand the reticence of British people towards the communities that have arrived here against the democratic will of the majority.

Alan Rusbridger is not telling us

Having watched Alan Rusbridger interviewed on Channel 4 News, I must say that there appears to be some questions (questions that were not asked by Jackie Long).

Apparently back in July, in scenes reminiscent of the House of Special Purpose in Ekaterinburg, Alan Rusbridger was escorted by British secret security services down into the cellars of the Guardian building where he was forced to witness the destruction of the Guardian's computers with hammers (presumably sledge hammers).

Not only was he forced to witness this, he was also (we are led to believe) intimidated into "authorising" the destruction himself.

Mr Rusbridger is a news editor, and yet he kept silent on what appears to have been a sensational and dramatic newsworthy incident.

Why?

Doesn't make sense does it.

You would think it would be on the front page of the Guardian during July, and also on pages 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7.

Which suggests there are aspects of this story that Alan Rusbridger is not telling us.

What is he not telling us, and why is he not telling?

Presumably the Guardian newspaper is bound by standing DA notices?

DA-Notice 03: Ciphers and Secure Communications.


DA-Notice 04: Sensitive Installations and Home Addresses.

DA-Notice 05: United Kingdom Security & Intelligence Special Services.

David Miranda and his tete-a-tete

Still perplexed by all the fuss over David Miranda and his tete a tete with Her Majesty's security services at Heathrow at the weekend.

It was only for nine hours and was hardly an arduous interview.  Normally extroverts like David Miranda would jump at the chance to talk about "my whole life".  In any case, you can easily be obliged to wait for nine hours at an international airport for a whole range of reasons.  Did they not offer Mr Miranda a cup of tea?  Had they run out of digestive biscuits?  Were they not respectful enough of Mr Miranda's position as boyfriend to a celebrity journalist? 

Pah, Mr Miranda - if you don't like our laws don't come here, I'm sure no-one's going to miss you.

And Glenn Greenwald could you not have behaved with a bit more dignity when welcoming back your friend?  He was only detained for nine hours - that's the equivalent of a compulsory speed awareness course in the United Kingdom.  It hardly warrants your red face and trembling lower lip and air of almost-not-blubbing as you made those bitter denunciations against the United Kingdom.

And did I detect an element of threat in the way you said (about the United Kingdom):  "I think they will be sorry for what they did". 

That sounds like a declaration of war to me.

If this is a war situation I would want and expect our security forces to fight back.

Faint praise

David Blunkett (former Home Secretary under Tony Blair) damned Ed Miliband with faint praise on the Today programme this morning.

He argued that Clement Attlee had a dull-as-ditchwater personality and yet made a great prime minister.

Therefore, his argument goes, a dud like Ed Miliband must be in with a chance.

Oh how galling it must be for former panjandrums such as David Blunkett and John Prescott to see former bag-carrier Ed Miliband in the leadership role they coveted for themselves.

The meek shall inherit the earth Mr Blunkett, not the womanising big-mouths who can't accept it's all over.

The implication is terrifying

Chris McQuiggin (Contributing Editor for the Labour Party at Speaker's Chair) writes about the Labour Party and immigration on the LabourList website:  http://labourlist.org/2013/08/we-must-not-pander-on-immigration/

It is a rather vacuous article, and gives no reasons why the Labour party should encourage immigration.

However among the cod-philosophy and appeals to internationalism he does use the rather telling phrase:  "one of societies most powerful, misguided and damaging neuroses; the fear of strangers."

This statement is only half true.

One could rewrite it more accurately as:  "one of societies most powerful, prudent and well-advised concerns, the fear of undemocratic behaviour by an elite we have trusted."

Let's leave on one side all the nonsense about "vibrant diversity" and its supposed benefits.

Let's just focus on the fact that since 1945, in the era of universal suffrage, a massive social change has occurred against the wishes of the majority.

Does that not bother the left at all?

Even those who consider themselves true socialists and citizens of the world, are they not worried that this can happen?

Because the implication is terrifying - we do not live in a democracy, it is all a sham, anything can be done to us and we are unable to stop it.

That is why we (all of us) cannot let the issue of post-war immigration drop.

It must either be made legitimate (and there are several ways of doing this).

Or it must be reversed (and there are several ways of doing this too).

Or we must accept that democracy has failed and we must begin again the long long struggle of defining what social system we want to live under, who gets to decide things, what happens to those who don't conform etc.  

Really weird front page of The Scotsman newspaper (courtesy of Nick Sutton):  https://twitter.com/suttonnick/status/369545849631567873/photo/1

Four stories, and all of them (in one way or another) about English people.

Are Scottish people obsessed with England?

They should be advised that English people hardly give them a second thought.

Very weak interview of hotelier Olga Polizzi by Cathy Newman on Channel 4 News.

Ms Polizzi made all sorts of unsubstantiated statements about the local employment situation in that part of Cornwall.

Cathy Newman hardly challenged her.

Why should local people not want the jobs if they are, as the hotelier says, well paid?

Very weak.

Perhaps Cathy Newman had the sun in her eyes and could not concentrate properly.

It's rather ironic to see Stuart Hall lauded as the "most articulate voice of multiculturalism" when we see on 24 hour news the implosion in scenes of bloody violence of the multicultural societies in Syria and Egypt.

Or perhaps Tim Adams is of the opinion that white multi-cultural societies do not implode?

http://www.theguardian.com/society/2013/aug/18/professor-stuart-hall-multiculturalism-film

More evidence of Labour's civil war, with socialist Ken Livingstone attacking Blairite John Prescott (I hope I am getting these labels right - it's difficult to keep up with all the factions, perhaps the Guardian should do one of its charts):  http://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/you-screwed-it-up-ken-livingstone-hits-back-at-john-prescott-over-his-attack-on-ed-miliband-8774318.html

Open fighting of this kind implies weak leadership at the top and poor discipline throughout the party.

Presumably the reshuffle mentioned will be an attempt to appease the Unite faction prior to the conference next year on the Labour party's links with the unions.

Discussing on the Today programme this morning the detention of David Miranda at Heathrow Keith Vaz MP Chairman of the Home Affairs Select Committee said he was surprised that anti-terrorist legislation was used ("I will write to the police for an explanation of why anti-terrorism legislation was used").

Did Keith Vaz protest when Gordon Brown used anti-terrorist legislation to prevent the movement of Icelandic money?

Glenn Greenwald is complaining about security checks at Heathrow

Why all this fuss over Glenn Greenwald's partner David Miranda being detained for nine hours at Heathrow?

Personally I am glad that the security forces are taking their job seriously and checking people they feel are suspect.

And he was just obliged to wait for nine hours - it's hardly extraordinary rendition into the invisible gulag.

In the last week or so Emily Bell has complained about slow service at Costa Coffee and Michael Crick has complained about tardy train services out of Cardiff Central.

Now Glenn Greenwald is complaining about security checks at Heathrow.

These people are journalists, not royalty.

Mr Greenwald, if the security staff want to question your partner that's fine by me.

Get over yourself.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/aug/18/glenn-greenwald-guardian-partner-detained-heathrow?CMP=twt_gu

This sharpening of knives

Dr Éoin Clarke (of the lefty Green Benches website) says:  "The point we are all making is that there is bags of talent on the backbenches. Too many complacent MPs on the front benches".

The noble Lord Prescott says in the Sunday Mirror:  "If Shadow Cabinet members aren’t pulling their weight, give them the hairdryer treatment and kick ’em out" http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/john-prescott-ed-miliband-labours-2181006

It is against this sharpening of knives that we must read Caroline Flint's article in today's Observer.

In the previous New Labour regime Caroline Flint was associated with a series of outrageously punitive policies directed at the so-called feckless underclass including the suggestion that unemployed council tenants should 'actively seek work' as a condition of their occupancy.

Presumably Ms Flint is afraid that in the civil war between Ed Miliband and Unite she will be thrown to the union wolves as an appetiser.

Hence her excessive professions of loyalty to Mr Miliband.

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2013/aug/17/caroline-flint-ed-miliband-labour-energy-bills

Former Labour activist Dan Hodges writes:  http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/danhodges/100231544/its-time-for-a-new-labour-guru-coco-chanel/

The Foreign Office has become increasingly concerned

Rather misleading article by Daniel Boffey in today's Observer about the "crisis" (sic) in foreign language teaching in the United Kingdom. 

Daniel Boffey writes:  "The Foreign Office has become increasingly concerned about the future of its diplomatic corps, with senior figures voicing urgent concerns about the standard of its graduate recruits".

Can this statement be true?

The one thing we know about the Foreign Office is that it is a snooty organisation that almost exclusively recruits privately educated Oxbridge graduates.

It would be interesting to use Freedom of Information requests to assess where Foreign Office personnel were educated.

How many ambassadors come from bog-standard comprehensives in Hull or Peterborough?

Anyway, what has happened to the dazzling education standards we are supposed to have seen in inner London?  Presumably it's not so dazzling when it comes to languages.  Or perhaps it is not dazzling at all, but has been artificially manipulated to favourably endorse the ideology of diversity and multiculturalism.

I suspect that we will see the Foreign Office continue to recruit public school Oxbridge types, with a few high-profile "diverse" appointments to provide the necessary inclusive window dressing.

Whatever the truth of the matter, Daniel Boffey is not a reliable source of information on this subject.

All of the day a strong warmish wind has been blowing from the south.

"Give in to me or the Labour Party gets it"

Front page, the whole of page 34, and sections of pages 35 and 36 of today's Guardian taken up by Tom Watson MP's disloyal undermining of Ed Miliband, dressed up as oh-so-loyal more in sadness than anger sober assessment of what he subtly condemns as the "pinkish shadow of the Coalition".

In the Editorial of the Guardian mention is made of the special conference called for next spring to debate the links between the Labour party and the unions.

Are we seeing the Labour party entering a phase of civil war?

And is it wise to hold such a sensitive conference barely a year before the general election?

Both sides seem to expect the other to back down.  "Give in to me or the Labour Party gets it" Len McClusky and Ed Miliband seem to be saying to each other.  It's a battle the Unite union cannot win.

Increasingly the Unite contest with Ed Miliband reminds me of the episode in Monty Python and the Holy Grail when King Arthur meets the Black Knight and cuts off his arms and legs and the Black Knight still wants to keep scrapping:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2eMkth8FWno

"None shall pass" indeed.

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2013/aug/16/tom-watson-accuses-labour-injustice-falkirk

Michael Crick (Channel 4 News) and Ian Austin MP (Labour) sneering

Not very pleasant sight of Michael Crick (Channel 4 News) and Ian Austin MP (Labour) sneering about the proles they think are not "serving" them well enough on the railways.

Has it occurred to you Mr Crick that the staff at Cardiff Central are not telling you about delayed trains because they don't know?

Train services into an important junction like Cardiff Central are complicated.  Just one delayed train will cause hundreds of knock-on effects, not all of which are easily calculated.  The operations staff who should be informing the booking office staff are probably frantically trying to sort the problems out - and all of them are going to be under a lot of stress.

The last thing any of them want is some over-important media news star berating them in public and calling them useless.

And has it not occurred to you Mr Crick that a large number of people regard you as useless?

You probably peaked when you were following Michael Howard around asking nonsense questions like some upmarket version of the Portillo chicken.

And does this little exchange not reveal how much lefty intellectuals despise the working class?

Today is my birthday and so there will be no blogging today, and I am not going to even look at Twitter.

The Maze Prison needs to be entirely eradicated - perhaps put an industrial estate on the site.

No good will come from fetishising relics that spew poison into the community.

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2013/aug/15/northern-reland-coalition-maze-divided-prison?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

Sarcastically Sunny Hundal (Editor of the Liberal Conspiracy website) tells us:  "I think people aren't writing enough articles with advice for Ed Miliband. The media needs more of those. People are crying out for them."

If you bothered to consider the matter seriously Mr Hundal you would realise that the plethora of advice articles is a symptom of the problem.  The articles exist because huge numbers of Labour supporters are of the opinion that Ed Miliband needs advice.  But of course you prefer to shoot the messengers.

Labour's problem

"Labour’s problem is its lack of political artistry" says Steve Richards, writing in the Financial Times.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/c7b512ae-032f-11e3-9a46-00144feab7de,Authorised=false.html?_i_location=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ft.com%2Fcms%2Fs%2F0%2Fc7b512ae-032f-11e3-9a46-00144feab7de.html&_i_referer=http%3A%2F%2Ft.co%2FOQ7E71251Q#axzz2c1wzqp27

Labour's problem is actually a lack of socialism.

Political artistry, or style over substance, was used by New Labour as a gloss to cover the divides between what is a fractured political movement unsure about its identity.  As a tactic it is now redundant - the gloss has cracked and fallen away.  No-one is going to be fooled by a reapplication of gloss.

The mistake made by Labour was in assuming that because they failed to win on a socialist manifesto in 1983 they would fail to win with a socialist programme in subsequent elections.

Therefore no-one wasted any time developing modern and attractive socialist policies.  The choice offered is between the Blairite version of socialism lite and an old-fashioned dinosaur version espoused by the likes of Ken Livingstone and Dennis Skinner.  Not very attractive is it!

The Labour leadership would do well looking at the article by Labour student activist Tom King (Studying Politics at SOAS, Secretary of SOAS Labour and Student CND):  http://socialistandthecity.blogspot.co.uk/2013/08/a-promising-idea.html  which lists ten ideas they could adopt for their manifesto.

Of course, it is not for me as a Conservative to "help" the Labour party.  And my motives are going to be suspected anyway.  But as a Conservative I do care about institutions, including the institution that is the Labour party.  We all lose when democracy does not function properly.  The Labour party needs to get up off its knees, and put forward a full-blooded socialist programme.  Then we can move on from this phony war where we all pretend we are more or less the same.

Bulgarians entering the United Kingdom

Big surge in the numbers of Bulgarians entering the United Kingdom:  http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-23707274

Andrew Green from Migration Watch was interviewed on the Today programme, and he seems to be the only person commenting on immigration in a sober way based on evidence.

Disappointing that the media do not seem to be covering the recent riots and unrest (including self-immolations) in Bulgaria - arguably much more relevant to the United Kingdom than what is happening in Egypt.  If Bulgaria is imploding we would expect to see an increase in the numbers leaving the country.  And quelle surprise, during the period of unrest we have seen a surge of Bulgarians entering the United Kingdom. 

Tory membership figure

Labour student activist Tom King says:  "If you read the details the 59k Tory membership figure is actually numbers declared to Electoral Commision by 134 associations out of 600+".

59,000 ÷ 134 = 440


440 x 600 = 264,000

Which sounds about right to me.

Perhaps it was my imagination, but in a discussion about feminism on Channel 4 News (chaired by Cathy Newman) Bonnie Greer looked seriously fed up when Helen Lewis (New Statesman) said class was more important than race.

The last wishes of Miss Edwards have been overturned as a result of media bullying

I am concerned that the last wishes of Miss Edwards have been overturned as a result of media bullying.

Indeed it is unclear whether the bequest can be passed onto the Treasury in such a casual way - it was left to the political party of the day, and if this is refused it must be returned to Miss Edwards's estate and reallocated according to the established legal formula.

And I would like the bullies who have been so active on Twitter and elsewhere in the media to be recorded and brought to account.  Perhaps the Leveson Inquiry should be reconvened and ask Michael Crick and Polly Toynbee and Tom Watson to give evidence.  What they have done to the memory of the late Miss Edwards is despicable - she should be cherished as a wise and kindly benefactor not traduced as some kind of old biddy (spinster indeed!) who has lost her marbles.

Perhaps in her later years she was an avid watcher of Prime Minister's Questions (there are such people) and in a rush of sympathy decided that the poor besieged premier of the day (whoever he or she might be) should have some small monetary consolation for the impudent barbs they have to endure.

A bit more humility please Mr Akehurst

Alternately whinging and hectoring Labour activist Luke Akehurst berates his fellow Labour party members for getting the jitters:  http://labourlist.org/2013/08/labours-chatterati-need-to-get-a-grip/?utm_source=buffer&utm_medium=twitter&utm_campaign=Buffer&utm_content=buffer40f0a

He also scorns outsiders who stir up trouble.

Fair point, one might say.  It's their party.  Who are we to intrude if the Labour membership gets the heebie jeebies and shadow cabinet members run around in headless chicken mode.

However I do take exception with his comment "doing what the whole of the rest of the population of Europe do during August – having a well-earned rest".

Excuse me Mr Akehurst, but only la-di-da professional politicos like yourself can afford to loaf around during August.  Most people are still working.  After the way Labour trashed the economy most working people cannot afford a holiday.

A bit more humility please Mr Akehurst.

YOU are part of the team that promised us "no more boom and bust" then landed us in the biggest bust of all time.

On the beach indeed.  Abroad indeed.  Watching the test match or the athletics.

You lazy Blairite good for nothing.

The bequest by Miss Edwards

Apropos the bequest by Miss Edwards (£500,000) Dan Hodges muses:

"Bit of common sense? Is it more likely elderly pensioner wanted money a) To go to random parties to print leaflets attacking each other... or b) Go to the government of the day to help schools and hospitals."

Presumably Mr Hodges is aware that to be valid the will would have been drawn up by lawyers, gone through a lawyer-supervised probate, and then been executed by lawyers.

There should be no room for any doubt over who the bequest is intended for.

Indeed, if the money has been paid to the wrong people the lawyers could be prosecuted for professional incompetence and professional misconduct.

And if the lawyers tell someone they have been left a bequest they must either accept it or refuse it - and if they refuse then the money goes to the next person named in the will (not to schools or hospitals).

So you can keep your finger out of this pie Mr Hodges.

The Labour front line is crumbling

Bad tempered discussion on the Today programme (at one point Jim Naughtie said "shut up both of you") between Sunny Hundal and Jenni Russell discussing the malaise that has come upon the Labour party - becalmed in a sea of bewilderment and fatalism.

The Shadow cabinet is seen as bunkered-up remote from real life, commanding non-existent armies of supporters, and seemingly uncomprehending of the advances of the enemy.

Sunny Hundal told us this morning that all was well, all Labour supporters needed to do was to keep the faith, that the Labour leadership had a whole succession of vengeance weapons that they would let loose right at the last minute ensuring a dramatic and astounding victory.

And all the time the Labour front line is crumbling, support is ebbing away, members of the Labour high command are surreptitiously planning their escape routes (refuge in the House of Lords; a new identity as a director in industry; exile in Europe etc).

Just because HRH The Prince of Wales has meetings with ministers does not mean he is seeking to influence policy.

The monarch and heir to the throne have important constitutional roles that require them to advise, to counsel and to warn.

Who else is holding government ministers (both Labour and Coalition governments) to account?

Certainly not the backbenchers, they are powerless.

Certainly not the political parties as they have become hollowed out and empty.

Certainly not the media which has become largely corrupt and biased.

Having read this article by Peter Wilby http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/aug/12/benefit-immigration-cuts-wont-make-us-better-off I am forced to conclude that he is a materialist who thinks the general population is motivated entirely by money considerations.

This is the sort of selfishness-first argument Ayn Rand would have put forward.

This is why the left does not understand immigration - the lefties think that humanity is just made up of economic units that have no value as individuals (with feelings and opinions and democratic choices) but just exist in some kind of collective mass that is assessed entirely socio-economic terms.

What a bleak view of the world.

Immigration is a ponzi scheme

More pro-immigration nonsense, this time from Miles Kimball (the article endorsed by Jonathan Portes on his Twitter site):  http://qz.com/114098/benjamin-franklins-strategy-to-make-the-us-an-economic-superpower-worked-once-why-not-use-it-again/

If the argument that immigration leads to stupendous economic growth was true we would expect to see the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan (migrant population approximately 50%) ushered into the ranks of the G8 instead of being one of the poorest countries in the Middle East (and please don't say it has 4% annual growth - 4% of less than nothing is still less than nothing).

Immigration is a ponzi scheme - it relies on endlessly recruiting newcomers by promising them the same resources that have already been allocated to someone else.

We do not have a crisis of housing

Evan Davies on the Today programme this morning presented a piece about housing ("we are not building enough houses") without once mentioning the causes of demand.

The Office for National Statistics tells us annual house price increases in England were driven by London (8.1%), the West Midlands (3.1%) and the South East (2.9%).

Is it not the case that the price rises are driven by shortage of supply, and that the shortage of supply is partly caused by excessive immigration?  Of course individuals such as Jonathan Portes will immediately "prove" that immigration has no effect on the supply of housing.  But the fact remains that you cannot have four million extra people (almost all adults) coming into the United Kingdom without requiring an extra four million housing units for them to live in.

We do not have a crisis of housing, as Jack Dromey is saying this morning.

We have a crisis of immigration.

That is why the taxation system needs to reflect the true cost of employing migrants.

For instance, if we assume that a migrant will work for thirty years, and that they will require a housing unit costing £150,000 (today's prices) the various employers over that thirty years need to pay the cost of the extra housing required (and also the extra water capacity, extra road capacity, extra education capacity etc).

Therefore £150k over 30 years means a National Insurance surcharge of £5,000 paid every time an employer employs someone born outside the United Kingdom, adjusted for inflation.

Who was Sir Isaac Newton less intelligent than?

The arrogance and absurdity of this article in the Independent is astonishing:  http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/religious-people-are-less-intelligent-than-atheists-analysis-of-over-63-scientific-studies-stretching-back-over-decades-concludes-8758046.html

Telling us that "religious people" are less intelligent than atheists, the article (written by someone called Rob Williams) entirely fails to explain Sir Isaac Newton.

Who was Sir Isaac Newton less intelligent than?  Please explain that point Mr Williams.  What individual in all the history of mankind was more intelligent than Sir Isaac Newton?

And yet he was a devout and sincere Christian all his life.

Of course, the scriptures advise us:  the fool in his heart has said there is no God.

The return of Peter Mandelson

Such is the sense of despondency in the Labour party that there have even been calls to bring back Peter Mandelson:  http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/bring-back-peter-mandelson-former-whip-graham-stringer-urges-ed-miliband-8756526.html

As you can see from this article by Patrick Wintour (July 2010) Lord Mandelson has criticised Ed Miliband for having "no clue in the leadership election campaign as to what he positively represented" - exactly what Labour supporters are saying today.

Lord Mandelson also is of the opinion:  "I was struck by the fact that he had given no strong clue during the campaign as to what alternative to New Labour he envisaged".

The return of Peter Mandelson will be a public admission that Ed Miliband's leadership has failed.

The awfulness of a trendy lefty vicar

This article in the Independent rather flounders when trying to explain why there is an increase in attendance at cathedral services http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/attendance-boom-seen-at-cathedrals-as-worshippers-seek-anonymity-8757652.html

Adam Sherwin needs to be advised that the reason is not "anonymity" but the traditional form of worship to be found at cathedrals.

Anyone who has experienced the awfulness of a trendy lefty vicar getting down with the kids and twanging guitars and ripping out the pews and letting the choir lapse and making everyone sing 1970s doggerel and insisting on an "accessible" Bible - anyone who has experienced this at parish level will understand the flight to traditional cathedrals.

He had the gall to say that Labour were getting their message across!

The Chris Bryant interview on the Today programme this morning was hilarious.  He was all over the place, denying interpretations of assertions that were yet unspoken, apologising for things he had not said, correcting statements that had not yet been made.  And at the end he had the gall to say that Labour were getting their message across!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-23662668

Immediately lefties began criticising him (Sunder Katwala of British Future saying Labour is very muddled; David Wearing of the New Left Project complaining that second generation immigrant Labour MPs were "colluding" in the Chris Bryant message; Owen Jones of Unite / Class / People's Assembly saying the Chris Bryant interview made him want to curl up into the foetal position).

Presumably these lefties are unaware of the haemorrhaging of support from Labour to UKIP.  Even more intriguing is the idea that the stream of traditional working class support away from Labour is a consequence of Labour's increasing identification as a pro-immigration party.  Chris Bryant's cack-handed attempt to sound tough on immigration is no doubt part of a move to distance Labour from the pro-immigration lobby.

Of course, it is only a matter of time before the hard left start screaming "racist" at Chris Bryant.

And all this on the day when the pro-immigration claque is claiming that immigrant communities hold the balance of power in hundreds of marginal constituencies.  There is no consolation to Labour that they gain the votes of ethnic minorities if they are going to lose a greater number of votes to UKIP.  It is a pyrrhic recruitment drive that may well cost them the 2015 general election.

Shadow Crime Prevention Minister?

Did you know Stella Creasy is Shadow Crime Prevention Minister?

Campaigner on pay day loans - yes.

Indefatigable constituency MP for Walthamstow - yes.

Witty and entertaining user of social media - yes.

But Shadow Crime Prevention Minister?

And even before she has made a name for herself in serious policy-making she is being talked about for promotion.

"Wake the fuck up" is Bonnie Greer's inelegant message for the Labour top table.

Labour's biggest problem among ethnic minorities

This article by Vikram Dodd and Rajeev Syal does not mention the support UKIP is taking from Labour:

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2013/aug/11/ethnic-minority-votes-decisive-general-election?CMP=twt_gu

But if they want to be complacent about their block votes who am I to complain.

And Labour's biggest problem among ethnic minorities (obviously Muslims, but also other groups) is the legacy of the Iraq war.

How many of the Shadow Cabinet voted in favour of Tony Blair's war?

These things take a long time to get over.

Has Labour apologised for the war yet?

When even timid spear-carriers like Andy Burnham are defying the leadership you begin to suspect the game might be up.

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2013/aug/09/labour-risks-defeat-coalition-warns-andy-burnham

Is no-one speaking out for Ed Miliband?

It's like that moment in Quo Vadis when the emperor (Peter Ustinov) calls for the guards and nothing happens, there's just an eerie silence and the sound of the approaching mob.

Infamy, infamy, they've all got it in for me...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h6BJJe9JV_A

Sunny Hunday (on Twitter):  "Like Republicans, Tories face long-term demographic problems. Most UK population growth in south/SE & driven by minorities (Labour-leaning)".

This is why immigration needs to be brought down to zero, and the tax system used to encourage economic migrants to move on.

Otherwise, as Mr Hundal points out, the socialists are going to end up with an in-built majority that cannot be shifted (and please don't say we should try to win them over - we could only win them over by offering bigger bribes than the Labour party).

I decided it was a day to file old papers - the past week at work

Monday

Former Campaign Manager Callum Smith arrived this morning and walked into the Director's office, effectively taking possession as Director.  He called a brief meeting of the managers to say that nothing would change.  The rest of the day he was interviewing for new staff. 

I spent most of the morning working on a new campaign (which will involve a lot of house to house work).  This involved talking to Carol Reynolds who is part of the Institute but works at Head Office.  We discussed the reorganisation and she hinted that one of her team was going to be axed.

Lunchtime I went with Tim Watts to a cafe in the big shopping mall.  We discussed infighting in ...  He emphasised the importance of persistence - persistence brings benefits.

During the afternoon I went through all the projects I am working on and removed anything that was related to Vijay Singh, knowing that he would not be referred to again.

Tuesday

All the morning I worked on databases.

In the afternoon a meeting with new Senior Campaign Manager Simon C.  We talked about a small targeted mailshot he wants to do.  We talked carefully to each other - the last time we had met he had been very critical of his boss Callum Smith and I suppose he is now hoping all that disloyalty will be forgotten (he needn't worry, I have no intention of saying anything).

Late afternoon Vijay Singh appeared, I suppose to collect more of his stuff.  I made sure I was on the 'phone when he walked back through the office chatting to people.  When asked what he was going to do next he said he had lots of things on.

Wednesday

The office very quiet today and I could tell that the Admin staff (who sit near me) were becoming bored.  Also noticeable is the reduction in e-mail traffic - I used to get hundreds.  Obviously it will take time for Callum Smith to assert himself and start to generate activity.

I decided it was a day to file old papers.  I also threw loads away, confident that many of the Vijay Singh schemes are now dead.  Down in the Reading Room I talked to Gary and Matthew - they have no idea what is going to happen to the Library and no Librarian is likely to be appointed in the near future (I would want the job myself if I could be sure it was not moving back to London).

I wrote an article for an in-house magazine published by Head Office.

Thursday

Callum Smith chaired a meeting this morning to discuss our Conference event and the exhibitions programme to the end of the year.  David L from Head Office attended this meeting as well as Surveys Manager Abi Reed.  I took the minutes at this meeting and circulated them widely by e-mail, wanting people to know that the Institute was still in business.

In the afternoon I wrote a factsheet - three hours to research it, less than an hour to write.

Later a meeting with Callum Smith to discuss future marketing communications.  He seemed young and vulnerable and I suspect his "rough shaven" appearance is an attempt to make himself look older.  He told me he had not wanted to be Director but Alec Nussbaum had persuaded him.

I told him he could count on my support (an exact echo of the same promise I had made to Vijay Singh).

As soon as five o'clock arrived I packed away my papers and went home - I think I was the first to leave the building.

Friday

How civilised the Institute now feels with Callum Smith in charge.

Deputy Director Marcia Walsh hovered by my desk speculating on how Callum Smith had got the top job. 

"You know how things are done" I told her.

Dinnergate

It is not exactly clear where the media is going with the Jacob Rees-Mogg dinnergate story. 

It was a weak feature on Newsnight yesterday and an even weaker one on the Today programme this morning.

An example of the hollowness of the story can be seen in an article by Nigel Morris in the Independent:  http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/jacob-reesmoggs-afterdinner-speech-to-group-calling-on-doreen-lawrence-to-go-home-8752995.html

Let us try to unpick this story:

An organisation called Traditional Britain asked a Conservative MP to talk to them about Conservative policy.  The speech appears to have been an entirely orthodox view of current Conservatism.  Nothing else seems to have been discussed at this dinner.

Subsequently the Traditional Britain group (which apparently espouses an old-fashioned fundamentalist view of British exceptionalism) makes provocative statements on various on-line sites.  Radical left-wing organisations which monitor groups such as Traditional Britain seize on these comments and present them in such a way that it appears as if they have been endorsed by Jacob Rees-Mogg.  Upon further questioning the left-wing monitors are unable to prove any connection between the speaker and the audience and the story effectively collapses.

What are we left with?

That some people find the British exceptionalism of Traditional Britain objectionable is obvious.  But is it any different from say the Jamaican exceptionalism we have seen voiced over the last week by individuals such as Diane Abbott MP and Lee Jasper (Lee Jasper claiming that the global culture of the world was now Jamaican).  It might perhaps be preferable to live in a world without loud expressions of cultural aggrandizement but the fact is we don't.

That some people find the idea of repatriation of BME people obnoxious is beyond doubt.  But is it any more obnoxious than the arrival here without democratic permission of millions of post-war immigrants (BME people and others, including Australians such as Trenton Oldfield)?  Is not the whole issue of immigration and the failed policy of multiculturalism a poisonous quagmire that needs sorting out?

That Doreen Lawrence, recently ennobled to the House of Lords, should be beyond criticism is not practical or desirable.  Lady Lawrence is a party politician, and when she takes her seat in the House of Lords will be part of the legislature and paid allowances and expenses drawn from the public purse.  That such a person should be scrutinised and where necessary criticised is axiomatic (although it is possible that her political career will be beyond criticism - I am looking forward to Lady Lawrence using her position to advance equal rights for Jamaican gay people in the Jamaican diaspora in the United Kingdom, and indeed in Jamaica itself, widely regarded as the most homophobic nation on earth).

According to Channel 4 News Newham is one of the Labour councils in London with employees on zero hours contracts.

Does this mean that Labour is now campaigning against itself?

Interesting article in the Catholic Herald by Jacob Rees-Mogg MP, one of the most valued Conservative Members of Parliament (often vilified by the left, perhaps because they recognise him as a threat).

http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/features/2013/08/02/jacob-rees-mogg-i-think-mass-can-be-too-noisy-and-guitars-should-be-banned/ 

Labour’s Conference Arrangements Committee (CAC)

Unedifying look at Labour’s Conference Arrangements Committee (CAC) by Conrad Landin on the (always illuminating) Left Futures website: http://www.leftfutures.org/2013/08/cac-the-election-that-could-get-winning-ideas-onto-labours-agenda/


“All too often, the party’s conference arrangements committee rules policy motions and rule changes proposed by grassroots activists ‘out of order’ ”

“Delegates who have taken time off work and who are potentially forking out large sums are told that there is ‘no time’ left for their contributions to debate, only for a panel of hand-picked sofa guests to be ushered on stage to mither indefinitely.”

“… the elected CAC members do not assert themselves, and simply rubberstamp plans drafted by paid party officers.”

Rotten constituencies, open rebellions against an out-of-touch leadership, a Conference that is manipulated into a rubberstamp - is the once-great Labour party imploding before our eyes?

The Independent today looks at Challenge Network research on integration

Article in the Independent today looks at Challenge Network research on integration and tells us "only one in ten Britons has a close friend of different race" http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/only-one-in-10-britons-has-close-friend-of-different-race-8750993.html

Leaving on one side the disputatious issue of how they are defining "race" (you can record someone's country of origin, and note their "heritage" affiliation, but measuring biological differences between groups of people is a scientific nonsense) the news that only ten per cent of the United Kingdom population is interacting with people from communities perceived as "other" must be of concern to those advocating continued immigration.

I have looked at the Challenge Network website but cannot see any mention of the research (perhaps they have not put it up yet, although you would expect to see it in the News tab) http://www.the-challenge.org/

Is it possible that the ten per cent of the population that is interacting with "different races" is comprised largely from individuals drawn themselves from immigrant communities (West Indians making friends with Indians, southern Irish making friends with Muslims, Chinese making friends Somalis etc)?  This would seem to be a natural assumption since immigrants are often crowded together and have similar "immigrant rites of passage" (to use an American expression).  It would also indicate that the non-immigrant mainstream population is indifferent to social interaction with immigrant communities, which would confirm what we already know - that the discredited (and expensive) policy of multiculturalism has entirely failed.

Incidentally, I am sure the Challenge Network is a worthy organisation and within its own terms of reference means well, but there is no escaping the fact that they are putting a very positive spin on the political messages of multiculturalism.  As Challenge Network is engaged in propagating a positive view of a highly controversial political policy is it really appropriate that the organisation should have charitable status?  Charitable status effectively means a public subsidy, and this subsidy should not be used to fund political activities whether overt or covert.

A very alarming account of proto-corruption in the Peterborough Labour Party:

http://momentsofc.wordpress.com/2013/08/06/machine-politics-is-alive-and-kicking-in-the-labour-party/

The response of the Class thinktank

No matter what the subject under discussion, no matter what the perceived urgency of the situation, the response of the Class thinktank is always the same: "let's form another collective".

http://classonline.org.uk/blog/item/How-the-Government-is-creating-a-climate-of-fear-for-migrants-and-ethnic-mi

Sunny Hundal fails to acknowledge the effectiveness of government "nudge" messages

In this article about migration policy and the presence in the United Kingdom of hundreds of thousands of illegal migrants Sunny Hundal fails to acknowledge the effectiveness of government "nudge" messages.

I welcome the Go Home vans as they are, for the first time, communicating to the wider population that it is not racist to want illegal migration to stop. 

This is important because since 1997 the message has been "hey there's really nothing we can do about migrants without legal documents, and hey we are actually really cool about more diversity at the bottom end of the wage scale, and hey (little Blairite catch in the voice at this point) you know, if you even want to discuss the issue of migration you're a racist". 

The Go Home vans are lancing that painful boil and the suppurating puss of left-wing cant is being drained from discussion on migration, making the whole debate less poisonous for everyone.

And as for Sunny Hundal's point about the impossibility of applying the law to illegal migrants already here, he is of course referring to the state sector's inability to deal with the backlog.  Were the whole process to be privatised the backlog would be cleared in no time.  And Mr Hundal should give a little thought to what would happen to respect for the law if it is not enforced in this area.

http://liberalconspiracy.org/2013/08/07/even-if-you-want-to-cut-immigration-you-should-be-angry-about-last-week/

What did BBC Today presenter Evan Davis mean when he used the expression "gay it up" when interviewing an Olympic athlete?

Does it mean "camp it up"?

You could tell the athlete was uncomfortable with the language Evan Davis was using.

Evan Davis is himself gay (very openly in-your-face gay, even calling another programme he presents The Bottom Line - fnar fnar).

Presumably he is of the opinion that gay people cannot be homophobic.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b037v4f3

Very interesting interview with writer David Peace on Channel 4 News:  http://www.channel4.com/news/david-peace-bill-shankly-red-or-dead-red-riding-video

In the interview David Peace bemoans the absence of socialism in modern political life, saying it had been eradicated from our culture.

What then does he call the period 1997 to 2010, and how is it possible for so many people to be old-fashioned socialists and yet the Labour elite ignores them?

The front cover of the London Evening Standard ("Boom Britain") seems to be annoying an enormous number of lefties:

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/boom-britain-theres-only-one-way-to-describe-uk-economic-data--wow-8748218.html 

Skins: Rise on E4

Last night I saw the end of the drama Skins: Rise on E4.

It was a dark and violent depiction of underclass lifestyles.  Betrayal, murder, fear, hatred, revenge, redemption.  It was completely convincing.

Not keen on going back to Manchester after seeing this noir portrayal of the city.

One tiny flaw in this generally flawless production - I could not understand how Hannah Britland as Charlie managed to look immaculate after several days on the run and sleeping rough.

Article by Symeon Brown in the New Statesman

Tendentious article by Symeon Brown in the New Statesman earlier today entitled:  Jimmy Mubenga: What kind of society can treat the death of an immigrant so casually? http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2013/08/jimmy-mubenga-what-kind-society-can-treat-death-immigrant-so-casually

One does not doubt the sincerity with which Symeon Brown writes, although it might have been a more cogent article with more facts and less hyperbole.

However he does put his finger on the essential problem when he writes:  "BME Britons can feel like they only have the status of 'visitors', not citizens."

Let us just pause for a moment and remind ourselves of the three salient features of post-war migration into the United Kingdom:  it is a major social change that has never been put to the electorate; in every test of public opinion since 1945 the majority have said they want it to stop; attempts to discuss this on-going social change have been met by mendacity, bullying and incessant accusations of "racist" (accusations that have been so mechanical and repetitive that the "racist" epithet has largely lost its meaning, as Symeon Brown points out).

Given the lack of democratic legitimacy to inward migration how can the status of BME people in the United Kingdom be anything other than "visitors"?

This is not to say that BME people should "go home".  There are several ways in which post-war immigrant communities could acquire democratic legitimacy.  But carrying on as we are and shouting down anyone who questions on-going immigration is not a viable option (mainly because it is not working anymore - and here Abraham Lincoln's famous saying comes to mind).

Zen socialism

Denis Skinner, on his Twitter site, helpfully says this morning: "If Labour says it won't reverse the cuts and will spend the same as the Tories, what's the point of Labour?"

If even veteran Labour MPs are beginning to doubt whether the Labour party has any distinct identity or purpose surely this must indicate a serious problem for the left.

Is it however a problem of communication (Labour has all the policy initiatives in place but has not communicated them properly)?  Or is it a problem of content (there is nothing to communicate in the first place and the Labour front bench are just playing "me too" with the Tories)?  On the whole I think it is a problem of communication.

The hard left might jeer at "Zen socialism" but as a brand identity it beats Blue Labour or Red in Tooth and Claw Socialism (I made the last one up, probably the hard left would choose an unimaginative name like The People's Socialism).  I would see Zen Socialism as being a gentler more unthreatening version of socialism, gaining its authority, identity and authenticity from small scale co-operatives, local trusts and charities, constituency memberships and study groups.  The difficulty is that a rebuild-from-the-bottom-up exercise of this kind takes time, which is why Ed Miliband is being continually urged to get a move on.

Denis Skinner of course would like a return to nationalisation of the means of production, distribution and exchange.

Article by Daniel Trilling entitled: coroner finds "pervasive racism" among G4S guards

Published earlier today in the New Statesman is an inflammatory article by Daniel Trilling entitled:  coroner finds "pervasive racism" among G4S guards.

Daniel Trilling is quick to blame what he calls "the way immigrants are discussed in the media and politics" for the violence necessary to remove illegal migrants.  However he seems entirely oblivious to his own role in the death of Mr Mubenga - if he and his informal colleagues in the pro-immigration lobby use language that encourages potential migrants to think they have a chance of obtaining British residency (when in law they have no chance) then he must accept partial responsibility for the inevitable measures that must be taken to ensure compliance with the law.  In short Daniel Trilling has Mr Mubenga's blood on his hands.

Also note the causal way in which G4S is accused of "casual racism". 

It is possible that G4S staff are casually racist, but neither the corona nor Daniel Trilling offer any motive they might have for being so. 

It is of course perfectly possible that murderous racist individuals have gained employment with G4S by concealing their true nature, in the same way that murderous communists might do so.  But if we are to accept that the majority of G4S staff are casually racist one would expect a bit more in the way of motivational analysis.  Why should G4S staff be any more casually racist than say an equal number of New Statesman writers?

Does G4S specifically recruit casual racists? (in which case where is the evidence).

Or do they become casual racists after their employment? (in which case by what process and why).

Or is the "racist" accusation an entirely gratuitous insult flung about by people too lazy and prejudiced to think seriously about the absurd things they are saying, confident that heretofore the mere allegation that someone is a racist is enough to damn that person without any chance that they can defend themselves.

http://www.newstatesman.com/2013/08/jimmy-mubenga-coroner-finds-pervasive-racism-among-g4s-guards 

Paul Mason

Paul Mason was sold to us by the BBC as an economics specialist, although he was obviously dodgy in this role.

Now we are supposed to believe that he is a culture specialist.

Is Channel 4 News going to have a nightly agitprop round-up?

A "showdown" with the United Kingdom over who controls Gibraltar?

Is the Spanish government planning a "showdown" with the United Kingdom over who controls Gibraltar?

They should be warned that it can only lead to humiliation for the Spanish state.

Their German paymasters are not likely to allow them to embark upon an expensive foreign diversion.

They won't even allow a little cheapo foreign diversion.

When your nation is effectively bankrupt grandiose gestures and foreign policy adventures are not possible.

The United Kingdom may not be in great economic shape but at least we do not have to ask German permission before asserting our will - perhaps by enforcing an aggression-avoidance zone in the waters around Gibraltar.

What is wrong with these people?

Billy Hayes, General Secretary of the CWU, indicates that the Collins review and the run-up next year's Spring Conference will become a fight over who runs the Labour party:  http://labourlist.org/2013/08/labour-could-go-bankrupt-or-become-a-state-funded-liberal-party-unless-theres-a-re-think-on-opt-in/

Presumably this is an attempt to head off Ed Miliband's reform of links with the unions by promising mutually-assured destruction.

Mr Hayes complains of "battering" by the Ed Miliband leadership and threatens "bankruptcy" for the Labour party if the proposals are pushed through.

The unions would be mad to undermine their own political leadership at the Spring Conference, barely a year before the general election.

What is wrong with these people?  Elsewhere this morning Mr Miliband is jeered at as a "wonk" and a "Zen socialist".  It seems he can do nothing right.

Labour is lucky to have Ed Miliband as leader - he is thoughtful and civilised and has a thankless job trying to hold together all these rebellious factions.

A "neo-Powellite nationalist"

First David Goodhart (Director of the Demos thinktank) was tortured by Jonathan Portes in an ordeal by statistical nit-picking.

Then he was banned from the Hay literary festival, and subsequently cashiered out of "the left" by arch-lefty arbiter Owen Jones in a series of tweets on his Twitter site.

Now he has been denounced by Yasmin Alibhai-Brown in an article for the Independent newspaper in which she calls him a "neo-Powellite nationalist" http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/the-governments-shameful-scapegoating-of-immigrants-8745342.html

He is being targetted in this way because of his book The British Dream which questions the benefits of immigration.

Ms Alibhai-Brown needs to be careful.  Powellism is capable of very precise definition (there were no fuzzy thoughts from Enoch Powell).  Were her intemperate comment to be brought before a court she and her counsel would struggle to prove that David Goodhart was neo-Powellite - indeed in my opinion she would entirely fail to prove it; a heavy compensation award would be made against her and the Independent; and she would have her backside soundly kicked (in a legal manner of speaking).

Over

Despite the French name and the famous sauce, it's still steak and chips.

Early evening drive to a country restaurant to say goodbye to a friend who is going overseas.

The heat was almost unbearable.  The countryside very beautiful, fields of golden corn and magnificent oak trees.  The village centre consisted of thatched cottages painted pastel colours.

The restaurant was in a former pub, superbly refurbished but keeping all the period details.

We had drinks outside (the low sun in my eyes so that it hurt me to look at my friend).

We were called indoors when our table was ready.  We were on an upper level of the restaurant, near the french windows, away from other diners so we could talk frankly.  A sort of risotto, followed by steak, followed by a sweet heavy pudding.

Because I was driving I just had a single glass of Sauvignon.


Because of the big lunch I had earlier (roast chicken) I was not hungry. 

Because we had so little time I kept looking at my watch.

We took our coffees through the french windows onto an enclosed terrace.  We were the only people out there.  Wooden chairs, candles in glass holders (despite the evening daylight), square slate planters filled with lavender, pelagoniums, pink petunias.

Tiny zephyrs modified the heat of the evening.

For the first time we split the bill.

And then?

And then it was over.

In the Review section of today's Guardian there is an error in a piece by Mark Lawson about a biography of the Pope.

"...a pope wears a crown" he says.

No pope has worn a crown since 1963 - fifty years ago.

I realise I risk being called a pedant by pointing this out.  But we are often told that social media is flaky when it comes to truthfulness compared to the gold standard fact-checking of the printed media.  Accuracy does matter.

Listening to Any Questions this afternoon ( a repeat of last night) I was encouraged in the discussion of the Illegal Migrants Go Home vans that Paul Boateng said very clearly:  "It's important that the law is enforced and upheld". 

However I was puzzled by Isobel Hardman's statement that the go home message: "reminds me of the 1970s graffiti slogans".

Isobel Hardman is clearly not old enough to remember the 1970s.  Nor does there seem to be any photographic evidence of "go home" 1970s graffiti.  Certainly not on Google Images.

Such graffiti may have existed. 

But there do not seem to be any photographs (and you would expect there to be photographs - were the photo journalists of the Guardian not doing their job in the 1970s?). 

And if there are no photographs, and Isobel Hardman is not old enough to remember the period in question, how can we be sure that the graffiti existed?

Isobel Hardman's claim to be "reminded" of the 1970s graffiti is all the more inexplicable when seen in the context of her comment on 8th April 2013:  "Impressed by the number of my peers who, born in late 80s, possess extraordinary powers of memory when it comes to Thatcher's time in power."

The 1970s were no doubt a horrible decade.

But we should not damn the decade with the "racist" epithet if there is no real evidence.

Dateline London discussed the new appointments to the House of Lords earlier today.

When the presentation of debutantes at Buckingham Palace was ended in 1958 it was because many young girls being presented in the 1950s were known not to be virgins, and Princess Margaret is supposed to have said "...every tart in London is being presented".

Have we now reached the stage in our national and social development when every political pimp and tart in London is being nominated to the House of Lords?

These are real people

Emily Bell ‏(Director of Tow Centre for Digital Journalism at Columbia Journalism School) announces to the world:  "The service at Costa Coffee in Peterborough Services is SO slow it might actually be an art installation".

Presumably Emily Bell is travelling along the A1 and stopped at the Extra services (a place I know well - when I worked on that side of Peterborough I use to have lunch there at least once a week).

These are real people you are talking about Ms Bell.  If the service is slow it is probably because they are understaffed (perhaps because someone has not turned up for a shift, or perhaps because several coaches have arrived at the same time, overwhelming them).  The last thing such harassed workers need is to be lampooned by an over-privileged Twitter-using member of the digital intelligentsia.

And it was not nice of you to use the Costa Coffee hashtag, knowing full well that it will be seen by the Costa Coffee marketing managers and directors and initiate a cascade downwards of corporate displeasure that when it hits the people at the bottom is going to result in a most unpleasant experience for them.

These are real people Ms Bell, ordinary people struggling to get along.

Who are you to make their lives a misery?

And what exactly is a "centre for digital journalism"? 

I hope you are not turning out even more media studies graduates, as that is the last thing the world needs.

Not everyone is enthusiastic about this open-ended commitment

Daniel Trilling (New Statesman assistant editor) states this morning:  "My grandmother was an immigration offender. She came here on a false work permit in 1939. Governments rely on people having short memories".

Mr Trilling should ponder the irony of his remark.

No-one would dispute the urgency of the situation in 1939, and no-one I hope would retrospectively wish that Daniel Trilling's grandmother had not been able to escape from continental Europe at that time.

However Germany (or France or the Netherlands etc) have been free and open societies since at least 1950 (and Poland since 1989) and yet the Trilling family have made no attempt to return to their country of origin.

There will be, of course, hundreds of reasons why they should not return.

But Mr Trilling has unwittingly demonstrated a general truth - whatever reasons given by asylum seekers why they should enter the United Kingdom, almost none of them will ever leave.  With asylum seekers we are being asked to make not just a lifetime commitment but a commitment to their descendants many decades into the future.  Surely Mr Trilling can see (even if just in those candid moments of internal dialogue when he is communing with himself) that not everyone is enthusiastic about this open-ended commitment.

Dare I say it, almost no-one outside of the hard left is enthusiastic about it.

It would be a different matter if asylum seekers were allowed temporary leave to remain and when their country of origin was declared safe (perhaps by an impartial body such as the United Nations) they would go home to help rebuild their shattered communities.

But this process whereby asylum seekers become permanent (and voting) citizens who then start agitating to change society - this is not an immigration model that has widespread support.

And is it not despicable of Daniel Trilling to use the trauma of his own grandmother and to trivialise the tragedy of the holocaust in Twitter-based political point-scoring on the issue of illegal immigration?

You are not a holocaust survivor Mr Trilling.  So far as I am aware you are not even the child of holocaust survivors.  You have no right to co-opt the holocaust to bolster your highly partisan arguments.

The most famous Jamaican-heritage woman in the world

Sadiq Khan MP tells us:  "Baroness Doreen Lawrence raises racial profiling stop and search and cuts to legal aid... She will be fab in Lords"

Whatever your views on the recent appointments to the House of Lords (and it seems to be the most dubious assortment of paybacks since the Harold Wilson lavender notepaper list) the investiture of Doreen Lawrence will at least allow the issue of homophobia in the Jamaican diaspora to be raised at the highest level.

Doreen Lawrence has now overtaken Diane Abbott as the most famous Jamaican-heritage woman in the world.

Homophobia in Jamaica and the Jamaican diaspora is a human rights scandal.

Is it a legitimate question to ask Doreen Lawrence what her plans are to address this issue?

http://labli.st/12IdBQT  

A gasp of disbelief

Big gulp from John Humphrys on the Today programme this morning discussing the recent appointments to the House of Lords. 

"...and a greatly respected... GULP ...commentator such as Danny Finkelstein". 

That was exactly my reaction when I heard that Daniel Finkelstein had been made a peer.

A gasp of disbelief.

WTF (as the Americans say).

The Labour party is "hesitant and confused"

According to Labour MP George Mudie the Labour party is "hesitant and confused":

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-23529215

This is not the time Mr Mudie to "start getting wobbly" (to quote Mrs Thatcher).

You will have to go with what you've got.

The idea that twenty-two months before a general election you are going to come up with imaginative new ideas, test them and work them up into credible policies, and then brief and train the activists so that they are all on-side and know the arguments is fanciful in the extreme.

It is far too late in the day to do that.

We are in the run-up to an election.

In the run-up to an election you should be able to shake activists awake at 3am in the morning and shout "what are our nine top policies and why will people vote for them" and they should be able to tell you word perfect with no hesitation.

Part of the problem Mr Mudie (if you will allow me to give you some advice) is that Ed Miliband is too nice.  He was ruthless in taking the leadership, but since then it has been leniency leniency leniency all the way.  The very fact that you are going on national radio shooting your mouth off is an example of the appalling lack of discipline in the Labour party.

Elections are very simple really.  Electioneering consist of a transfer of enthusiasm from the politician to the voter.  But if you do not have that enthusiasm in the first place Mr Mudie you really are dead in the water.

Special relationship

Matthew Barzun, the new American ambassador to London, has told the American Senate Foreign Relations Committee: "If confirmed, I will work every day to nurture and deepen this special relationship..."

Let's get this straight Mr Barzun.  There is no special relationship.  You are not our friend; we are not your friend; the United States and the United Kingdom are sovereign nations who currently have common interests.

So stop the patronising and infantalising garbage about special relationships.

I'm not sure I understand why Danny Finkelstein has been ennobled.  Very middle-brow intellect.  And he was an adviser to John Major.

I have never been to Northern Ireland (British Ireland) but this looks interesting:

http://irissuublog.blogspot.gr/2013/08/northern-irelands-culture-wars-22nd.html