In a snapshot, the Chinese economy

This slide is also quite revealing (and will have to be the last I reproduce here since the presentation is confidential and I am not supposed to be seeing it).

PMI refers to Purchasing Managers' Index.

This is, in a snapshot, the Chinese economy (sort of).

Car sales are down, inflation is up, companies are not purchasing (and therefore presumably not investing).

Of course, it is an axiomatic argument to say that if the West is not buying then countries that export to the West are going to experience a downturn.

Also China has sucked a lot of money out of the world economy by refusing to spend savings (both sovereign debt and household savings).

You can understand their reluctance to reflate the whole world.

But they could just splurge their money in one easily controlled area and let it seep out into the West.  The United Kingdom would be perfect for this.  They could make us the Hong Kong of the Atlantic economy.

Overheard:  "You know, if there is no clear result in 2015 a national government is not out of the question.  Strip away the rhetoric and the differences in position are not insurmountable.  We could then tell the lib dems to get stuffed."

When the Labour party told us they had "abolished boom and bust" they were lying

I find this slide fascinating.

Does it indicate the next boom has already begun?

Would certainly explain the beneficial unemployment figures.

PS when the Labour party told us they had "abolished boom and bust" they were lying.

The Mask of Dimitrios by Eric Ambler

Have just finished reading The Mask of Dimitrios by Eric Ambler.

It's a near perfect novel. 

I will have to read it again to work out how he writes so engagingly. 

Walking the dogs this afternoon, there was a wind blowing from the north. 

A cold steady wind. 

Refreshing but cold. 

There was also a warm sun, slanting down from the west (this was about 4pm). 

The warmth of the sun just mitigated the cold of the wind. 

But only just.

Abortion is funded by general taxation

Mehdi Hasan writes a piece about abortion for the New Statesman:  http://www.newstatesman.com/lifestyle/lifestyle/2012/10/being-pro-life-doesnt-make-me-any-less-lefty

Someone called Hopi Sen writes an ill-tempered (he admits to being angry) riposte:  http://hopisen.com/?p=4983 and is immediately feted by the Left who all insist on the right of individual women to have abortions.

On their insistence that abortion is an individual choice the pro-abortion lobby are really saying there is no such thing as society.  Society must not have a view on what women do with their bodies.  Even (in one extreme position) that men should not express a view on abortion since they will never have need of the operation.

As abortion is funded by general taxation all taxpayers are entitled to have a view (and a vote) on the subject.  No taxation without representation (as the Americans say).  If Diane Abbott MP, and Suzanne Moore and all the rest of the pro-abortion claque want to shut down debate on the issue they are really denying the principle of democracy, transparency and accountability in public finances.

The last episode of Good Cop

I was disappointed by the last episode of Good Cop on BBC1 last night.

It just left everything hanging in the air, with nothing resolved.  Is there going to be a second series?  Or was it hurridly re-edited to take out any controversial scenes (the series was interrupted due to the shooting of two policewomen)?

Or perhaps the philosophical, romantic and social issues were resolved in the last episode, and I am too dense to see them?

Or perhaps it is meant to be an existential and anarchistic drama that mimics real life in the sense that real life does not tend to have any resolutions?

Warren Brown's performance was exceptional.

Everything had been prepared and tested - the past week at work

Preamble

Director Vijay Singh and several other managers already at the conference, so the offices had an empty and directionless feel to them.

Ferocious pace of e-mails, so that all I did was reply to them as they pinged onto my computer.

At midday Gary (assistant librarian in the Reading Room downstairs) helped me carry boxes down to my car, and then I set off.  The drive took me about three hours.  The hotel not lavish.

Difficult night, mainly because my room was so cold and I felt nervous.

The seminar

I got up at 5.30 and had breakfast in my room.  I went through the seminar plan once again (for what felt like the millioneth time).  Then at 8am I met Campaign Manager Callum Smith and we walked across to Vijay Singh's hotel.

Later we were in the room where the seminar had been booked.  Everything had been prepared and tested and there was nothing more for me to do until lunchtime.  I felt absurdly superfluous.

In the concourse area countless numbers of people were milling around.  I sat in one of the cafe areas, in one of a small circle of very low black leather armchairs.  Shortly afterwards a group of angular young women, all of them far too thin and dressed in expensive-looking black clothes, sat down in the chairs around me and began a meeting.  They were obviously activists, possibly employees rather than volunteers.  They conversed entirely in "head office speak", and although I am familiar with that language even after ten or fifteen minutes I still did not have any clear idea of what they were discussing.  Certainly something very serious seemed to be going wrong with a project they were working on. Their pretty faces expressed concern, unease, even a little fear.  So intimate was my presence, right in the middle of their circle, that I half-expected one of them to turn to me and ask: "What do you think?"  The time came for me to go back to the seminar room, so I did not hear what conclusion they reached.

Although many people had been invited to the seminar I had been afraid that only one or two people would turn up.  I need not have worried, the place was packed, with about forty latecomers standing at the back.  Simon C and Marcia Walsh stood at the door and made sure non-one drifted in who did not have an invitation.

There were a number of high-level people attending, in a little group gathered around Alec Nussbaum.  These included one man of real power, smiling to everyone as he breezed up to the front row of seats.  He is possibly the most conceited person I have ever met, his smugness having an almost tangible quality.

The presentation was delivered by Vijay Singh and Callum Smith.  The audience applauded, the questions were animated, various PR photographs were taken.  I stood at the side with the other Institute staff, and we congratulated each other on how well it had gone.

A buffet lunch had been ordered for the audience, and after the formal part of the seminar came to an end they waited in their seats expectantly.  But no lunch arrived.  We waited and waited, and various people began to get up and walk away.  With a feeling of slight panic I rang the caterers on my mobile and asked where the lunch was.  After a while a harassed individual appeared and explained that lunch had been laid out in the room next door.  He showed me a door in the partition which led to the room where the food was spread out with two waitresses in attendance. 

Helped by Tim Watts (Innovation Manager) I herded the audience through into the next door room.  The lunch was excellent, and I felt a little guilty over such luxurious self-indulgence (I had ordered the food myself from the most expensive menu options).  No wine on the orders of Vijay Singh, but the coffee was of the highest quality.

During the lunch I felt it wise to talk to Mary McF from Head Office Media Relations (late fifties with a wheedling Scottish voice) as the feud between us has grown a little out of hand.  We chatted amiably enough, and possibly relations may be improved.  I also talked to Carol Reynolds who told me some of the rumours circulating about Vijay Singh.

Towards the end of the lunch I saw an elderly lady with a walking stick helping herself to food.  She had not been in the seminar, and I wondered if she was a gatecrasher.  She turned out to be Alec Nussbaum's mother, and consequently a useful person to know if I could only be bothered to make use of such contacts.

When the lunch was finished I went back to my hotel and slept.

Woken at 6 by a call from Vijay Singh asking me where I was and thanking me for organising the seminar.

The First World War only makes sense in terms of nationalist triumphalism

Above:  article in today's Guardian by Richard Seymour sneering at the idea of commemorating the First World War (announced by the Prime Minister yesterday).  Richard Seymour tells us "2014 is being scheduled as another zenith of nationalist pride".  He adds "...the first world war can hardly be recalled as a glorious moment in the history of nationalism".

Above:  on Twitter microblogs there were also comments from lefties promulgating "the message" that the Left wants to impart to the anniversary - specifically that "the horror of WW1 is no cause for triumphalism, patriotism or nostalgia".

This is an anachronistic reading of history and wilfully ignores everything we know about the motives of the people who fought and died in the conflict - the experience of the United Kingdom in the First World War only makes sense in terms of nationalist triumphalism.

It is not for the living to usurp the motives of the dead and to project our liberal sentiments on past generations.  We can choose to ignore the anniversaries or we can choose to mark the occasions in expressions of nationalist triumphalism.  What we cannot do (because it would be bogus and dishonest) is to pretend that struggle and victory in that conflict was motivated by anything other than nationalism and imperialist aggrandisement (feelings that permeated even down to the lowest classes - including my own East End family that had nothing but still gave three men, aged 20 to 34, who all died in the same week in April 1918).

The numbers of protesters against British involvement in the war were tiny, so small that statistically they do not even register (despite a few individuals writing some fine poetry).

Above:  village memorial proclaiming "greater love hath no man than this that a man lay down his life for his friends".  Psychologists tell us that in the actual moment of battle soldiers tend to forget family and community (and certainly forget abstract ideas) and are motivated to fight by a sense of loyalty to the people immediately around them.  Later that feeling becomes rationalised into a very intense affinity with the group ideological view - which in the case of First World War combatants would be youthful aggression towards the enemy, a braggadocio attitude towards survival (actually neo-Darwinian in its acceptance of survival of the fittest), and a music hall nationalism that was both tawdry and sincere.

Above:  memorial in a village church in which the war dead are written into the reredos behind the high altar, so that every Sunday the community appears to be worshipping the ancestral dead of the First World War.  Venerating the dead must imply venerating the ideals they held.  When Labour activist Owen Jones says "I'm calling for the lives of millions to be mourned, just not for their murder to be glorified" he is attempting the impossible (unless one stoops to hypocrisy, and that would not be very edifying either for the living or the dead).

Above:  can storied urn or animated bust back to its mansion call the fleeting breath?  

In the grief that followed the Armistice mourning was mixed with majesty.  The British Empire reached its greatest zenith as a direct result of the conflict.  The Versailles Conference was marked by contemptuous domination of the defeated powers.

We might wish that things had been done differently, but that is how it was.

Victory meant victory in those days, and that is the only valid concept that can be commemorated (unless you propose to betray the dead). 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/oct/12/first-world-war-centenary-britannia-fetish  

It seems inevitable that we will move to a qualified franchise

There was a moment on the Today programme this morning when Lord Forsyth referred to "whisky and sandwiches in Edinburgh" when discussing the possible lowering of the voting age in Scotland.  "Beer and sandwiches at Number 10" became political shorthand for backstairs dealing and trading.  It came from a notorious incident in the 1970s when the trade unions were dictating terms to the government and the Labour Prime Minister sent out for beer and sandwiches in an attempt to mollify them.

I'm not sure whether 16-year-olds should be given the right to vote. 

However it may become necessary, in an era of "open borders" and unrestricted (and apparently uncontrollable) migration to look again at voting entitlement.

It seems inevitable that we will move to a qualified franchise based on education and / or ownership of property.

I am absolutely opposed to this, but I can see it happening if we cannot control migration flows.

The alternative would be to effectively give up control of the country and have some form of perpetual "technocrat" administration (we are already on the way to this with the identikit nature of current political parties).

The most important words from David Cameron

The most important words from David Cameron were contained in the stark warning about our hour of reckoning.  At last a politician has had the courage to tell the country what globalisation means.  It is a sombre message, but not a moment too soon.

He is telling us to wake up, the enemy (economically) is at the gates.

Uncle Rudolf by Paul Bailey

Have just finished reading Uncle Rudolf by Paul Bailey. 

I'm afraid I didn't like the book.  It seemed trivial and unconvincing.  After the Go Compare commercials I cannot take opera singers seriously.

We talked about Tuesday - the past week at work

Monday & Tuesday

"You go there with Simon.  No-one will recognise you two.  Just stay on the edges and don't draw attention to yourselves..."

Wednesday

At my desk this morning, no-one asked me how yesterday had gone.  I worked on a new briefing document, becoming irate (over the telephone) with Innovation Manager Tim Watts over the time he was taking to provide me with information.  Research of possible celebrity endorsers.

In the afternoon, after a late lunch, I was called into Director Vijay Singh's office and with Simon C we talked about Tuesday.

Thursday

Because of Monday and Tuesday I am allowing myself to take things easy the rest of the week.  The seminar is more or less under control, and next week is completely absorbing all the attention of Head Office, so that I am left alone.  I spent most of today proof-reading.

Vijay Singh called a management meeting to discuss next week, telling us:  "We must be careful".

I am only going there the day of the seminar.

Friday

No post this morning, which was unusual - I usually get something.

I wrote an article for a magazine, the deadline at 3pm.

What factors motivate the Latino vote in America

In an article for The Guardian Ed Pilkington and Amanda Michel in New York consider what factors motivate the Latino vote in America.

No mention was made in this article of the devout Catholicism of the Latino peoples - a religious affliliation that will chime with the profound Catholic outlook (one could almost say philosophy) of Vice-Presidential Candidate Paul Ryan.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/oct/05/latino-vote-population-electoral-project

The One Nation trope brilliantly positions Labour

Disappointing article by Andrew Harrop on the Fabian Society website.

Discussing One Nation Milibandism he tells us:

"One Nation provides not just intellectual synthesis for the left. It challenges the practice of our politics too. The One Nation trope brilliantly positions Labour on the side of the small businessman as well as the public sector worker; and against sectional interests in favour of the national interest. In this Ed achieved something Tony Blair never managed, by defining himself as ‘for’ the whole nation, and the private sector in particular, without being ‘against’ the unions and public sector workers." 

As the left, post-Callaghan, became a coalition of sectional interests it is unclear how the new One Nation policy is going to achieve "synthesis" of these often competing interests. 

If this means the Shadow Cabinet is going to put national interests before the sectional interests of their supporters this is going to make for an combative next two years.

There have been One Nation leaders of the Labour Party in the past - Ramsey McDonald and Clement Attlee come to mind.

But is it possible that the current Labour leadership will have the strength of character and resilience to confront and face down sectional lobbies and put the nation first?

And implicit in the concept of One Nation is an acceptance that the nation is the organising unit of society.  Not the working class, not the unionised public sector, not multi-cultural communities, but the nation.  Lefties such as Owen Jones, Zoe Williams,  Diane Abbott (and many others) are not going to like this!

http://www.fabians.org.uk/the-many-layers-of-one-nation-labour/

If something is not absolutely forbidden in law it is OK to do it

As the financial situation becomes tighter for everyone it seems that morality is suffering.

Companies and individuals are looking to protect their income by unethical behaviour - not in a major way, but little things that they hope will go unnoticed.

Special offers that are not really special, and may actually be more expensive (or special offers that are not in stock when you go to the store but were just a ruse to get you to go there).

A Council deciding it will pay housing benefits in arrears instead of in advance.

Charities using telesales people on commission to get donations (but not telling the donors they are doing this).

The cult of respectability, in force until the 1950s, may have been stifling and repressive, but at least the moral climate of society was regulated.

If a leading figure said something was immoral it would stop, without any need for legislative regulation.

Now we have moved to a system (which I will call the Tony Blair philosophy as he practised it so much) - if something is not absolutely forbidden in law it is OK to do it.

A study needs to be done.

National Poetry Day

Today is National Poetry Day (marked by a bizarre performance of a poem about a sunflower on the Today programme, and a special news-orientated commission on Newsnight).

The poetry I am currently reading is by Thomas Hardy.  I have the complete poems in a Wordsworth edition that cost about £2.  I read one a day, before going to bed, and so far have spent two years on the project with about another year to go, the book handled so much it is almost falling apart.

Melancholy, stylistically varied and innovative, occasionally despairing (if I had known Hardy was an atheist I would never have picked the book up).

One of the most toxic issues for the Labour Party - immigration

With great skill Ed Miliband capitalises on the success of his speech on Tuesday to tackle one of the most toxic issues for the Labour Party - immigration.

Perceptive article by Andrew Woodcock in The Independent:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/migration-by-lowskilled-workers-into--uk-is-too-high-says-ed-miliband-8197862.html

Philip Blond in tomorrow's Guardian says "One nation is the new common ground of British politics".

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/oct/03/cameron-one-nation-u-turn-tory-tragedy?CMP=twt_gu 

Ed Miliband's deliberate invocation of Benjamin Disraeli

Above:  the speeches of Disraeli repay careful study - Disraeli was the policy "wonk" of his day, creating a full ideology for the most unideological political party (the Conservatives) in the most unideological nation (the United Kingdom).

What should we make of Ed Miliband's deliberate invocation of Benjamin Disraeli yesterday at the Labour Party Conference in Manchester?

It has been in my mind a lot.

At first I thought it might be just a spoiling stunt, like Gordon Brown posing with Margaret Thatcher on the steps of 10 Downing Street.

But after a while, I realised he meant what he said.  If you read the text of his speech it is possibly even more forceful than hearing the words.  "One Nation" is now official Labour Party policy.

Clever, nuanced, multi-layered.

This does not mean that the Labour Party has adopted 19th century Toryism (in the way that the 1980s Conservatives adopted 19th century Liberalism).  I cannot see Ed Miliband joining the Primrose League, were that organisation ever to be revived.  Nor does it mean that Disraeli's ideology of imperialism will be making a comeback any time soon, for all the overseas quasi-imperial wars waged by Tony Blair - Kosovo, Sierra Leone, Iraq, Afghanistan etc.

But it is perhaps a signal to the Labour Party membership that the class war is over.