Civil service

Ways in which the civil service operates:

Civil servants filter information that is presented to ministers - we should know what advice is being given to ministers.

In their efforts to avoid crisis they have created an unofficial corporatist system of political consensus - this is antithetical to democracy.

They operate a system of patronage, particularly through the appointments to public bodies and committees.

Also we need to know a lot more about the secretive Legislation Committee.



 

Meetings at Head Office - the past week at work

Monday 

A day off to buy a new car as my Alfa Romeo is nine years old and has done 144,000 miles.

I went to the showroom and told the sales assistant "if the price is right I can buy it now".

He then proceeded to try to sell me a car I didn't want.  Next he tried to sell me a second hand car ("It's only done eight miles, it was bought by some ditzy girl who changed her mind an hour after buying it...").  Only when I was going to leave did they give me the car I wanted at the price I wanted to pay (and also in blue, since I only drive blue cars).

Tuesday

Even now, when I am half-asleep in the half-hour before I have to get up, there are times when my thoughts and dreams go back to the past.

But I went to the office where there are no such distractions.

Most of the morning I spent answering e-mails and preparing for meetings in London over the next two days.

Leaving work at midday, I had the afternoon as holiday, attending a meeting with one of my freelance clients.  We went to a restaurant near his office for lunch (paid for out of a commission apparently).  Goat's cheese fried in olive oil, lamb, chocolate pudding and a glass of port (although I don't like port much).

The restaurant almost empty.  We sat on a sofa in the circulating area and he talked about a campaign he wants organised.  He went outside to make 'phone calls, and I was left alone on the sofa with a cup of coffee and my thoughts.

Wednesday

I got to London about 11 and went to Lower Thames Street for a quick meeting with another freelance client (all this freelance work is killing me, but at least it is paying for the new car).

Then I travelled west on the tube to Head Office for a meeting with David L about the "fringe" event planned for Conference this autumn.  Walking through the building I was greeted by so many people that I suppose I am becoming well-known in the organisation.  Down to the basement meeting room for a confidential briefing on...


Thursday

More meetings at Head Office.

First a meeting on the planned intranet which I felt was not terribly interesting or relevant.

Then up to the third floor for a meeting about website co-ordination (Marcia Walsh was also at this meeting).

Finally into Publications to discuss a new booklet Head Office is planning - I suppose it was flattering to be consulted.

Friday

Back at the Institute today, although it did not feel like a Friday.

I listed all the projects I have coming up over the next few weeks ready for a planning meeting on Monday. 

All over the floor the Admin section were still doing the big mailing - they are taking ages over it and Alec Nussbaum is not happy over this.

Gary from the Reading Room simultaneously soulful and doleful over his relationship problems.

The loathsome Anne Boswell-Urquart was at the Institute, and was most of the day in a meeting with Alec Nussbaum.  I hope she is not going to be our new Director!  I would have to look for a new job if so.

Drink! (as Father Jack would say).

Despite the Proustian associations I have never really liked Badoit mineral water - it has a salty taste.

Anyway, I'm told I am being anti-social blogging while everyone else is watching Baccara on the Vintage music channel.

Quintessential 1970s kitsch:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TBPX3wibvnQ

Richard J Evans in today's Guardian

Interesting (but wrong) argument by Richard J Evans in today's Guardian about reform of the History syllabus of the National Curriculum.

The reason History in schools is of such fundamental importance is because it defines everything else about the United Kingdom.

In many ways History is the memory of a nation.

In cases of Alzheimer's disease an individual's memory perishes and although that person is still alive and functioning they have essentially died.

The same holds true for nations - without an awareness of its national history narrative a nation is dead as a unique culture and civilisation.

That is why the History syllabus is too important to be decided by trendy leftie teachers.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2013/jul/13/michael-gove-teaching-history-wars

Bob Crow's statements earlier today

Although I am not a socialist, I do admire Bob Crow's statements earlier today.

This above all: to thine own self be true,
And it must follow, as the night the day,
Thou canst not then be false to any man.

Hamlet Act 1, scene 3, 78–82

http://news.sky.com/story/1115374/bob-crow-union-leader-promises-new-party 

In all the furore over the 'U-turn' over plain cigarette packs has anyone worked out who took this decision?

Is it not the case that the decision was taken by civil servants in the Cabinet Office against the wishes of ministers? (and the announcement was made from the Cabinet Office).

And please don't tell me the Cabinet Office is under the control of the elected government as it is not.

More on civil servants:  http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/exclusive-an-uncivil-end-pms-frustrations-could-see-whitehall-head-ousted-8704057.html

Owen Jones is going soft on the revolution

The newspaper review on BBC News 24 last night included Independent writer Owen Jones.

Presented with a picture of the Queen he described Her Majesty as a "kindly old lady".

What?

Is he not supposed to denounce the Royal Family as "hypocritical conservatism, servility and sanctimoniousness"?  Isn't it "old rags, rubbish, the refuse of centuries"?  Would Lenin describe Tsarina Alexandra Feodorovna Romanova Empress Consort of All the Russias as a kindly lady? 

What does Owen Jones even mean by the descriptor "lady"?

Is this not bourgeois language, designed to stunt the growth of proletarian consciousness?  Are not the Jones critics justified in their view that he does not represent the future of socialism but is merely a cringing lickspittle relic of the old regime?  If even Owen Jones is going soft on the revolution what hope is there for the Labour party?

Shoes

According to John Rentoul (Columnist for Independent on Sunday; visiting professor at Queen Mary University of London; biographer of Tony Blair): "Churchill was horrified Bevin polished his own shoes and offered him a batman to do it. Bevin refused."

Presumably Bevin was not bothered whether the batman kept his job or not.

The batman could have been under-employed, and Churchill was desperately trying to find him more tasks to justify his full-time role.

Did Bevin care about the batman's job?  Oh no.  Bevin didn't care whether he went onto short hours or indeed lost his job so long as Bevin's ideological purity was maintained.

This is what the left is like.

The suggestion that the NHS should give priority on the transplant waiting list to people who are on the organ donor register

On the Today programme this morning was the suggestion that the NHS should give priority on the transplant waiting list to people who are on the organ donor register.

Someone called Sally Johnson, Director of Organ Donation and Transplantation for NHS Blood and Transplant (who sounded a typical public sector bossy boots), said she was keen to know what people think about the idea.

I think the idea stinks.

The NHS belongs to everyone, and no-one should be made to jump through hoops to get treatment.

Organ donors are not the only "donors" who contribute to transplant operations.  Each operation costs a fair amount of money to perform.  That money comes exclusively from taxpayers - non-taxpayers do not contribute anything.

The logic of Ms Johnson's argument means that we should give priority for transplants to taxpayers over non-taxpayers.  That is clearly unacceptable.  But no more unacceptable than giving priority to people who are on a particular register.

Is it not typical of the public sector that they always want to go down the path of compulsion rather than persuasion?

Get off your backside Ms Johnson and use your selling skills to persuade more people to become organ donors.  And if you don't have the necessary selling skills?  You are probably in the wrong job.

I used to carry an organ donor card but I don't now.  The reason is that I don't trust the NHS.  I think they would make decisions (on who is to live and who is to die) based on expediency rather than morality.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b036kt0z/live

Proto-terrorist Pakistani group MQM

Very alarming report on Newsnight yesterday about proto-terrorist Pakistani group MQM and how they seem to be operating from London.

Who took the decision to let these people into the United Kingdom and why?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b036ts98#programme-broadcasts

Re-live the Great War 1914-18

There was an interesting item on the Today programme this morning about a project whereby participants in the Falklands war return to the islands and effectively re-live their experiences for the benefit of historians.

Much discussion about the possible psychological impact of this process on the former soldiers.

It made me wonder whether what is true for individuals might also be true for nations.

The United Kingdom is about to re-live the Great War 1914-18.

The next year will be concerned with the tensions that led to war, and then will follow a week by week, perhaps even day by day, series of anniversaries - all of them in some way traumatic and with resonances for the majority of British families.

Will the next five years simply be shrugged-off as a mere sequence of historical curiosities?

Or will the process of re-living the First World War bring to life (perhaps literally) Barbara Tuchman's terrible proud tower of European civilisation at the apex of world domination?

And once the ghosts have been waked will they go back to sleep again?

James Bloodworth can complain all he likes, there is nothing anyone can do about Royal Mail privatisation.

It is one of the many ways in which the EU is being "informally" opened up to competition.

The only way of stopping it is to leave the EU.

Too late to save the Royal Mail, but perhaps not too late to stop the privatisation of other state assets (ultimately one suspects all state assets are going to go).

http://www.leftfootforward.org/2013/07/five-reasons-why-the-privatisation-of-royal-mail-is-bad-policy/

Hazy ideas about how many BME people are in the country

Rather pedantic article by Ally Fogg in today's Guardian that is being exultantly leaped upon by lefties as evidence that the ordinary people are stupid ("British public wrong about nearly everything- v. interesting, and proof we need compulsory citizenship education" says Rebecca Moore Labour's candidate in Withington ward for the 2014 Manchester City Council elections): 

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/immigration-crime-benefits-everything-you-know-about-the-state-of-the-nation-is-wrong-8697574.html

Leaving aside the silly idea by Rebecca Moore that re-education camps are needed (not so fanciful - Diane Abbott MP has said on television that Mao Tse-tung is her great political hero) is the Ally Fogg argument serious?

Let us take the most provocative line by Mr Fogg:  "The average member of the public believes 24 per cent of the British population is Muslim. It is actually five per cent. Average estimates of the total immigrant population are two to three times higher than reality."

The average member of the public believes that the Muslim population is too high - whether 24% is too high, or 5% is too high or indeed 1% is too high, the fact remains that the average member of the public thinks there are too many Muslims.  You can accept that fact or ignore that fact or (like Rebecca Moore) try to re-educate that fact out of existence.  What you cannot do is tell people they are wrong and its all been got up by the press (because guess what - in a democracy the people are sovereign).

And Mr Fogg should be aware that it is not just the public that holds hazy ideas about how many BME people are in the country.

Earlier this morning Bonnie Greer said: "A gospel choir onstage at the TheNational doesn't take the place there of  ethnic leads, directors & writers mainstage. There. I've said it."

The black population of the United Kingdom is less than 2%.  The Muslim population according to Mr Fogg is a paltry 5%.  On these tiny figures how on earth can Bonnie Greer justify her call for more "ethnic" leads, directors and writers mainstage at the National Theatre?

Liam Fox's speech on immigration at CPS:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ht1pH9ndZ0w&feature=youtu.be&a

A very interesting and thoughtful contribution to the problem of migration.

Political Levy

"There is some confusion" says the Unite union about Ed Miliband's speech earlier today:

http://www.unitetheunion.org/news/uniteandthepoliticallevy/

You can say that again!

It appears that Ed Miliband is not proposing to make the Political Levy (which is a sort of danegeld payment on all union members, whether they support Labour or not) an "opt in"; he is merely suggesting that "affiliation" (which is a sort of forced conscription into the Labour party) becomes an "opt in".

Big deal.

I would guess that most union members do not even realise that they are automatically co-opted into a political party.

It is the Political Levy that is such an abomination.

It is of course a form of inertia selling, and if this scam was operated by a retailer the police would become involved.

Imagine you buy a washing machine or a television set, and when you get home you find that the retailer had signed you up for an insurance policy without your knowledge.

Imagine going back to the store and complaining, only to have the smarmy sales assistant say "Ah, but you didn't say you didn't want it".

That is what the unions are doing with the Political Levy.

Zero hours contracts should be illegal - there would be kudos for the Conservative party in bringing forward legislation.

Both formal and informal contracts should be banned.

The impact on the economy would not be great and the flexibility offered by these contracts is not worth having.

It would reinforce the image of the Conservative party as being firm but fair with regard to people in work and people out of work. 

"Len McClusky of Unite sounding conciliatory on World at One" says Diane Abbott MP.

And yet in the same interview Mr McClusky accuses Labour faction Progress of funding selections for candidates.

Hardly conciliatory.

They are saying very bad things

Another surprising smear, this time by Polly Toynbee in her article in the Guardian today about the Falkirk scandal:  http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/jul/08/falkirk-labour-unions-empty-democracy

Talking about Len McClusky, leader of the Unite union, Polly Toynbee says:  "The suspicion that he shoehorned girlfriends and mates' girlfriends into safe seats and top union jobs doesn't look good".

Unite Community Campaigner Ellie Mae O'Hagen immediately protested about this slur and identified it as being aimed at a Unite director and named that person by referring to her Twitter "hashtag" (although she has since removed the "tweets" indicating fury followed by wiser counsel).

The accusation that a union official slept her way to the top is distasteful to say the least.  It's tantamount to calling her a whore.  And there is no proof, just Polly Toynbee's "suspicion".

Fascists and whores?  What is happening here?  Simon Danczuk MP and Polly Toynbee are not bad people, but they are saying very bad things.

It is perhaps an indication of the pent-up passions that the Falkirk affair has released.  Cathartic expressions of this kind usually indicate there are underlying issues that have been long-suppressed and are bursting to come out.  Will there be more out-pourings of passion or will the Labour leadership succeed in putting the lid back on?

Make no mistake, Ed Miliband will be doing us all a favour when he calls for one member, one vote for the Labour party.

The Conservative party will have to respond in kind.

Democracy as whole will benefit.

"No better than the BNP" says Labour MP Simon Danczuk

"Labour's hard left are no better than the BNP" says Labour MP Simon Danczuk:  http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/10167562/Simon-Danczuk-MP-Labours-militant-left-no-better-than-BNP.html

This is a disgraceful slur presumably aimed at Independent writer Owen Jones (with whom he had a very public falling-out on television).

Oh I know Simon Danczuk was careful not to name any names, but the implications are obvious and the mud is going to stick.

And if individuals such as Owen Jones are no better than the BNP what about the Labour supporters normally associated with Owen Jones?  Are they to be smeared in this way?  It seems like politics in the Labour party just got a whole lot nastier.

And in any case, the analogy doesn't work - the hard left of the Labour party is nothing like the BNP (they are a lot more effective than the BNP and command much greater support).

It should be perfectly possible to demolish the arguments of the hard left without resulting to name calling.