I am finding that no-one stops me

Monday

I kept myself busy during the morning with lots of little tasks and also replying to e-mails from Head Office.  But in truth had I chosen to do nothing, no-one would have bothered me so lax is Director Callum Smith.  I have also begun initiating campaigns myself, without any reference to the Institute's overall policy, and I am finding that no-one stops me (if anything, the rest of the team seem glad that someone is taking a lead).

Tuesday

Callum Smith and myself met with a ideas-generator sent down from Head Office.  As you might expect, he was an extrovert know-it-all.  Abi Reed (Surveys Manager) and Tim Watts (Innovation Manager) were also in this meeting.

I sat at my usual place at the Board table, and the meeting under Callum Smith was much more gentlemanly than the former blue sky meetings held by Vijay Singh (when he would cover the white boards with incomprehensible scribble).  The meeting marred however by the ideas-generator who would not stop talking!  He ruined his case through over-talking so that the whole meeting turned against him and we just wanted him gone.

Wednesday

Bored this morning, I composed an e-mail questionnaire and sent it out to one of the key databases and within minutes the most astonishing responses came back so that I felt I had a genuine insight.  I briefly wondered whether I should involve anyone else and decided to keep it to myself and work on it until someone told me to stop.  In the afternoon I drafted a factsheet based on the research and asked the admin team to duplicate it and send it out to a list of opinion-formers.

Thursday

I have been asked to write another short story, dramatising one of Head Office's initiatives.  I find this sort of work very easy, and wrote one and a half thousand words in about three hours.  When I looked it over later I felt it didn't need any revising so I just pinged it off to Alec Nussbaum.

The system down again - whenever this happens I am just stuck and can't get on with anything.

In the afternoon I worked on my report for the management meeting tomorrow.  The upper floor was deserted with only myself and Jutta the German receptionist in the office.  Jutta is full of surprises - she played Saint Saens Sampson et Delilah on YouTube at full volume.

Friday

Gary (assistant in the Reading Room) is ill with food poisoning, and Matthew (other assistant in the Reading Room)  complaining that he cannot keep up with all of the Head Office requests for articles and newspaper cuttings.  Deputy Director Marcia Walsh told him he would be able to find things easier if the shelves were not in such a mess.  Matthew is one of the dullest people imaginable, and yet he is supposed to be having an affair with Jutta (who must be ten years older than him).

All the management team assembled at 10am for the Management Meeting, the first since September.  Callum Smith began the meeting by telling us that he was standing down as Director, as soon as a replacement could be found.  The individual reports were rather subdued after such an announcement.

Lunchtime a buffet meal was brought in, the food not terribly nice.

I went to my desk and checked my e-mails.  Katie in Accounts (a spiteful sloaney young woman with blonde hair and blue eyes) was mocking Stuart, a temp working in the warehouse while Gary is away.  He is too shy to talk to her - tongue-tied and obviously wanting to get away from her.

St George's church in Goltho

I am shocked by the destruction of St George's church in Goltho a few days ago.

It was a beautiful building, one I visited with my late mother and late aunt about ten years ago - late summer, late afternoon, long grass turned brown by the sun, peaceful meadows, still interior, silence that has stayed with me.

Of course, it must be rebuilt.

It MUST be rebuilt.

http://www.thisislincolnshire.co.uk/Charity-s-pledge-protect-church-destroyed/story-19989623-detail/story.html#axzz2irNd6gwe

NO GLORY in War 1914 - 1918

An organisation which calls itself "NO GLORY in War 1914 - 1918" has its Campaign Launch this evening, 7.30pm at St James's Church in Piccadilly.

Billy Bragg is one of the performers at this concert, which perhaps gives you an indication of what political ideology underpins this organisation.  Jeremy Corbyn MP will also be at the event.  Supporters of NO GLORY in War 1914 - 1918 include Ken Loach, Tony Benn, Vanessa Redgrave, Ken Livingstone, Walter Wolfgang (famous for being thrown out of the Labour Party conference for heckling Jack Straw) and The Pogues.

What is going on here one might ask.

Why is the left mobilising a hard core of socialists and an assortment of luvvie celebrities (Jude Law, Carol Ann Duffy, Simon Callow) to campaign against people they accuse of "glorying" in the idea of war?

Their aim is, of course, seditious.  It is to make people feel uncomfortable about the British victory in the First World War.  It is to imply that the honour and glory due to the British participants in the Great War somehow equates to glorying in the idea of war itself.

This is a bogus and dishonest argument.

They would be more honest, and perhaps command more respect, if they just campaigned as an anti-war organisation without any of the fol de rol Oh What A Lovely War prancing and posing (as if anyone would believe The Pogues were impartial about the British military!).

But what of the specific idea of glory as related to the First World War?

We need to go back to the war and its immediate aftermath to see whether the participants and their families regarded the national struggle as glorious.

The Cenotaph in Whitehall specifically says the dead of the Great War are glorious, and this sentiment is echoed on hundreds of thousands of other memorials across the country.

Consider this memorial to Charles Winckley, killed while leading an attack in France on 20th July 1916:

Here we see the twenty-two year old Captain Winckley climbing from his trench on the front line.  In his right hand he brandishes a gun, in his left hand he holds up a swagger stick, presumably as a signal for others to follow.  Above him angels make exultant gestures (note the delicate gothic tracery that frames this heroic scene).  He is clearly rushing towards his death ("into cleanness leaping" as Rupert Brooke might say).  The face, despite the moustache, is the face of a boy and is obviously copied from a photograph.  Waiting for him, beyond the symbolic mullion of the gothic window, is the martyr's crown of glory.

On one level this is of course just make-believe.  Charles Winckley's death was probably messy (both bloody and muddy) and painful.  He was probably frightened and nervous when he jumped up onto the edge of the trench and ran towards the German guns.

But his parents (his parents please note) wanted him to be remembered with glory.

Who are we to deny their child his glory, even at the distance of a hundred years?

Vulgarity always speaks for itself

An interesting discussion about the position of women in society on the Today programme this morning was rather marred by the lustful lip-smacking way in which Cherie Blair pronounced the word "pregnant" several times.

The fecundity of Mr and Mrs Blair is not an image I wish to dwell in the morning or indeed at any time of the day.

It is not my intention to accuse Cherie Blair of being vulgar (vulgarity always speaks for itself).

But I feel it would have been more seemly for her to have said "when I was with child", especially when talking on BBC Radio.

Coal

I only saw a little of Question Time last night, but I was heartened to see Peter Hitchens advocating a return to coal.

The United Kingdom has coal reserves to last two hundred years.

It is mad that we are not using that coal to produce cheap and plentiful electricity.

And I do not accept that burning coal is inevitably "dirty".  It must be possible to design coal-burning power stations that do not producing damaging emissions.  It's a technological challenge that can be solved.

PS I know it is rude to make personal remarks, but Independent writer Owen Jones does seem to be putting on weight.

Lively debate on Channel 4 News just now on the topic of Islamic dress.

The audience especially seemed animated.

http://www.channel4.com/news/catch-up/

Richard Nicholl (Second-year law student at Emmanuel College, Cambridge) seems typical of those musing aloud this afternoon:  "Ultimately though we'll soon have to figure out a way to sustain a population where automation renders most people surplus to requirements."

The answer to this is simple - a share-owning democracy in which individuals and families are sustained by the dividends from the shares they own (with payment for all employment being a mixture of cash and shares).

But what to do about the public sector?

The average salary of Labour Party employees is £43,000

And can it possibly be true that the average salary of Labour Party employees is £43,000 ?

http://labour-uncut.co.uk/2013/10/24/is-the-average-labour-party-salary-really-43k-per-year/#more-17372

Do they not know that the average salary is £21,000 ?

To people on average salaries the Labour Party apparatchiks are fat cats.

No wonder the Labour Party struggles to understand ordinary people.

And these are the people that lecture the rest of us about the cost of living !

Talk about stinking hypocrisy.

Politicians "pandering to public anger"

In an article about immigration Cathy Newman (Channel 4 News) talks about politicians "pandering to public anger":  http://www.politicshome.com/uk/article/86711/cathy_newman_lets_talk_about_the_i_word.html

Does it not occur to Cathy Newman to ask why the public are angry in the first place?

Ever since the Second World War the public have said NO to immigration.

On every survey in which their opinion has been sought, on the issue of immigration the public say NO by a huge majority.

And yet it keeps happening.

Is it any wonder that the public are angry?

We are supposed to be a democracy right?

That was what the Second World War was all about wasn't it?

And yet on the biggest issue of social change the public have been ignored.

This is a highly provocative act by the political establishment.

And the only answer is for the public to be equally provocative and insist:  none of the post-war immigration is legitimate, and none of the post-war immigrants (together with their descendants and dependants) have any legitimate status in the United Kingdom.

There is no need to get angry about immigration. 

There is no need to get violent (the pro-immigration lobby love violence as that allows them to say people opposed to immigration are just racists). 

If you are not happy about immigration all you have to do is insist that the democratic will of the people on the subject of immigration is respected and implemented (you also have the personal option of withdrawing your co-operation from any aspect of immigration you are presented with in your everyday life).

Insist on the democratic will of the people and I promise you that immigration will have to be reversed - every single bit of it.

Teachers in our classrooms have the proper qualifications

Press release just issued by the Labour Party:  http://press.labour.org.uk/post/64948765108/we-will-call-a-vote-in-parliament-to-make-sure-teachers

In this press release Shadow Education Secretary Tristram Hunt says:  "Labour has been very clear: all teachers must be qualified. So next week, we will call a vote in Parliament to make sure teachers in our classrooms have the proper qualifications."

It sounds innocuous enough.  Who could argue with more qualifications for teachers?  Except that this is not as innocent as it seems.

By "proper qualifications" Labour means teachers must go through the established teacher training regime.

And the established teacher training regime produces (indeed one could say indoctrinates) new teachers with all the old leftist baggage of state-is-good comprehensive-is-good all-the-kids-must-have-prizes ideology that the free schools are trying to escape from.

PS I was amused to read Tristram Hunt's press release just after reading Mark Ferguson's article on LabourList earlier today in which he says (echoing Alastair Campbell) that the Shadow Cabinet are limited by the "two Eds" to sending out press releases instead of developing any real policies that might make the two Eds look lightweight:  http://labourlist.org/2013/10/campbell-is-right-the-shadow-cabinet-arent-doing-enough-but-is-anyone-asking-why/

Russell Brand on Newsnight yesterday

Shambolic interview with so-called comedian Russell Brand on Newsnight yesterday.

In his quest to be ever-more outrageous Russell Brand called for a revolution to overturn democracy and usher in a socialist society.

Presumably the idiot thinks that revolutions only come from the left.

In any breakdown of society that would precede a revolution it is very unclear what new authority would emerge.  It is perfectly possible for radical right-wing revolutionaries to seize power.  Indeed, faced with a choice between a Chairman Mao figure and a General Franco figure is it not likely that the ordinary people will favour stability and order over a disruptive socialist year zero?

As a Conservative I do not want any change to our democratic system.  Revolutions are anathema to me.  I broadly like things the way they are.

But in the fantasy world of whoopie-cushion revolutionary politics that Russell Brand conjures up, is it not ironic to contemplate Mr Brand calling for a revolution and then getting one he did not like - indeed, one that dealt very abrasively with non-conformists such as Russell Brand.

I'm disappointed that Channel 4 News did not lead on the Royal Christening.

And why is Paul Mason doing a news report - he's supposed to be Culture correspondent (or was that just a ruse to get him on the payroll?).

Update:  the Royal Christening coverage came about half-way through Channel 4 News, but was worth waiting for.

A dark day for Grangemouth

The Grangemouth complex is to close with very significant job losses.

It is a dark day for Grangemouth.

In this article, published a few minutes ago, Eric Joyce MP gives his thoughts on the Grangemouth tragedy (for it is a tragedy for the people who have lost their jobs):  http://ericjoyce.co.uk/2013/10/grangemouth-tragedy/

"... instead of engaging with the situation and organising a coherent plan to save jobs, Unite called a strike over a pathetic and petty issue related to Labour Party internal politics".

"...the company’s offer was rejected following the stupidest of strikes for the most idiotic of reasons".

"Workers at Ineos need proper union representation – right now, they’re getting the fumbling, dumbed-down, politicised opposite."

Is it possible that Unite have gone too far this time?

This is the Unite that controls the Labour Party.

What has Ed Miliband got to say now?

Surely he can see that accepting Unite money has tainted the Labour Party and made him silent at the very time he should have been urging conciliation to save all those jobs at Grangemouth.

I'm not all that impressed by John Major's interventions.

My background is just as humble as his, and I can tell you he does not speak for the Tory working class (he wouldn't be so wishy washy on immigration and the EU if he did).

John Major lost in 1997 because he was abandoned by his supporters.  He was abandoned because he was seen as weak and a loser.  And loser is what he proved to be.

Grangemouth

Totally incomprehensible discussion this morning about the Grangemouth dispute on the Today programme this morning.

It would have helped if someone on the programme could have given a brief synopsis over what it is all about.

The Unite union representative said that everyone agreed, except that they didn't agree.

There was an oblique reference to a company with a Chinese-sounding name which apparently owns 50% of the Grangemouth refinery.

What on earth is going on?

Still nothing from Independent writer and Unite activist Owen Jones - presumably he has been warned off (in management style Unite is a dictatorship of the proletariat).

I am so bored by Alex Ferguson.

On the PM programme (BBC Radio 4) the interview just droned on and on until I switched the radio off.

He is a completely uninteresting person.

Speaking in the Immigration Bill debate Diane Abbott MP has "Just reminded House of Commons that GPs do not want to act as immigration officers".

And yet statistics show that the overwhelming majority of the ordinary people want immigration to stop.

Are GPs out of kilter with the majority of the population?

Or has Diane Abbott got her facts wrong?

Labour will not oppose the Immigration Bill going through the House of Commons today.

Well done Labour.

Buy to let

Hugo Rifkind is wrong to imply that buy-to-let is a "money for nothing" phenomenon:  http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/opinion/columnists/hugorifkind/article3900619.ece . 

Owners of buy-to-let properties are exposing themselves to considerable risks, not least the risk of buying an asset that could fall in value - perhaps fall dramatically in value.

Not to mention the risk of damage by tenants, and the risk of non-payment of rent (and it would seem that whatever the safeguards, a bad tenant can do a lot of damage and run-up considerable arrears before they can be ejected, and if they have no income the money often cannot be recovered).

The NHS has commissioned a study that indicates £2 billion a year is filched from the NHS by health tourists (free-loading foreigners):  http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2013/oct/22/temporary-migrants-nhs-cost-study?CMP=twt_gu

That equates to £76 per year for each income tax payer in the United Kingdom - at a time when many hard working families are struggling with the cost of living.