Journal of the Plague Years

• He supported Blair, no matter how much he pretends otherwise.
• The Great Helmsman's respect for his people... not!
• Bad language ought to be a capital offence?
• Today we shall light such a candle..
• Weep for us, O Alexandria.
• Damn your 'faith institute'.
• Dangerous chaps, six foot ladders...
• The general opinion seems to be that it's quite a useful idea.
• Why are you watching?
• Boom time for the wide boys.
• I support Davis absolutely and wholeheartedly; but only on the liberties debates.
• The security state, aground again, grinds on.
• If neither the environment nor social justice, just what is Brown caring about when he wakes up 'hurting with us'?
• Which is more important: hammering Brown or fighting for our liberties?
• Speaking Truth to Power. (And sacrificing Power for Truth.)
• Jacqui Smith has her script prepared. And rehearsed. Many times.
• The Captain of the RMS Social Justice all at sea, chucking his passengers overboard.
• The Truckers, hurting their friends.
• Another fortress against the attacks of Forces of Evil. Who are, of course, defeated and demoralised.
• Back in your cars, folks!
• Sentimental Send-off.
• Oceania continues to prevail against the dastardly and cowardly regime in Eurasia. Forward with Big Brother.
• If you can't manage to say the right thing, Mr. Browne, just say nothing.
• A warning, or simply an endorsement with caveats?
• Supporting the chaps, contemporary style.
• MPs on a flying visit to the real world.
• d'Ancona on Smith
• Justice: a stranger in a strange land.
• Harmany 'n Marriage.
• Primarolo again.
• Obama as nominee...
• Mixed messages.
• Peace and quiet.
• Does Brown want to alienate us?
• Primavera for Primarolo? I don't think it'll reach the top ten...
• The first English astronaut on Tharg will complain because the Zeetons don't serve fish'n'chips.

He supported Blair, no matter how much he pretends otherwise.

20 June 2008 .

Why do people still ask that bloody man, Brown, whether he 'would have' supported the invasion of Iraq in 2003? He did.

I want to make a considered comment, here, with regard to Brown's, urrrg, prudent, urrg, 42 days...

If, God forbid, there's another 7/7 outrage, and I or mine are hurt: I shall, of course, fear and hate the inadequate delusionals who think that they're going to get lots of sex in Paradise in return for hurting innocent strangers; but I shall know, beyond doubt, where a larger part of the blame will lie.

Blair had a quite extraordinary responsibility for Britain's role in Iraq in 2003 - one might say almost unique in modern history (even Hitler may have had more support from his own people in his invasion of Poland). Brown supported him then, however much he's tried to distance himself from that support since (Inter alia: The Morality of Mr. Brown. Prime Ministers, 30 October 2007; last item on page). In point of fact, I'm not sure that he has made a meaningful effort to distance himself, certainly not with any understanding of the enormity of what was done then and the consequences which may last for generations. I'm truly not sure that Brown has the moral depth to understand what it is he is, or ought to be, distancing himself from. The recent evidence isn't reassuring:

• The cringe-making perormance of Brown with Bush;
• Brown's pet 42 days;
• Brrown's contempt for our soldiers, which continues in so many ways, despite his (and Des Browne's) cosmetic efforts

Notes of June 20, not developed due to computer failure, but left here as a tantalising glimpse of what you missed:

• What has Blair doing in the Middle East over the past few days? When did he last actually go there?
• Still, at last we know that Blair's a good man, becaue God told Cherie so.
• Fightening seeing a member of the public saying on TV that Brown should be allowed to get on with it because as PM he knows all sort of things we don't..
• Do Brown and his gaggle and, quite independently, MPs in general actually know how much a small part of the electorate - but not that small - have come to despise them?

The Great Helmsman's respect for his people... not!

20 June 2008 .

What, if any, is the moral distinction between Brown's refusal to engage with us on the 42-day detention issue when given a chance and Blair's refusal to engage with us on the then forthcoming invasion of Iraq?

As for politicians telling us that parliament is the place for these debates to take place: not only did last week demonstrate again how pointless any debate in that place becomes in the face of an intransigent and bullying executive with a majority in the house; but those politicians have totally lost the point that it's us who are sovereign, not them, and participatory democracy means all of us participating - not what the politicians want at all, of course.

'participatory democracy'

Bad language ought to be a capital offence?

20 June 2008 .

There's been some surprise expressed that Naomi Campbell wasn't sentenced to some time at Her Majesty's, after her recent 'air rage' episode. I'd just like to express some surprise that anyone would think for a moment that a person with a bad temper should be punished by prison.

'Naomi Campbell' 'Air rage'

Today we shall light such a candle...

20 June 2008 .

I just want to make sure that this one's on record, from Labour MEP Mary Honeyball in connnection with the debates on the fertilisation and embryology bill: "Should devout Catholics such as Ruth Kelly, Des Browne and Paul Murphy be allowed on the government front bench in the light of their predilection to favour the Pope's word above the government's?"


Weep for us, O Alexandria.

19 June 2008 .

Is it true, as an increasing number of academics are said to be reporting, that universities are ignoring known plagiarism and cheating so as to inflate the numbers and grades of degrees they award (in order to meet government targets and/or to maintain the flow of fees from foreign students)? (Seen in various newspapers)

'cheating in universities'

Damn your 'faith institute'.

18 June 2008 .

Blair (trailing his new institute predicated on the post-modern and/but fluffy notion that the world's religions do not have such incompatible beliefs that adherents have always been willing to slaughter each other, and the rest of us, in the names of their gods - and probably always will) wants us to recognise him as a 'man of faith'...

You took us into Iraq based on your bloody* faith, mate; your faith resulted in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocents; do you think we haven't worked it out, yet?

*Word used most advisedly.

Blair 'faith institute'

Dangerous chaps, six foot ladders...

18 June 2008 .

A Hampshire school caretaker, Anthony Gower-Smith, fell off a six-foot ladder while removing cards and staples from a classroom wall. He's suing Hampshire County Council for up to £50,000, on the grounds that they hadn't trained him to use a ladder - although he'd used ladders at work for at least 30 years.

I was going to suggest that, far from simply denying liability, they should sue him for using equipment which he wasn't qualified to use, thus endangering the healf'n'safety of their employees (i.e. him). However, more pertinent information came to light when Gower-Smith admitted in court that when he was first employed by the council, six years ago, he's signed a form to say he'd been trained in ladder safety; he was also been given a manual on the matter by his caretaker support officer. I suggest the council seek punitive damages. A couple of mill ought to do it.

'Anthony Gower-Smith' 'ladder safety'

The general opinion seems to be that it's quite a useful idea.

17 June 2008 .

Mid-Sussex District Council checks and itemises the contents of citizens' individual domestic waste bins at random, without warning or permission. They don't even deny it: they say they want see how much food waste people throw out - it's all part of their commitment to provide a better service.

'Mid-Sussex District Council'

Why are you watching?

16 June 2008 .

The most creepy invasion of personal life, in the old Communist eastern Europe, seemed to me to be the concierge or neighbour who spied on one's comings and goings, and on one's friends, and reported back to... whoever... And what was almost worse was sometimes, but not always, knowing who was doing the reporting, while always knowing that someone was reporting.

What I don't understand is how we think the eternal surveillance by CCTV in this country (often with microphones, like at least one of the cameras in the park near here) is very much different.

-/-

Today's little grumble isn't quite from nowhere.

There's an old guy I see in the park sometimes; we know each other well enough to say 'hello' politely, but no more. This weekend, we sat for a while on the same bench while the dog looked for fox spoor to roll in; out of the blue, my friend on the bench told me he reckoned the CCTV camera was too interested in looking at the young women (I mentioned here, the other day, that a couple of people have said much the same thing). I watched for a while; I have to say that it looked as if he, and they, are right.

He said he was going to have going to have words with the council. Maybe I should, too, rather than just telling this tale to the aether; maybe I will, if I notice the same thing happening again. (Apparently there are two or three dozen prosecutions of camera operators a year, on the grounds of 'inappropriate' activities. So much for 'making us all safer'...)

'inappropriate surveillance'

Boom time for the wide boys.

16 June 2008 .

When the prevailing rate for petrol is around 1.20 per litre, the garage in Exeter charging 1.99+ is profiteering. Whether that's okay or not, whether we approve or not, it is precisely that. Historically, governments have recognised the demoralising effects of profiteering to the extent of making it a criminal (sometimes capital) offence (qv): I can't see that happening now, and I'm not sure if I'd really want it to do so; but wouldn't it be excellent if, once the immediate crisis is over, people simply refused to deal with that garage and others like it? Sadly, there's no such sense of community any more - if there ever was - so the wide boys will just carry on ripping us off.

'profiteer' 'wide boy'

I support Davis absolutely and wholeheartedly; but only on the liberties debates.

16 June 2008 .

In view of my recent excoriations against The Great Leader And Helmsman Chairman Brown, I want to make it clear that this site actually sees itself as broadly left-liberal, with a strong collectivist streak. And, in view of my recent praise of Davis who, I seriously believe, earned the undying gratitude of his nation this week by forcing the liberties debate, I should make it clear that nothing would possess me to vote Tory. (Let alone vote Cameron or Johnson... if you do, you're either in their circle - and they'll be the ones to decide that, believe you me - or you're deluded. I'm a public school boy myself and, I promise you, I know whereof they're made: the best most of us can hope for from them is that they accept us as audience in the shadows of the world which is their stage. However they might appear, neither of those two soi-disant patricians is the remotest bit affable. I'm beginning to feel quite revolutionary. Aux Barricades, Citoyens: A Bas Les Aristos.)

Sadly, I couldn't even vote Davis: but that's because I'm implacably opposed to capital punishment and, however quiet he may be about it, Davis favours it. But I'd enjoy the argument with him, if I were ever to be so lucky.


The security state, aground again, grinds on.

15 June 2008 .

More sensitive material gone astray; another lot of papers left on a train (the second this week) and a very senior police officer's laptop snatched from his car while he was buying a burger. Or something.

Mistakes happen, of course they do - though these reports do seem to be just a bit too frequent. What's insulting is the repeated assurance that nothing has got into the hands of all these tens of thousands of our citizens who the security services threaten us are just itching to destroy the fabric of our society (insulting because it's quite impossible to believe that everything lost is handed in to the BBC or the Independent, that nothing's been lost except what we're told about); and the endless advice that systems have been updated so that mistakes 'like this' couldn't happen again. (Until next week...)

Yet the Brown-Smith machine trundles remorselessly on with its prim-mouthed determination to database us all down to the colour of our undies and its promise of the sunny uplands of prudent Orwellian security for us all.

Added 17 June: Jacqui Smith's been reassuring us this week's events were unacceptable and that action's being taken to ensure that these mistakes don't happen again. So that's all right then.

'data loss' 'data security'

If neither the environment nor social justice, just what is Brown caring about when he wakes up 'hurting with us'?

15 June 2008 .

I've said on this site that I'd truly rather avoid endless criticism of Brown - mainly because, even in the medium term, the realistically possible/likely alternatives are too appalling to contemplate. The problem is that he's become too awful to contemplate, too.

[Please be patient with this (polemical?) parenthesis; it's my introduction to what follows. I believe that the climate and pollution are the most pressing issues facing us but, even amongst the Lawson-Mail faction, the climate-change deniers, I would have thought that the need for improving public transport was self-evident. However, anybody in this country who thinks that the state of our public transport system is anything other than parlous is either wealthy, lucky where they travel, deluded or a habitual car-driver (and those last are mostly none too happy). Well, we're where we are on that. Unfortunately, there's no evidence that most of us accept the other side of the coin, either: despite the congestion; despite the oil crisis, despite the sheer logic of what will happen if we keep pushing for our cars... far from doing anything to contain that particular hydra, we go on feeding it.]

There's an article in this week's Private Eye ('Road Rage', p9) which outlines Brown's balance between the road lobby and rail fares while he was chancellor. In summary:

In 1997, inherited from the Tories:

• an automatic increase in fuel tax in each budget - a degree of dissuasion with an element of fairness;
• an annual reduction in regulated rail fares (including season tickets) of 1%.

That year, New Labour was promising to set targets for encouraging cuts in road traffic, building new tram systems, moving appropriate freight onto the railways, encouraging cycling, etc. The plans were subsequently quietly dropped.

Thereafter, under Brown's direction, there were:

• a fuel tax freeze;
• an annual increase in regulated rail fares, of 1%.

The resulting effects between 1997 and 2006:

• the cost of car travel fell by 10% (a further 4% by early this year);
• the cost of rail travel rose by 6% (difficult to tell since then, as rail companies 'restructure' fares in their own favour).

Now?

• Several rail franchises have to make massive premium payments to the state - i.e. a tax (on top of all else) on rail travel;
• while at the same time, larger subsidies than BR ever received are going, in significant part, to profits and shareholders;
• rail services are being abbreviated or cut altogether all over the country, and where they're running, passengers are often in simmering revolt;
• while hundreds of desperately needed carriages are sitting in sidings, unused, blocked by the extraordinary complexity of the financial structures which ought to putting them to use - if they're not being blocked by sheer obtusity;
• promised renewed rail and tram infrastructure in towns all over the country has been delayed for years - or, in the case of the tram systems (often desperately promoted by citizens and their councils), been blocked completely for spurious reasons or none at all;
• the cost of bus travel also rose 1997-2006, by 13%. Where routes haven't disappeared altogether, of course;
• the government is threatening to scrap fuel-duty rebates to the bus companies (which have been around since Tory days and were once suggested as a sort of quid pro quo in exchange for the bus companies running necessary but unprofitable services);
• the weight limit on lorries has been lifted, encouraging yet more freight onto the roads (never mind that they're now too heavy for the style of road-building which prevails in this country);
• a surreal (and as far as possible unpublicised) assessment system used by the government when deciding on new transport investment, which regards a minute saved driving a car as being worth up to 50% more than a minute saved by a passenger on a bus or train (or a pedestrian), ensures that road investment appears (misleadingly) to be more cost effective than any other - so that we have 15 times more investment in roads than in railways;
• and, of course, while rail users have to pay towards the capital costs of the system they use, road users, paying road tax unaffected by how far they drive and fuel tax which isn't related to road damage (and one heavy lorry causes quite unbelievable wear on a road simply by passing over it) make very little such contribution.

At the same time, icing on the cake, everywhere sprout The Dear Leader's new airports and runways, which will only cause us damage in so far as they will be exploitable at all... (qv)

Green values kaput...

And I've written exactly what I should have avoided, no matter how misguided (ie bloody stupid) I may think the government has been on all this: a rant. So, back - briefly - to the second part of my argument:

Not everybody feels that green should have the priority that I might give it; fair enough. But, surely, nobody can be happy with our current exposure to unpleasant regimes, as we desperately scrabble for energy to support the squalid and unsustainable transport system we now have - completely unnecessarily, as can be seen by a quick glance over the Channel. Or perhaps they truly just aren't bothered...

Let's assume, with the road lobby, that what Brown actually did during those years was to see sense (though not very much, if their squeals of protest are to be believed) and judge this transport restructuring in terms of his own declared core values of social justice... except, what's to look at? That part of the population, still quite large, who can't afford to run a car (let alone those who are too old, or too ill) are frankly stuffed. Stuffed in the quality of their lives; stuffed in their ability to get to the bigger shops, or to hospital or school, or to visit family; stuffed in their ability even to get to work at an affordable price and in a reasonable time.

The vast investment in roads and airports is a treat for those who already 'have'; Brown does that. Investment in public transport ought to be the balancing investment for those who 'have not'; Brown has not done that. Still, he's a son of the manse, so, in the spirit of 'to those who have shall be it be given'... it's only fair that his social justice should sometimes be biblical.

There's no great evidence that Brown has begun to comprehend green issues in much more than a token (or, it sometimes seems, opportunistic) sense. But if you wish to know about his commitment to social justice, and make the mistake of judging it in the light of his transport policy, you might reasonably suppose that the green issue is his strong card.

'Road vs rail' 'Private Eye road rage'

Which is more important: hammering Brown or fighting for our liberties?

14 June 2008 .

Pondering David Davis' resignation of his seat, on the issue of 42-day detention and the creeping erosion of our liberties (Speaking Truth to Power, next item below), I've come to believe that what he's done may turn out to be of quite historic importance:

The general opinion from Brown's supporters (who took their next uncomprehending step in tearing up Magna Carta by their vote) seems to be that there's no point in putting up a challenger. Despite everything I've read or heard in the media in the past couple of days, I haven't seen one adult, rational reason why there shouldn't be the real-life, cast-iron, people-will-vote-at-the-end, public debate Davis is offering. The closest they've come to a reason is that Davis is just pulling an irrelevant stunt - which I suggest is group-speak for 'he's failing to conform to new labour reality'.

Amongst everyone else, a minority is suggesting that Davis is having a spoilt little tantrum because Cameron is boss and he isn't. For all I know, Davis may be no different from most of the rest of that egotistical motley who sit in our front benches; but he'd have to have been quite extraordinarily foolish to have acted on that basis this week, and whatever failings Davis may have, I don't think that foolishness is one of them.

However, the suggestion which seems the most common and the most telling this week is that, whatever his motives (and most folk of this mind credit him with sincerity on the detention issue), Davis has made a mistake because he's distracting people from the main job of challenging the government (or of destroying Brown, depending on their particular perspective). This argument is so wide of the mark that it finally convinced this citizen, at least, that Davis' actions (whether they come from best judgment or not) are right - inspired, in fact, because they've highlighted in a most timely manner just how misplaced our priorities have become.

If, God willing, our society lasts so long, Brown is going to of no interest to anyone but historians a hundred years from now (or, on present form, ten); but the destruction of our liberties may echo down the centuries. If we lose them, we may never recover them; and even if we do, the lesson will have been well-learned by future would-be dictators as to how easily they can be swept aside. Actually, I'm not sure that I should be arguing this point at all: if most people don't see the relative importance of (1) who governs this country over the next few years and (2) the fundamental structure of a free society built up, often through suffering, blood, and even - all too often - sacrificed lives, over 800 years, then there really isn't any hope for us.

Davis may be embarking on the greatest service to the future well-being of this country by any politician in a long time. Those who believe differently would serve us best by meeting his challenge; better if it were a strong candidate in support of the government's views - but we've seen that, huffing and puffing about irrelevance or softness on terror, Brown's mob will almost certainly duck it (they've been showing their rusty mettle for far too long now). It looks like their place might be taken by MacKenzie: I would rather see a protagonist with more breadth, depth and intellectual probity; but, if he takes the lists, so be it.

Added later: One of the more corrosive and shameful ways of undermining the liberties debate (this week, in particular) seems minor and passes almost unnoticed: it's the 'historically knowing' argument that says Magna Carta was not some great charter of freedom at all, but largely a convenience for the barons of the time (some people have talked about how serfs and slaves still faced a lifetime of unremitting toil and misery which did not begin to be addressed until the aftermath of the Black Death 150 years later) It's insidious, this line, because on the face of it, it's (technically) correct. But it was the foundation for what followed, possibly for everything that followed, the sine qua non; it was absolutely the foundation for our historic commitment to habeas corpus; and while, like the national flag, it may only be a piece of old rag, it has the values we imbue it with.

But then again, I suppose not all of us hold our national flags in much respect either, which has been most convenient in too many quarters...

My feeling is this: accept the arguments of those who want you to abandon the symbolic value of Magna Carta if you wish, by all means; but, when doing so, be sure you understand the arguments - and their consequences.

Added 17 June: Comments are being made that a single issue election is an impossibility, and would ignore the nuances (implied: that a, urrrg, serious leader like, urrrg, Brown has to take into account). Rubbish; the liberties of the country aren't a single issue... and they're being buried by all the ""nuances"". (Some of these people, so often playing with their supposed nuances, wouldn't recognise a real one if it slipped beneath their radar...). As it looks increasingly likely that no one of any significance is going to stand against Davis, my heart sinks; Davis will be treated , wrongly, as a fool who threw away his chance - while the reality'll be that we'll have thrown away ours.


Speaking Truth to Power. (And sacrificing Power for Truth.)

12 June 2008 .

I haven't always had a lot of time for Dianne Abbott on this site, especially since she made her feelings about blonde Finnish nurses clear in terms which in my eyes amounted to racism. She has many virtues, however, not least of which is that, however foolish I may believe she has sometimes been, she could never be accused of being a blair-babe-clone.

Be all that as it may: this week, she has won a massive number of Brownie points by her impassioned speech in the Commons on behalf of our ancient constitution against The Great Leader's call for 42-day detention.

I daresay he'll never forgive her for pinning the government down on its craven, short-term, political motives behind this issue, either; but, if she was to speak truth to power, what else could she say?

I'm not quite sure what we're supposed to make of David Davis' little stunt, however. How does resigning his seat when his party is in agreement with him over detention promote his point of view? He says that he wants a single-issue by-election, but if Brown takes the cowardly way out, which he will, it'll be a damp squib. There's talk that the (ex?) editor of the Sun might stand against him, if no one else does: I'd like to think that that would make an easy victory for Davis but, having heard MacKenzie talk, I suspect that it might be a meaningless victory over a prat. [If the readership of that rag (which has been falling for years) had their way, we'd introduce the death sentence for... hard to know what, exactly, since apparently the Sun is the favourite rag in HM's prisons... for being Asian, or driving a car while female, probably. They'd certainly bring it back, though; and their MacKenzie, who's almost a parody of unpleasant journalism, is reported to have said that he doesn't mind how long suspected terrorists are banged up for.] Then again; we're told that 70% of the population favour banging people up for six weeks - or longer - without trial, so maybe McKenzie would win. If that were to happen, I think it would be time to emigrate.

[Added later: Personally, I believe that David Davis would have been preferable as Home Secretary in the (I assume, increasingly inevitable) new Tory government, rather than on the outside. But then I'd rather have had Davis elected as leader: unlike Bullingham Bertie Cameron, whom I distrust profoundly, Davis at least has some idea what life is like for more 'ordinary' people.]

Mind you, I'm not sure what all the fuss has been about this week, since we detain immigrants, including asylum seekers - and including children, contrary to all the international rules - for far longer than six weeks at a time, with no question of a fair hearing or a trial.

[Several people have commented on Harriet Harman's rather imbecilic nodding during the debate whenever someone she approved of said something she agreed with; did anyone notice how her clone, Jacqui Smith (whose speech was unimpressive, to say the least), appeared wholly bewildered when anyone talked about political values or debated on any sort of a constitutional level? (Such as when she was asked by a Tory about the threat under the bill to the principle of the separation of powers: completely flummoxed?) She's not just dire, Mr. Brown, she's actually quite thick; for Heaven's sake get rid of her.]

'terror bill' 'asylum seekers' 'The Sun' 'Jacqui Smith' 'Kelvin MacKenzie' 'David Davis' 'speak truth to power' 'Dianne Abbott' 'commons speech'

Jacqui Smith has her script prepared. And rehearsed. Many times.

11 June 2008 .

Last month, Jacqui Smith was able to confirm to us that all departments had rigorously reviewed their security arrangements, so we could rest assured that the database on our ID cards would completely secure when the time came.

Appreciation papers of the highest restriction and sensitivity (which apparently shouldn't have been printed out at all, intended to be seen by only somewhere between 20 - 200 of the most senior and reliable people, as opposed to the third of a million plus minor officials who'll have access to our ID data) were left on a choo-choo this week. Fortunately, goes the party line, there was nothing to worry about, as the papers were returned intact (as have been all those discs, completed forms, photocopies etc. over the past year. Except the ones which haven't.) We have to be proud of how all this misplaced material keeps being found by honest members of the public who return it to the BBC.

Today, Jacqui Smith is able to confirm to us that all departments are rigorously reviewing their security arrangements, so we can rest assured that the database on our ID cards will completely secure when the time comes.

'Jacqui Smith' 'cloud-cuckoo land' 'Top secret'

The Captain of the RMS Social Justice all at sea, chucking his passengers overboard.

11 June 2008 .

Bad: The number of pensioners living in poverty has risen by 300,000 in the past year. The numbers of families with children living in poverty has risen by 1-200,000, depending on whom you read. [Govt figures]

Worse: As if those figure aren't stark enough, it should be remembered that the figures for poverty are calculated on pre-tax income. It should be a salutary reminder that the only group to have their income tax raised under the recent budget (and that quite substantially) have been those either in or very close to poverty - and it hasn't been vectored into the calculations: so look for even more people having fallen into poverty than the governments figures allow. [Govt figures +]

Worse Still: The calculations are supposed to have taken account of the considerable rises in council tax, according to some papers: so far as I know, this is a cost of living, and isn't vectored either (and anyway, it's also a tax, and calculations are on gross income): so look for even more people having fallen into poverty than the governments figures allow. [Govt figures + +]

Even Worse Still: The government is beginning to acknowledge that price rises are greatest in food and necessities, hitting the poorest hardest. It's accepted, however, that the inflation figures haven't yet adjusted accordingly, claiming around 3% - while many pensioners are in reality facing personal inflation closer to 15%: so look for even more people having fallen into poverty than the governments figures allow. [Govt figures + + +]

Brown is trumpeted by his allies as being deeply concerned about social justice. A considerable part of the causes the increased poverty arise from global influences which can't be in his control; and he certainly can't be blamed for them. But council tax is within his control, if he so chooses; as are monopoly charges by privatised companies (notably the railways and buses, on which the poorest most rely). But on top of it all, to go ahead with his tax increases on the poorest at this time, huffing and puffing with his certainty that he can do no wrong, reflects either the cynicism of his social justice claim or a quite bewildering incompetence.

When we talk about poverty in this country, we're generally talking about it relative to the prosperity of the UK population in general; we believe that, even at its worst, it doesn't compare with that suffered by millions in many other countries. Arguably, this is a complacent assumption: the infrastructure of the country no longer allows for the poor, the social infrastructure in particular having been effectively under government attack since perhaps 1979 (not with the deliberate antipathy which we were hearing about in, say, parts of South America but with a developing culture of negligence - ranging from Thatcher's 'there's no such thing as society' to Westminster's abolition of soup kitchens). I suggest that some of the poverty we see in this country is (or is returning to being) fairly absolute... I'll try to argue that point of view anon.

On the subject of social poverty: Crae (Children's Rights Alliance for England) submitted a report to the UN this week. I don't know whether there'll be much made of this report in the media, but it will suggest that poverty, lack of security, stress and many other factors have made children's lives harder and less happy or safe here since their last report (2002). Crae is an alliance of a hundred or so charities involved with children in this country: it's not the UN, but its findings and opinions are regarded as sound, there, as I understand. The UK has been slipping down the league tables in pretty well every area

• from education and achievement
• to health, self-respect and respect from society
• to conformity with the UN charter on the rights of the child (UNCRC, which includes the above, and to which the Crae report particularly refers).

for years now, especially latterly: again and again, we're figuring at or near the bottom compared to developed countries (and often to struggling, poor countries). Suggestions are that in reports later this year, and in the findings of the UN, the UK is going to paint an even sorrier picture.

Brown isn't doing that brilliantly for someone who cares about social justice, whatever the reasons.

Note: the only country which seems to have a more finger-pointing shameful record than our own seems to be the US (one of only two counties, along with Somalia, not to sign the UNCRC).

Added 12 June: It turns out that the figures (for increasing poverty) were researched a few months ago, and apply for the 12 months up to just before the new economic climate began to bite at the end of last year. That substantially removes much of the 'global influences' excuse which I was prepared to allow to Brown: he is more responsible than I had realised. [No thanks to those of yesterday's rags which did not make the relevant dates clear. But no change there...]

UNCRC Crae 'relative poverty' 'child poverty' 'social justice' 'council tax' 'income tax' 'economic climate'

The Truckers, hurting their friends.

11 June 2008 .

As the fuel crisis bites, truckers in western Europe (and all over, for all I know) block roads (UK), other truckers, tourists, (Portugal), cars, and even access of trucks to food shops needing to restock (Spain), the government here is telling us not to panic buy as supplies are threatened in a four day boycott.

And all this helps who, precisely? We're all in the same boat.

Truckers 'Fuel boycott' 'rolling roadblocks'

Another fortress against the attacks of Forces of Evil. Who are, of course, defeated and demoralised.

11 June 2008 .

The Great Helmsman has once again steered his people through the storms of imprudence and mutiny. He has our 42 days.

The vote was won in the Commons by the last minute shift of the nine sitting members of the Democratic Unionist Party, who came over to the Beleaguered Leader in a block. After several meetings between him and the DUP. Says it all, really, doesn't it.

[Or perhaps not quite all... there's obviously going to be a deal of commentary over the next day or two, during which the group decision of the DUP will no doubt be analysed; but in the end we'll accept this new crash through the remaining barriers of what it once meant to be English (assisted by a group of Ulster's finest, hardly noted in the past for their understanding of freedoms under the law).

[Or perhaps not quite all... there's obviously going to be a deal of commentary over the next day or two, during which the group decision of the DUP will no doubt be analysed; but in the end we'll accept this new crash through the remaining barriers of what it once meant to be English (assisted as it was by a group of Ulster's finest, hardly noted in the past for their understanding of freedoms under the law).

[The Independent today had its own take on what practical value a Commons oversight could possibly have over extended detentions - very little; to which I'll add that that oversight will be by the same craven mob who gave in today, at least some of them for no better reason than fear for their seats. In fact, today's whole article, although written ahead of the vote, is worth reading ('Brown enters the final 24 hours on his battle to win vote for 42 days' on p4. Indy headlines aren't always very crisp).]

Final thought for today from Shami Chakrabarti, of Liberty: "I am shocked, angry and more than a little disappointed to find that ministers have repeatedly sexed up the operational difficulties on the existing 28-day detention limit." Quite. "I hope the similarities with the infamous Iraqi vote will not be lost on Labour MPs." Quite. But, of course, they were. On too many.

'42 day vote' 'Shami Chakrabarti' DUP 'Unionist intransigents'

Back in your cars, folks!

11 June 2008 .

In the wake of the hope that there may be much more oil under the North Sea than we thought (A stay of execution for Britain's oil age: Shall we use it well? 7 June 2008, below) follows 'Oil shortage a myth, says industry insider' (The Independent, Monday, reporting on the thinking of Richard Pike, ex-oil industry and now chief executive of the Royal Society of Chemistry).

Dr. Pike suggests that published 'proven oil reserves' world-wide may be also be massive underestimates, acknowledging maybe half (or even less) of what actually exists; the conservative estimates result from the methods of accounting together with a wish to keep cards close to the chest. [This does seem to go against our recollection that Shell overstated its oil reserves in order to sustain its share prices, but there you go!] A similar picture exists for natural gas fields. Underestimating may have served the industry well, too, since our misconceptions will have helped to boost prices so high in recent weeks.

So, if what Dr. Pike is telling us is correct then, all round, there is much more oil to come than we thought, production isn't going to peak for a year or two yet and the oil shortage crisis isn't just around the corner. Prices might even come down a little... but I'm not holding my breath.

I'm not certain that I want to write what I'm about to; I don't much like the light it puts me in... but, here goes: it's about my reaction to this news.

I was surprised, then shocked, than ashamed... and finally very worried, to find that I felt a massive wave of totally self-centred relief: the crisis has been postponed, and there's a chance that it won't really start to bite until after I've gone (or at least 'til I'm too old to care). Ashamed et al because the relief was selfish; worried (and admitting my own reaction to you), because I realise that if my reaction is to think of my stay of execution, it's likely to be the reaction of a lot of other people, too... including decision-makers, some of whom will grab the chance for a few more years of prevarication.

There's been a deal of good news, in the last few weeks, suggesting that we have a real breathing space on a whole range of resource-exhaustion and climate-change issues. But, on past form we'll lose a sense of urgency and fritter away much of the time we've given. And some of the deniers are going to be reinforced in their unscience, slipping only too easily (and wrongly) into 'I told you so' mode.

Perhaps the rational approach, for me, is to behave reasonably responsibly for the rest of my life, and leave the worrying to others: I wonder how many other people will feel that's okay for them, too. I'm all right, Jack.

• My previous item (from the BBC) quoted British reserves at 20 -30 billion barrels of reserves. The Indy didn't mention Britain at all, despite listing the 'top twenty countries' down to Azerbaijan (7 billion barrels) and India (5.5 billion).
• Not everybody is convinced that Dr. Pike is correct; Jeremy Leggett (author: Half Gone): "Capacity coming on stream falls fast beyond 2011... On top of that, if the big old fields start collapsing, the descent in supply will hit the world very hard."
• And any and every extra barrel of oil is extra pollution and CO2 to be pumped into the atmosphere...

'Dr. Richard Pike' 'Jeremy Leggett' 'Oil shortage a myth'

Sentimental Send-off.

9 June 2008 .

On his farewell trip to Europe, Bush is meeting European leaders. Talks are focussing on areas of agreement, 'such as the need to deal with Iran...' (BBC)

Hmmm.


Oceania continues to prevail against the dastardly and cowardly regime in Eurasia. Forward with Big Brother.

9 June 2008 .

I spent the evening at a friend's house, with BBC rolling news gently reassuring us in the background: the security position in 'British controlled' areas of Iraq continues to improve; Bush is more welcomed on his current visit to Europe than previously because of the success of the 'surge' and other initiatives in Iraq; such and such 'was' the case during the war in Iraq... Perhaps it's all true; surely it isn't all the 1984-ish propaganda it so doesn't sound like. Who can say?


If you can't manage to say the right thing, Mr. Browne, just say nothing.

9 June 2008 .

As fatalities amongst British soldiers in Afghanistan (this time around) reach 100, Des Browne reassures the families of the three most recent casualties that "their deaths have not been in vain".

In the light of his implication yesterday (well, stronger than that: almost so many words, really) about how uselessly unemployable our recruits are, I think he ought to shut up.

'Des Browne' Afghanistan

A warning, or simply an endorsement with caveats?

8 June 2008 .

Keith Vaz has been interviewed on the BBC today, alongside reports and comments in the papers, about the parliamentary Home Affairs Committee report, A Surveillance Society.

On the face of it, it's excellent news that an influential group of MPs is firing a warning shot over the executive's bow concerning CCTVs and databases, addressing both inherent risks and the public's growing reservations.

A degree of reservation, however: at first, the caveats seemed to extend to ID cards, as in, best to avoid them; but, that's not what's being said at all. The sub-text turns out to be, make sure that all the procedures are as watertight as you can make them, keep parliament in the loop, and then by all means go ahead with ID cards. The problems are that:

1) We are forever being told that procedures having been tightened so that 'failings' won't be repeated (items on this site refer to incidents going back to the 1980s). There's no reason to suppose that the cycle of mistakes, followed by reassurances that procedures 'have now been updated', won't carry on in exactly the same way it always has;

2) Where our liberties are concerned - and the growing use of both surveillance and databases - MPs haven't always been even close to the ball over the past decade. (The resistance to 42 day detentions without charge is encouraging, it's true, but these are the same MPs who allowed such detentions to be extended from 24 hours to 28 days in the first place, within the last ten years. And they've done very little to impede some of the government's most illiberal legislation.)

'A Surveillance Society' 'Home Affairs Committee' 'government databases' 'ID cards'

Supporting the chaps, contemporary style.

8 June 2008 .

Des "Two Jobs" (neither with notable competence) Browne, wearing his Defence Secretary hat, suggests that soldiers' (very) poor pay is justified, despite the dangers they face, because many would fail to get better-paid jobs outside the army (which, even if true, would be neither here nor there). This is the guy who's actually meant to be fighting their corner, especially in a time of war.

Browne to the Royal British Legion: "... for a number of young people, particularly those who join the army, before they join the army, they would not have been accepted by any of these organisations" (police, fire service, traffic wardens, all of whom are paid considerably more). Boom. [The Legion's response was that "Mr. Browne's comments are deeply offensive and could hardly be more insulting."]

Des Browne's spokesman, later: "To suggest the Defence Secretary is in any way inferring that those who join the Armed Forces could not do other jobs is nonsense." Boom boom. Standard new labour two-step (right down to the quality of their spoken English.

Footnote: A contrast and a fine old English tradition.

• Some soldiers wouldn't have been able to get a well paid job outside the army (or so says Browne). Therefore they should be paid less.
• Many MPs wouldn't have been able to get a better paid job outside parliament. Therefore they should be paid more.

'MPs pay' 'Des Browne' 'Soldier's low pay'

MPs on a flying visit to the real world.

8 June 2008 .

MPs warn that Britain may be sliding into being (or, "may be in danger of becoming") a surveillance society. About time they said something - perhaps a bit better if they'd done so when the Regulation of Investigative Powers Act was before the house, years ago, but there you go.

I just wish they lived on the same planet as me: I've lived in a surveillance society for a long time: see ad infinitum on this site. At the very least, being caught on CCTV 300 times a day without any choice or say in the matter probably qualifies me.

RIPA 'Regulation of Investigative Powers Act' 'surveillance society'

d'Ancona on Smith

6 June 2008 .

Speaking of Jacqui Smith:

Matthew d'Ancona, editor of the Spectator, on one of the most illiberal and uncomprehending of Home Secretaries this country has known (having indeed known one or two!): 'In a government stuffed with malfunctioning robots, nervous wrecks and preening Fauntleroys, Jacqui Smith shows every sign of being a fully paid-up member of the human race.' (Fauntleroys?)

I used to read the Spectator, although it longed ago passed East Ham. I finally gave up after Boris Johnson became editor (nice to see that he's already brought some of the values of that mag to his mayorship of our fair city - not). It must finally have reached Barking. Not that any member of an erstwhile socialist party should be too pleased to receive praise from the strongly right-wing Spectator at the best of times. [I was also a regular reader of the Salisbury Review, which at least had the virtue of intellect - I only gave up on that because it was like reading a diet of Lenin, but from the Conservative right.]

'Matthew d'Ancona' 'Jacqui Smith' 'Spectator'

Justice: a stranger in a strange land.

6 June 2008 .

I don't know what triggered this off in me today, in particular; perhaps it was something somebody said; but it's an itch which has bothered me (and I'm sure a lot of other folk) for months.

Criminals whose guilt is undisputed being chucked out of jug early because of the overcrowding crisis are being giving just short of 10 for each day short of their time; the media describe this as compensation for the loss of bed and board which they should have enjoyed while being still banged up, although I hope the authorities have a more rational explanation.

Innocent persons who have shared the same accommodation because of miscarriages of justice (often very serious, and often for years longer than guilty persons because they wouldn't 'admit' their guilt), who have then been released because innocence has finally been established, have been asked to pay sometimes tens of thousands of pounds back to the government to pay for the bed and board they enjoyed while being (wrongly) banged up.

What's not to find surreal? What's not to find shocking?

'prison overcrowding' 'miscarriage of justice'

Harmany 'n Marriage.

5 June 2008 .

The following are fairly substantial extracts from an article by Leo Mckinstry, "Why does Harriet Harman hate marriage?"

Political ideologues live in a permanent state of denial, refusing to accept any evidence that contradicts them. A classic example of this pattern lies in family policy. For decades, feminist zealots have told us that family structure is irrelevant, fathers are unnecessary for child-rearing and marriage is outdated. These views have had a disastrous influence, encouraging the state to preside over the breakdown in the traditional family. The results are everywhere - in crime, in benefits dependency, poverty and the rising costs to public services. Yet, amid all this wreckage, hardliners still cling to their dogma.

And none is more hardline than the High Priestess of British Feminism, Harriet Harman. In an extraordinary interview (published, 19th May?), she declared marriage was 'irrelevant' to public policy and described high rates of separation as a 'positive development', as it reflected 'greater choice' for couples - never mind the children.

She was preaching this dangerous gospel of feminist fascism when she was first elected to Parliament in 1982... in the early Nineties, Harman was questioning whether fathers were necessary at all. In her 26 years as MP, she appears to have learnt nothing from representing the poor South London constituency of Camberwell and Peckham. It not only has one of the highest rates of lone parenthood in the country, but is also one of the most deprived and crimeridden areas in Britain. Yet in Harriet Harman's mind, these two points are not connected... this wilful creation of fractured society in her own midst did not bother Harriet.

'Families come in all shapes and sizes', has long been one of the favourite mantras of the Left. Research studies have shown, however, that children do better when raised in married families. Tony Blair's favourite think-tank, the Institute for Public Policy Research, concluded that a stable background means you are less likely to be out of work, live off the State, become single parents or even smoke. Children of married parents do better in exams, according to other studies, and are less likely to have mental difficulties. The Commons Home Affairs Committee has shown that levels of family breakdown among the black community are propelling teenagers into a life of crime.

Mckinstry says that for many years, while he worked for Harman and after he left to become a writer, he retained some affection for her... He goes on: In 1998, when she was being attacked for her poor handling of the welfare portfolio, I even wrote an article in (the Mail) in her defence.

But over the past decade, I have become increasingly disillusioned. I can now see what aggravates so many people about her: the politically correct condescension; smug self-certainty despite a record of incompetence; the whiff of born-to-rule arrogance; the attachment to the shibboleths of multi-culturalism and feminism.

Harman is the embodiment of so much that is wrong with New Labour. Born into affluent privilege herself, Harman is that classic socialist type that regards the robust British working class with suspicion.

But Harriet's greatest vice - and there are many - is her hypocrisy. She is now the Deputy Leader of a party that, in its latest by-election campaign in Crewe, has descended into the gutter of class warfare, deriding its opponents as 'toffs'. Yet few figures in modern politics have enjoyed greater privilege than Harman. Her father was a Harley Street surgeon, her uncle the Earl of Longford. She was educated at the exclusive St Paul's Girls' School, before going on to York University and legal training. And like so many of the New Labour elite, she has never had a real job in the commercial world. Before she entered Parliament, she worked as the legal officer for the radical pressure group, the National Council for Civil Liberties.

Further hypocrisy comes in the way she is raising her family - Harman's attachment to the socialist ideal of comprehensive education clearly does not extend to her own life. She sent one of her sons to a grant-maintained school, another to a selective grammar, reinforcing the belief that too many Labour politicians refuse to practise what they preach.

The fact Harman has retained high office for so long is a tribute to her iron-clad self-confidence. In 11 years of Labour rule she has no significant achievements to her name. She was sacked from the Cabinet by Blair in 1998 for making a hash of the policy of welfare reform. Since then she has used a succession of jobs, first Solicitor-General and now Minister for Equalities and Leader of the Commons as a platform to propound her dated brand of feminism...

But then Harman has never had time for the British public, preferring to patronise rather than listen. She wants to shape society instead of serving its genuine needs. Her entire career, based on the elitist belief that she knows best, represents a betrayal of the traditional working class - the very people Labour was founded to represent.

This article was published in the Mail (or Mail on Sunday) towards the end of May. I regret I can't be more precise - it came to me from a friend as a print-out. I hope that Mr. Mckinstry would excuse quite such an extensive copy.

I suspect that something similar could be written about a number of New Labour MPs; comparable articles about Tory MPs would, I'm afraid, be equally scathing but in different directions... (I hope that that isn't what voting for one party rather than another has come down to.)

I should like to say that I have no personal antipathy to Harman; I'm lucky enough that my life has been filled with friendship and kindness - without (I thought) any time for dislike or contempt. Regrettably, my opinion has gradually changed with time: I have come to believe that the Harmans of this world are so damaging that it's impossible not to have a distaste for them which becomes really quite personal - and so poisonous that I believe it's almost a duty, not only to feel antipathy but to express it.

There are so many levels on which this article rings bells... but, in passing, I suggest that Mckinstry misses a primary element of Harmanism here (of which I'll bet he's well aware), namely, the bullying, thought-policing nature of its political correctness - a familiar feature of working life in my own dear People's Republic of Islington.

Reference, inter alia; these recent items on this site:

• Mixed messages. 3 June 2008 (below, on this page)
• A kid needs a dad like a fish needs a bicycle. 28 May 2008 (Journal 21 -31 May)
• Harriet Harman, Whip. 26 May 2008 ( Journal 21 - 31 May)

'Harriet Harman' 'Leo Mckinstry' 'traditional family' 'Minister for Equalities' 'Leader of the Commons'

Primarolo again.

4 June 2008 .

Further to my scathing comment on the Primarolo-clone's parliamentary style last weekend (Primavera for Primarolo? 1 June, below); I noticed this on the Daily Telegraph website this evening, posted by Jonathan Isaby:

• According to an analysis of Hansard reports undertaken by Theresa May, the shadow Leader of the Commons, Primarolo is making more corrections to the statements she gives MPs than any other member of the Government.
• In fact, May reckons, Primarolo was alone responsible for one in ten of all the corrections issued by ministers since January. I suppose she can at least claim to be "listening and learning".

'Dawn Primarolo' corrections 'Hansard reports' 'Jonathan Isaby'

Obama as nominee...

4 June 2008 .

At last!

Now that Clinton is apparently about to concede (no matter how strangely she's choosing to handle it, not to say selfishly... bargaining for VPship?), we can start worrying about how good a president Obama will really be...

I am assuming a Democrat win in November.


Mixed messages.

3 June 2008 .

Birth certificate rules are being tightened so that the father's name can't be left off, assuming paternity can be established. For mothers who would otherwise be abandoned, or for fathers who presently have no rights at all if the mother doesn't consent, this is probably a move toward greater fairness. Although, if neither mother nor father want his name registered, I'm not sure what the authorities can do without going completely OTT. Will they fine the mother? Or put her prison?

What's puzzling is that this new firmness is being adopted just as the same government is bullying its MPs into voting for same sex (presumably including female) partnerships to adopt, and IVF to be given to women without a male partner. So they're quite happy to organise children to have no fathers.

[I'm prepared to find that somewhere along the line I've got my facts wrong; but the contradiction I've perceived, whether correctly or not, is straight from the media.]

'Birth certificate' paternity IVF lesbian parents

Peace and quiet.

2 June 2008 .

I didn't get a chance to get hold of a newspaper, today, nor to hear more than a few minutes of the news. I should try it more often - I might live longer. It doesn't stop me from opinionating, though, fortunately for the healthy operation of democracy in this great nation...


Does Brown want to alienate us?

2 June 2008 .

Brown told us today that he's trying to build "a consensus" around his 42 day detention hobbyhorse.

I truly want to stop criticising nurse, for fear of something worse, but the Moral Compass Of His People is such a control-freak. 'Consensus' implies, if not demands, compromise. Hanging on to an idea like grim death and refusing to budge, trying to cajole, bully or bribe a sufficient majority to get your idea onto the books may be impressive politics, stubbornness worthy of a gong or the grinding power of carborundum but it has nothing to do with consensus.

Somebody, please tell the man.

Added later: I've written on this site that I should like to stop having a go at Brown; he's too easy a target (or, at least, the media give us plenty of ammunition), and there's no other Labour or Tory MP I'd like to see as PM who's yet ready for the post. (I wouldn't have minded Vincent Cable, I suspect...).

And, that the backstabbing from Brown's own party does neither party nor country any good - agreement with his ideas not being a requirement, but a degree of loyalty being very definitely so, (a qualification which it's becoming so clear that David Miliband lacks that I have abandoned my brief hope that he might be a good future PM).

But Brown's lack of understanding, his control-freakery and his whole wounded-bull-in-a-china-shop act evidenced in this idea that 'he's looking for consensus', all conspire to make it impossible to wish him well, even for the country's sake.

'Vincent Cable' 'David Miliband' '42 day' consensus compromise Brown

Primavera for Primarolo? I don't think it'll reach the top ten...

1 June 2008 .

I watched health minister Dawn Primarolo, on the Parliament Channel yesterday, as she presented some pretty vital details of the fertility bill to the (less than full) house.

Her sentences were so obtuse, her delivery so flat and lacking in any inspiration whatsoever, that in my mind I couldn't begin to put a structure to what she said. Misplacing my self-confidence... I assumed briefly, as the life ebbed from my soul, that the fog which spread through my mind was due to my own failing faculties. (She reminded me of a couple of teachers I've known.)

After a few minutes, however, I was quite relieved to realise from the ever-so slight sense of desperation which I detected in their questions and comments, that the rest of the MPs were as trapped in the fog as I was. Her responses to them ranged from 'I've already explained that one' (!) to 'Perhaps you could wait until I've swamped you a bit more before you ask your question'.

The hand gestures, the clothes, the hair and the expression of earnest (if slightly dented) moral self-certainty were all pure blair babe.

I know that Primarolo has her own historical collection of ineptitudes but, since I haven't noticed her since I started this site, I'd forgotten them. Judging by yesterday's effort, I probably forgot them within two to three minutes of when they happened.

This is the bitchiest attack I've made on this site; but I make no apology. I don't think a mass of testostronic charismatics does anything for our government - I'd far rather have good, experienced, professional managers... bureaucrats, even. The problem is that we're being fobbed off with people who sound like bureaucrats, but incompetent and without even the skill to communicate. Primarolo, one of a set of similarly self-righteous but ultimately ineffectual blair imports, is actually an abuse... to which we have the right and possibly the duty to respond.

'boring politics' Primarolo

The first English astronaut on Tharg will complain because the Zeetons don't serve fish'n'chips.

1 June 2008 .

Several rags report on an English chap who took his family on a holiday in Greece.

Upon his return, he claimed 750 back from the tour company on the grounds that nobody at his destination had spoken English... at least, that was the amount upheld in court! None of the reports I saw mentioned as to whether this chap had specified somewhere where they spoke English when he booked his hols, but I really do suggest Frinton, next time.

'Holiday complaints' 'English tourist'

Return to Current Journal
Journal 21 May - 31 May 2008

Site Map