“That was a disaster - they should never have put me with that woman. Whose idea was that? It’s just ridiculous…”

Followed by:

“She’s just a sort of bigoted woman that said she used to be Labour. I mean it’s just ridiculous. I don’t know why Sue brought her up towards me.”

We learn a great deal about people when their guard is lowered, they are caught off-guard or they are outside their safety zone. In 2001 John Prescott demonstrated his statesmanship by throwing a punch at an egg-throwing protester. While I consider hurling eggs a pretty infantile form of protest, I am always interested in the response of the victim. Mr Prescott showed us all that he was without dignity, hot-headed and totally unaware of his position. Tony Blair shrugged the incident off with a “That’s John”. What on earth does that actually mean? It said a great deal to me about both men.

On the BBC Politics Show of 14 March 2010 Gordon Brown faced a group of undecided voters to hear their views and answer their questions. He failed to engage, failed to empathise and looked throughout as if he would much rather have been watching X- factor. An NHS Psychology professional described a situation of overwork, stress and continual change of management. The expression on Gordon Brown’s face and his body language were a picture of weary resignation and tedium. He had heard it all before - why did he have to keep repeating himself to these wearisome grumblers? Don’t they know that the world is a better place because he says it is?

And now we have The Tale of the Widow of Rochdale. Heard here was a precis, a summary, of Labour both Old and New: all affability, a kindly expression and an apparent ear to concerns, but a disdainful and sneering dismissal when the back is turned.

Gordon Brown has always been someone who leaves me with a very uneasy feeling in my stomach. I have always been wary of people who don’t want anybody to know exactly what they are up to. They seem to wish to create the impression that what they are doing is far too important and involved to waste valuable time explaining it to lesser intellects. In my experience it is far more likely to be the case that they don’t want their weaknesses exposed to scrutiny and their decisions open to criticism. In the areas both of ability and listening to the electorate, it is becoming ever more obvious why Gordon Brown liked to keep his cards close to his chest.

“Of course I apologise if I’ve said anything that’s been offensive……” If? Only Gordon Brown could be in any doubt, but then, convinced of his own infallibility, he has never learned how to apologise with any grace.

The first PMQs of the year on Wednesday January 6 showed that nothing has changed. Gordon Brown (I dislike referring to him as ‘Prime Minister’, he is a long way from meriting that title in my opinion) continues to patronise the populace and demean his office by playing games at the despatch box. (I don’t mean to imply that all the other members of the house are blameless, but he is the man to set an example – and he fails dismally and consistently to do so.)

The object of this paltry thirty minutes is for any MP to ask the Prime Minister a direct question on any subject for which he has ultimate responsibility, and receive a direct answer. It is apparent that Gordon Brown considers answering any question an admission of defeat – and Gordon Brown does not like to admit defeat.

Anyone who has seen the film The Matrix will be familiar with a special effects technique now known as Bullet Time. In these scenes every movement slows down. Bullets are fired and their path from weapon to target clearly seen. The intended victim, however, is equally capable of observing the missile and, in equally slow, almost balletic motion, sinuously twists to avoid it. This is the only skill that Gordon Brown has mastered.

PMQs should be renamed Gordon Brown’s Bullet Time. Questions are aimed accurately, but he twists, he turns, he writhes, he wriggles. He doesn’t feel them so he doesn’t have to answer them. And, in spite of this brief weekly session existing for the purpose of exacting answers, it invariably consists of Gordon Brown asking the questions.

Almost equally frustrating is listening to the political pundits afterwards debating whether   Gordon Brown put up a ‘good performance’. The usual measure of this is how many times he has embarrassed David Cameron and Nick Clegg – not how many times he has given a sound answer to a demanding question. Perhaps this is one situation where a public phone-in vote would be meaningful.

I watch these thirty minutes regularly with a feeling of deep foreboding. I know I am going to be disappointed and depressed and Gordon Brown never fails to meet my expectations.

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23779546-climate-change-sceptics-are-todays-flat-earth-brigade.do

I am a fool. I am lacking in the most basic intellectual tools and am blind to the blatantly obvious. Not only this, I have some unaccountable and stupid distrust of ’scientists’, ‘experts’ and, astonishingly, politicians. This must be so because Ed Miliband, in the Evening Standard on Friday December 4, says so.

The proof of my mental incapacity lies in the fact that I am unsure of the reality of drastic climate change and its causes. In keeping, then, with the established policy of You are either with us or against us, I, and any questions I have, are justifiably dismissed and ridiculed. Some suitably denigrating descriptions must also be applied. After all, if you really want to diminish the opinions of those who question your theories, give them silly names. I am thus:-

• A member of the flat-earth brigade
• A denier
• A gainsayer (Good one that, very medieval with all that brings to mind.)

Almost all my working life has been as a technician, analysing and repairing electro-mechanical and electronic equipment. About thirty-five years of it, in fact. I have
repaired audio equipment, telephone exchanges and computers. During this time I have learned many things. (Many of them about myself rather than machines. Incidentally, I was an ‘expert’ once.)

One of the main lessons is that it is very difficult to correctly address a problem if you don’t understand it. If the root cause of a problem is not known then you run the risk of wasting time, money and effort. Also, if you apply the wrong solution you are very likely to make matters worse. So analysis must be as thorough as possible. Theories are developed and tested. Hypotheses are expounded and examined. It’s fine to even guess at the cause of a failure providing it can be ultimately shown to be true. (There is also the risk that if you get it wrong, regaining the trust of your customers is very difficult. This is something that applies to everything we do. Our politicians have conveniently short memories, it seems.)

I also learnt that you do not ignore the views, opinions and - very important - observations of others who may not be technical. There can be much value in the ideas of those who do not share your particular discipline.

An open mind is essential until it is perfectly clear what is going on. Only then can you develop the right fix and be sure that the problem will not return. As we stand today I do not believe that we have all the facts about Climate Change. That’s basically it. I do read articles and watch programmes on TV. Without going into the various pros and cons I feel (not a technical word) that the climate is changing, but I am not at all sure that mankind is to blame. This attitude may make me wrong but it doesn’t make me a fool. Having an economist tell me that I should not be an upstart and question The Scientists makes me very irritable indeed. (Even Stephen Hawking reversed his views on the behaviour of black holes after a gap of thirty years.)

I believe that if I cannot get someone round to my point of view it is most likely because I am wrong or because I have failed to put my case cogently. It is not usually because the other person is an idiot. Ed Miliband might care to consider this possibility as he read philosophy at college. But perhaps reading and digesting were not taking place simultaneously. A little like a Labour Government that talks much and achieves little.

http://www.pistonheads.com/news/default.asp?storyId=20842

And I’ll wager it may disappoint but it wont surprise.

Here we see proof, if any more proof was needed, that our current administration will sacrifice any democratic or legal principle when it needs to address its endless incompetences - in this case financial. Also, with its usual arrogance and craft, it has attempted to sneak this change past the checks and balances of our system under cover of darkness.

It’s quite simple, really. Motorists are having their ‘offences’ overturned in court and their costs are then paid for by the government. (Always remember that when it comes to paying out money in this type of scenario ‘the government’ gets the cash from you and me.) These cases are costing the government money. This government is good at wasting money and now has a large hole to fill, but it is particularly unhappy when it comes to giving it back to the man in the street – or in the car. The number of men in cars successfully challenging tickets is about one in four, or 400,000 which adds up to a tidy sum in returned costs.

But never fear, the ingenuity of this government comes into its own at a time like this and a simple solution has been arrived at – or fabricated, if you want to look at it that way. It works like this – don’t pay. Problem solved. Next! Is it fair? Is it just? Is it right that an innocent motorist should have to bear the costs of successfully challenging his unfair penalty? What has that got do do with anything?

And is it just pure irony that the organisation planning to implement this system is the Ministry of Justice. Have you read Orwell’s 1984? Gordon Brown must consider it a reference manual rather than an allegory.

They won’t waste time finding out why 400,000 motoring ‘offences’ are wrong and save a great deal of time as well as money. Fixing a problem at source really is not the forte of the Labour Party, after all. No, just make the innocent pay for the errors (or worse) of the police and other authorities.

And there is an additional benefit, of course. If you risk a fine of £50 - £100 but legal costs of several times that if you pursue a challenge even if you win, it would make sense to just pay up. Win – win for the government then. More money and fewer challenges.

Another tyrannical and oppressive ‘big brother’ decision – what else would we expect?

The UK energy companies, as is only too well known, are an even more extreme case. They have the entire population over a barrel and understand very well how to make good and selfish use of their position and power. It is the case that energy companies are permitted to charge customers higher prices without telling them for up to 65 days. Why? I have no idea.

The Energy Retailers Association supports the current system. Hardly surprising. Its chief executive, Garry Felgate, said: ‘The most relevant way for customers to hear about a price change, either up or down, is on their energy bill.’ What tosh this is. When Mr Felgate buys his wife her next Mercedes, I presume he would have no problem if the charge on his credit card statement was higher than the one he agreed with the salesman. ‘We didn’t think you would mind’ the salesman might say, ‘We knew you would find out eventually’. I guess Mr Felgate doesn’t have to budget and assumes lesser mortals shouldn’t crib at such minor inconveniences.

It really is about time organisations such as Ofgem began to stand up for the general public, the customer, the paymasters. I believe this is a good place to start.

I recall Jeremy Clarkson telling a story of being in the USA and being told off by a patrolman for parking his car in ‘the wrong place’. Clarkson pointed out that where his vehicle was caused no obstruction, ‘common sense’ indicated that no problem was being created and that the law, in this case, was illogical. The patrolman replied that ‘When you have laws, you don’t need common sense’. I believe that even Clarkson was stumped for a reply.

So, when you have the Great Book of Rules in your hand you don’t need common sense, or initiative, or empathy, or trust. You certainly wouldn’t consider questioning the edict that led to your conclusion. ‘Not my job, guv’ is the mentality in evidence in situations such as this. In fact all that is really required is a computer on legs – an automaton.

There is a new chapter in the seemingly infinite saga of Authoritarian Oppression of the individual. It revolves around the story of two police women detectives and their mutual child care arrangement. Quite simply they found it convenient to take turns looking after both their young children. It suited their working shift patterns, was simple to manage and kept both children safe and happy.

But someone unknown was not happy to see this and reported it. With the promptness of action for which government departments are famous – when it suits them – the rule book was checked and lo, under the huge section headed Thou Shalt Not, a suitable infringement was quickly identified. A minister of The Book of Rules was despatched to explain that this arrangement was Not Permitted. Why? Because there was a mutual benefit. But, one might naively protest, that is the whole point. However, where I say benefit, The Man sees pound signs. To him benefit = reward and reward means something that should be paid for. It also means something that should be policed.

Quote: Reward is not just a case of money changing hands. The supply of services or goods and, in some circumstances, reciprocal arrangements can also constitute reward.

So there we are. Because you are getting a service for free that someone else would charge for, it’s a reward. Because someone else’s child is involved, you need to be registered.

Next time my neighbour helps me fix my broken fence I will check whether I should pay HMRC. Should I ever see a five year old drowning in a river, I will get a CRB check before diving in. And make no mistake, these ludicrous situations are not happenstance or progress. They are entirely the results of this Labour Government and a set of ministers who trust no-one and can see no way of improving society other than through half-baked and ill-considered laws. Imagination they have none, and being so afflicted therefore assume the same applies to everyone else.

How cheering it would be to learn that the inspector involved returned to her office and said ‘I have had to make a decision according to the rules, but something is wrong here and requires attention’. I suspect that even if this had happened, management response would have been along the lines of ‘Not your job, mate’.

Control-freakery is the phrase that comes to mind. And given that New Labour was created by people with just that attitude to the people of this country it is hardly surprising.

By nature I am conservative (with a small ‘c’). If I could choose the socio-economic system that has the most appeal for social equality, respect and fairness it would be communism. The principle of ‘from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs’ suits my ideals very well.

Unfortunately, this system won’t work, cannot work and has proven itself unworkable. Capitalism delivers - after a fashion.

Why should this be? People. People, on the whole, do not exist by principles. Society, in its most general meaning, is comprised of characters that range from Mother Theresa to Adolf Hitler. There are those with little who would give their last penny and those with much who would take it. It has always been thus and I can see no reason why it will not remain so. As a realist, I consider we must therefore work with what we are rather than what we wish we were.

It is quite understandable that anyone should aspire to financial stability so that they and their family should not want. So the essential principles of capitalism are natural and not to be despised - but avarice and raw greed, that, surely, is something else. When I think of the huge fortunes being amassed by relatively few people, even as a pragmatist I find myself appalled. And there are even those who, while making more money than most of us can imagine, are prepared to risk the savings of others, and even break the law, in order to increase their personal wealth.

Why? I honestly don’t know. As I commented earlier - it takes all kinds.

However, a scene from one of Humphrey Bogart’s films - Key Largo - comes to mind. The bad guy, Johnny Rocco, played by Edward G Robinson, has taken over a hotel during a violent storm and is terrorising those sheltering inside. The hotel owner cannot understand what the villain is trying to achieve.

Johnny Rocco: There’s only one Johnny Rocco.
James Temple: How do you account for it?
Frank McCloud: He knows what he wants. Don’t you, Rocco?
Johnny Rocco: Sure.
James Temple: What’s that?
Frank McCloud: Tell him, Rocco.
Johnny Rocco: Well, I want uh …
Frank McCloud: He wants more, don’t you, Rocco?
Johnny Rocco: Yeah. That’s it. More. That’s right! I want more!
James Temple: Will you ever get enough?
Frank McCloud: Will you, Rocco?
Johnny Rocco: Well, I never have. No, I guess I won’t. You, do you know what you want?
Frank McCloud: Yes, I had hopes once, but I gave them up.
Johnny Rocco: Hopes for what?
Frank McCloud: A world in which there’s no place for Johnny Rocco.

Is this the way it is, I wonder? They want more, as simple as that.

So Stephen Hester takes a job ’sorting out’ RBS after the previous incumbent, Fred Goodwin, fell asleep at the helm while the ship ran onto the rocks. (Mr Goodwin was presumably not ‘One Of The Best’ but he still got paid as if he was.) Mr Hester will get £1.2 million per annum plus a few extras that will take him up to £9.6 million. This is on the proviso that he doubles the share price of RBS. Was it not this kind of contract that caused the problem in the first place?

£1,200,000 per year. Plus incentives. Plus expenses, of course. Can you imagine how the deal was negotiated?

The Government: Hello Stephen, we need to try to sort RBS out, or at least to make an effort. Fancy a shot?

Stephen Hester: I’ll give it a go. What’s the offer?

TG: What would you like?

SH: Whatever you have in mind plus a lot more.

TG: That sounds fair.

And this is all happening while the gap between rich and poor in the UK and the world grows ever wider. And the money for the rich doesn’t come from falling stardust. It comes from the rest of the global community. If these people actually had to collect their millions by knocking on the doors of ordinary people, many of whom are living on a pittance, I wonder if they would be quite so self-assured. I am seriously beginning to doubt whether capitalism is more virtue than vice. It seems to be a system where the Johnny Roccos are feeling right at home.

(And I note that, according to The Sunday Times business section, city firms are drawing up schemes to help staff dodge the new 50% tax rate. Doesn’t really require comment, does it?)

]]> http://www.whoarethesepeople.co.uk/?feed=rss2&p=90 http://www.whoarethesepeople.co.uk/?p=80 http://www.whoarethesepeople.co.uk/?p=80#comments Sun, 05 Jul 2009 19:53:00 +0000 admin http://www.whoarethesepeople.co.uk/?p=80 Quotes (from The Sunday Times):

• An urgent investigation has been ordered into whether rules aimed at preventing lying parents from flouting the schools admissions system should be toughened.

• Harrow council dropped its case…because they were unsure that the Fraud Act would cover admissions cases.

• Their decision exposes the lack of legislation to prosecute school admission cheats and may lead to middle-class parents becoming more brazen in their attempts to colonise the best schools.

• Council leaders said they were considering using perjury laws in future cases…….

(These are quotes from the reporters and my italics.)

So no stone is being left unturned to find a way to persecute – oops, prosecute – lying, fraudulent, cheating and brazen parents who are callously intent on getting their children the best education.

And if that doesn’t get the desired results there are always the anti-terrorist laws. Pour encourager les autres, perhaps?

(Note. The mother in question has now put her child into a private school. That still leaves a lot of poor people to browbeat, though.)

You may have seen this:-

http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2009/may/29/school-application-fraud-case

A mother who faces jail and a fine for trying get her child into the school she considered the best. My blood literally boils at this. Harrow council is suitably smug and self-satisfied at apprehending and prosecuting this fiendish and socially disruptive criminal. What would happen to their social engineering plans if everyone was allowed to choose the best education for their children? Why, the council might have to take account of the needs and desires of the people it professes to serve. Can you imagine the effort that would entail?

Note:

But council investigators found tax records placed her at a different residential address, two miles away from the popular school.

It’s heartening to appreciate the investigative skills and capabilities of the council - or should it be The Council. Capitalisation conveys the true status of this organisation more effectively, I feel. Or, given the ease of access to the tax records of a private citizen (is there such an animal any more?), The State Machine is a phrase which comes more immediately to mind. Jacqui Smith must be delighted to see how effectively the sharing of personal information across government organisations can nail really evil people – hold on – wasn’t that aimed at terrorists? Ah, but then, if you haven’t done anything wrong you have nothing to fear. However, if you have done anything wrong, you are fair game. That’s the brave new world Jacqui Smith wants us to live in.

But the explanation is clear:

David Ashton, leader of the council, said: “Of course we understand that parents feel very strongly about their first choice of school. However, our first duty is to ensure that the admissions system is scrupulously fair and seen to be so.”

This, of course, is Council Code. Decrypted it becomes much clearer:

Sentence 1:

For their own selfish reasons parents feel very strongly about their first choice of school but that is of secondary importance to The Council.

Sentence 2:

The really important thing is that no effort be spared in ensuring that no citizen succeeds in bypassing The System.

Maximilian Robespierre would no doubt approve:

Terror is only justice: prompt, severe and inflexible; it is then an emanation of virtue; it is less a distinct principle than a natural consequence of the general principle of democracy, applied to the most pressing wants of the country.

And look what happened to him.

None of us are without some taint of hypocrisy and self-justification. It is normal, it is human to be occasionally weak and opportunist and give in to a desire to follow the rules that suit us while evading those that do not. However, those who accept the role of making or enforcing rules for others have implicitly accepted that their own standards must be set particularly high. School teachers, the police, councilors, other officials and MPs have all tacitly signed an agreement with the rest of us that says; ‘we will set an example’. If they have not signed, and if they cannot agree then, quite simply, they are in the wrong job.

I do not mean that they must never fall short of the ideal but they must assuredly aspire to it. This they most certainly do not. The letter of the rules, not the spirit, is the watchword.

I may be naïve or pedantic but the following logic seems to me to be fascinatingly convenient:

We made The Rules

We followed The Rules

The Rules need to be changed

But - we did nothing wrong

(Presumably we are to conclude that they were unaware that The Rules needed to be changed until the Great Unwashed were made aware of the ramifications. Coincidence, of course. In the fullness of time, no doubt, these pillars of society would have attended to the matter even if the media hadn’t noticed.)

Yet, to my dismay, this is the effective response to the hard question posed to every MP that I have seen, heard or read so far, that question being - ‘has any MP done anything wrong?’

What an invidious position they have put us all in. We can no longer trust the competence or integrity of bankers. Now we are unable to trust our MPs. But we cannot survive without either of these groups. It’s a case of heads they win, tails we lose. They have us all by the throat.

And what of the solution? For many of us working for organisations large and small, justifying and claiming business expenses was a tedious but necessary chore. It was quite understandable that your employer paid you a salary for the work you did, and paid your expenses separately in order to enable you to do that work. There are many ways of doing this but a simple arrangement of checks and balances, along with auditing by immediate management and accounts departments, make it reasonably efficient and honest. So, in the case of MP’s expenses do you fix the problem? Oh no, you change the system.

The Times thinks the public is being unfair and pious about the whole affair. The first article on page 2 of the Times on Saturday could, I suggest, have been written by Hazel Blears. Quote: Becoming a British MP in order to become rich is a scheme only an idiot would devise. The same could be said for many other lines of work – nursing and journalism come to mind. (Perhaps the writer could also take a look at the field of Information Technology; that’s a pretty thankless task, take it from me. And they have to do their expenses.) There is an interesting little section on the subtle difference between expenses and allowances. There is no discussion on the subject of integrity. It seems to me then, that there are an incredible number of well intentioned, self sacrificing, socially responsible people who cannot wait to sacrifice their time, homes and families just to look after my country and me. How fortunate we are that there are sufficient of these hardy souls that there is not one MP vacancy in Parliament. I am inevitably cynical but I suspect that there are many, many reasons for entering politics and not too many of them are entirely altruistic.

I am startled to see Matthew Parris support the frankly potty suggestion that we just increase the pay of MPs so that they no longer require expenses. And just how much of an increase would guarantee that no MP would be out of pocket? (This according to their own particular requirements and valuation, of course.) £20,000? £30,000? £50,000? Would MPs then increase the ‘expense’ portion separately to the ‘salary’ portion each year? The pension fund that is paid for by the public would also have to increase.

Those MPs who needed to spend relatively little on their parliamentary work would be very pleased indeed. In addition, it would become very much in the interests of MPs not to spend money in support of their constituents’ needs as the more they might save, the more they could keep for themselves.

But, why should MPs have a completely different expense system to that of other businesses? I can just picture my manager’s expression, when I worked for IBM, if I suggested that he could avoid the effort of auditing my expenses and remove the risk of my ‘fiddling’ them, if he simply increased my salary to cover the largest business expenditure that I would ever need. I am sure he would have rejoiced at such a simple scheme – after he had climbed back on his chair, holding his aching sides.

And we have the perfect example of such financial duplicity in the case of the ever smugly smiling Hazel Blears. (The lady who previously has shown such concern that MPs are so totally misunderstood and represented unfairly in the media.) The Communities Secretary told parliamentary authorities that a flat she owned in Kennington, south London, was her second home. However, she told the taxman that the property was her main home – and therefore did not have to pay tax on the profits of its sale in 2005. I know of one circus that would applaud loudly at such impressive juggling.