What Do You Think Today?

[peter]

There was a little piece on the front of the FT a few days ago that refered to the sudden boom that the Champs Elysees is experiencing in leasings to luxury brand names. If any more evidence was needed that certain sections of the populace (in all countries) are not experiencing the downturn in disposable incomes and purchasing power that the bulk of us are, then this is it.

Similarly I note that today it's being reported that the defence/arms industry is hiring at an unprecedented rate - the greatest since the cold War - as countries gear up their respective sectors in response to the rhetoric that we are hearing from our leaderships.

Some things never change it seems. As the saying goes, it's an ill wind that blows nobody any good!

There's not much going on, on the election front. Yesterday was dominated by the start of the European Cup football competition, with England playing their first game against Serbia. (England won, 1 - 0).

But in bit of news, Wes Streeting (Shadow Secretary for Health, who was the Labour man wheeled out to do the Sunday talk shows) apparently refused to rule out additional tax rises once Labour got into power, and said that he was a bit disappointed that the party was not pursing a more ambitious policy on Health. Seeing as he's a great supporter of increasing privatisation in the service, I can't say I agree with him. The Labour policy seems to include too much of that to me already. Streeting has always had his eyes on the top job and Stamer will certainly be clipping his wings before very long: he'll be troublesome in office once Labour win power.

In other problems for Stamer, he's coming under increasing pressure over his refusal to end the two child benefits cap. A new report out suggests that once it is fully rolled out, a further quarter million children will be added to the significant numbers already effected. Stamer's excuse for not carrying out what would seem to be a no-brainer Labour policy (ie dropping the cap altogether) is the rather lame,"I'm not going to make promises I can't keep." Needless to say it isn't cutting much ice with even the centrist and right MPs of the party (there is no left ones left - well, hardly). He can find money to give to Ukraine but not to feed hungry kids in the UK. Odd policy choices from a Labour prospective government that's for sure.

The Tories meanwhile, nursing wounds from their drubbing in the polls, are calling for Sunak to go in for the rough game instead of pussy-footing around with purely political arguing. They want him to get personal in his attacking Stamer - particularly on his weak spots of his earlier support for Corbyn (Jeremy again you see) and his propensity for changing his mind. Sunak isn't really an attack dog kind of politician though and this won't make him comfortable.

Not much else to speak of, so I'll call it a wrap and fuck off. Back tomorrow, inshallah.

[peter]

Do a Google search on the term 'penwithel whistle' and nothing will come up. Penwithel. It sounds like a place name, and whistle - well surely that speaks for itself.

We are in the realms of deep cultural lore here, and given that it's Cornish lore, somehow I'm not suprised that it's never found its way into the tech driven world of the Internet. It's old stuff, even in an old place. It simply goes too far back, too deep, to the point where I don't even know if it still exists. But here it is.

Here's an exchange I might have heard when in my youth and visiting a (say) Camborne pub. Two Cornishmen looking at the buxom barmaid.

First Cornishman: Able party in'er?

Second Cornishman; makes no sound, but rather purses his mouth and draws in wind with a sort of inward brushing sound. This is a penwithel whistle. But what does it mean?

Let's just analyse the exchange. "Able party in'er." Well in'er - fairly self explanatory, equals isn't she. Party is a colloquial term for a woman in the Cornish dialect and able means, putting it discreetly, perfectly ready for 'action' (if you get my drift). I could rephrase the exchange as, "She's up for it isn't she?" (Sorry - but it's the kind of exchange you would have heard in a Camborne pub fifty years ago. Possibly more recently than that, but as it's fifty years since I've been in a Camborne pub I can't know.)

But now this odd reverse whistle - though it isn't a whistle (there's no sound other than the air movement) and the lips are slightly more relaxed than when actually whistling. What does it mean. Well, here it is an acknowledgement of agreement. An "You're not wrong there mate!", if you like.

But the whistle means so much more - it's way more flexible as a linguistic tool.

I was talking politics to my wife yesterday (not an uncommon occurrence as you might imagine) and I was imitating how the pandemic has morphed into a get out of jail card to explain the failings of, well, anything you want it to, for the government. NHS waiting list? Pandemic. Delays in the Courts? Pandemic. Shortage of hundreds of thousands for sprinkling on cup cakes and ice cream desserts in Chinese restaurants (the Chinese don't really get desserts, except the marvellous banana fritters with ice cream)? Pandemic.

Now in my imitation of a politician talking (as I spoke to my wife), in the imaginary exchange, without any conscious thought, in inserted a penwithel whistle before the word pandemic. I can't say why, it just worked and I wasn't thinking about it anyway. But the point is that here the meaning of the whistle was somewhat different. Here it might be translated as, "Well, now you're asking - it's got to be (all said silently by the whistle), Pandemic."

The use of the whistle in common exchange has notably diminished in the younger population where I live, and in fairness was always pretty limited to the broad Cornish population, the deeper kind of Cornishness that is found 'down west' in the further parts of the county. It could still be thriving down there for all I know. But even in my middle age, old people who were deeply Cornish in their outward presentation could be described (by other more modern, less broad, types of Cornish people) as "whistlers". It had a slightly disparaging implication - a sort of backwardness - even then.

So there you have it. This is probably the only place on the entire Internet where you will find an explanation and discourse on the penwithel whistle and I'll leave you to judge whether it is the better for it or otherwise. But it's a little cultural jiggle that is probably dying out and will soon quite possibly dissapear forever without anyone remarking its passing except (again) here.

(Erratum; It occurred to me after making this post, I'd done a disservice to Camborne barmaids by an incorrect 'translation' of the word 'able'. Up for it, was wrong. What it more precisely meant was that the lady in question was ideally proportioned for the job that these gentleman had in mind - and they weren't thinking about her ability to pull pints! So I apologise for any inconvenience caused by my loose and tardy explanation, should by chance anyone have happened to actually use the expression - perhaps you were indeed, enjoying a beverage in that commendable town and were hoping to strike up conversation with the local inhabitants in a friendly, but conspiratorial, manner - and also for the insinuations, wrong in every sense of the word, that my first transliteration may have given. The Camborne barmaid was, I assure you, as unavailable ice-cream in a hot oven [though the exception of baked alaska did exist].)

[peter]

Let's just complete the above list - a few posts back - by a brief summary of the Reform UK contract (their word for manifesto, they say, hoping to avoid usual immediate alternate understanding of the manifesto word as 'pile of shite', by the UK public). So...

ReformUK

1. Freeze on non essential migration. (Point; did I hear that when in a recent interview, Nigel Farage was forced to do a 'back of the envelope' assessment of what the figures for essential migration might be in each of the sectors in which imported labour was an unavoidable essential, the sum total of his assessments came in at 600,000 - not a million miles from where the figure currently stands.)

2. Big tax cuts for small businesses.

3. Royal commission on social care.

4. Scrapping of net zero target.

5. Banning 'transgender ideology' in schools. (ie. No pronoun swopping or gender reallocation advice etc. )

6. Tax relief of 20 percent on school fees for private schools.

7. Extra 17 billion for NHS.

8. Scrap the remaining part of the HS2 link.

9. Raise stamp duty threshold to 750.000 pounds.

10. Leave the European Convention on Human Rights.

11. Scrap the BBC license fee.

In actual fact, this manifesto (if it looks like an elephant etc.) puts ReformUK up there with the Greens in terms of their spending commitments. These two parties are sitting way higher on this score than either the Tories or Labour, and considerably higher than the Lib-dems as well, who are a bit higher than the latter two. There is no overt 'blood and soil' rhetoric in the thing and I think it will appeal to many disaffected Conservative voters of the past. Farage has only a fraction of the spending power of the big two parties (he was out on YouTube touting for donations the other day) but is putting what he has to good use. His 'contract' launch speech was as straightforward as you'd expect from this consummate communicator, and only one thing twinged on me: when he said that the ReformUK priorities were "family, community, country", it immediately struck me that this is in itself not a million miles from the blood and soil rhetoric of fascism, if certainly toned down a bit for the modern audience. Also I noted that in his YouTube fundraising video he said that he was for the people against the establishment. This again was a standard fascist tactic - of reframing the division in society away from the class of Marxism, and towards a mass grouping of the populace against the monied property owning sector. Again it was subtley done, but the tactic was (deliberately or otherwise) essentially the same.

Farage is clever: I think he's studied his history and has learned that the tactics for mass manipulation and mobilisation of the population are there to be read. Create a national myth. Tell 'the crowd' what it wants to hear (note the wording there: the crowd is an entity in itself - more than a simple gathering of people). Simplify the message. Find your groups to 'other'.

Or put it another way.

Britain is special and Great. Britain has been pulled down by outside forces, think the EU etc. Leave the EU, stop immigration, and everything will be fine. Immigrants and the establishment are the internal enemies. It's classic stuff from the 1930's really.

Meanwhile the Tories have been trying to utilise Boris Johnson to shore up their vote, but with limited success in terms cooperation from the blonde bumbler. They sent out some ten thousand letters to selected individuals (not sure how they were selected other than that they were Conservative Party members), purportedly from Johnson and urging the recipients to get behind Sunak and not be tempted away by Reform. Sunak says he believes that the endorsement of Johnson will help with the campaign, but the help he is giving is luke warm at best.

Sunak you remember, was largely instrumental in starting the exodus of MPs that finished Johnson off, and there is reportedly still plenty of bad blood between them. But in recognition of the clout that Johnson still has with the voters, they are attempting to harness his support in a public display of unity between the two men. As for Johnson himself, he's saying nothing. In fact, suprise, suprise, he's not even participating in the election campaign. He's far too busy on holiday in Tunisia or somewhere. When, I ask, is that man not on holiday? He spends even more time on holiday than he did when he was PM! (Edit: Just read that Johnson is in fact back in the country, but is not going out on the 'stump' because it's his birthday today and he's off on holiday (again) in a few days time. The letters it appears, were sent to voters in the North, in an attempt to stop the red-wall seats from falling. Some chance. )

In other news, a blood test has been developed that can be done at home by a simple finger prick and smear, that can give advance warning of a likelihood of developing Parkinsonism as much as seven years before its appearance. The only problem is that as there is neither cure nor treatment for the disease it won't exactly be much help. Still, forewarned is forearmed I suppose. The main thing is apparently that it will give scientists the chance to study the early pathology of the disease, which in turn will likely help towards identifying points at which therapeutic research can be focused. Thin gruel if you happen to be one of the people identified by the test, but better than nothing I suppose.

And finally I received an election flyer from my Conservative Party candidate yesterday asking me to help her "build upon the achievements" of the last fourteen years of Conservative government. Unfortunately I missed the individual who delivered the missive and was therefore unable to ask them to bend over so that I could return the insulting document whence it came and in the vehicle to which it was most suited for delivery.

[peter]

The Tories fear machine is moving into top gear with headlines in a number of papers quoting 'polls' that show Labour winning stupid numbers of seats at the next election (we're talking a majority of 200 plus seats) and the Tories being reduced to 50. Even the Prime Minister is predicted as loosing his seat, along with three quarters of the cabinet. The Telegraph is running a full front page on it with brightly coloured maps showing the change from mainly blue (now) to mainly red, should the forecasts materialise.

The reason I put the word polls into - well, not quotation marks, but those little things that sit in the same place - is that these results don't look genuine to me. Rather these have a manufactured look about them, designed to strike fear into the heart of two specific groups; firstly those disaffected Conservative voters who are wavering in their decision as whether to change to voting for another party. These people will (or might) not want to vote Tory this time, but they don't necessarily want the Tories destroyed as a political alternative for future years.

The second group of people are those who simply don't like Kier Stamer. And there are fucking millions of them. Polls (real ones) show that Stamer is disliked as a potential Prime Minister by at least fifty percent of the public. James O'brien was asking why this is the other day, seemingly unable to grasp that a man who has repeatedly demonstrated his complete untrustworthiness will not be trusted. It's that simple. Or nearly. Because there is just something about Stamer that - I don't know - you don't like. You can't help it. He's got a sort of wheedling lawyerly hurt about his manner. In just the same way you instinctively trusted Jeremy Corbyn, you distrust Kier Stamer.

But going back, the fear tactic is directed at the group who instinctively don't like the idea of a Stamer government being in power with anything but the smallest majority, let alone the idea of him sitting at the top of what is essentially a one-party state. That amount of power in Stamer's hands is enough to make most of us shudder, let alone this group (actually half the population) who already don't like him. And the fear tactic of predicting the super-majority might well do the trick. It won't stop a Tory defeat (or isn't likely to) - but it might still return them as a credible opposition to fight another day. The Conservative Party is nothing if not a survivor. Like Mark Twain before them, I think reports of the Tory Party's forthcoming death are greatly exaggerated, and deliberately so.

-----0-----

Not particularly well written that above piece. I had to edit it because it went off track, and it didn't come out right even in its final form, but hey - y'can't win them all.

One interesting thing (or a couple) I saw yesterday was on the polling that Sky news are carrying out every couple of weeks in order to measure changes in the public voting intentions.

Their results yesterday show that the Liberal Democrats are gaining big-time as the campaign grinds on. The poll reported yesterday had them winning in 50 plus seats - a seismic shift in their fortunes.

But secondly, and this I think tells us much about this election, they showed that something like 160 seats had changed their minds and were voting differently from the first time they were polled two weeks previously. It's this volatility in voting intention that makes this such a fascinating election. People are all over the place and even they don't know where they will land on the day. It really could go anywhere. A few short years ago this type of situation would have been impossible. Thus have we changed.


-----0-----

Stupid stunt throwing orange powder paint over the stones of Stonehenge by Just Stop Oil or someone yesterday. Not that the stones are likely to suffer too much damage in the long term, but it's getting a bit tiresome. Better to stick to things that aren't going to be viewed in a negative light I'd think, in order to make their point. Nigel Farage seems a popular target at the moment or indeed Boris Johnson might suffice. Nothing, after all, seems to stick to him!

[Avatar]

Better to stick to things that aren't going to be viewed in a negative light I'd think, in order to make their point. Nigel Farage seems a popular target at the moment or indeed Boris Johnson might suffice. Nothing, after all, seems to stick to him

LOL, I heartily endorse this idea.

--A

[Avatar]

Do a Google search on the term 'penwithel whistle' and nothing will come up.

Oh, dunno how you feel about this, but for what it's worth, my prediction is that within the next few weeks or months, that post will become the number 1 Google result for the search term "penwithel whistle."

Should anybody search it.

--A

[peter]

I think it'd be a bit of a stretch for that to occur Av, but who knows . Incidentally, I've remembered that people who used the 'whistle' were sometimes refered to as 'whistlers' or 'wind-suckers' in a not entirely complementary manner as well.

There are other odd things that can be ascribed to the old Cornish as well, the habit of tying bits of ribbons to trees in holy places being a case in point. Known as 'clouties' (plural of clouty I'd guess) the ribbons and trinkets make quite a sight when you come upon them unexpectedly along a woodside path. I know one spot (down West) where they still appear on a regular basis in their hundreds, on a tree near an old 8th century hermit's Chapel and holy well. The overseers of the historic site (out in the sticks and off the beaten track as it is) try every now and again to clear the tree(s) of the jumble of decorating ribbons and ties, but they just keep coming back. These are a sort of druid style throwback, and are found in places deemed more mystical rather than overtly Christian.

People down West are a different breed altogether and undoubtedly a bit queer in their ways. Some say it's because Penzance is 'the end of the line' - literally. The rail line ends at Penzance, the most westerly station at the most westerly point of the country. It's said that over the years, desperate people have filtered down to this point of the country in their need to put distance between themselves and whatever troubles have ailed them. (Nb. This would include historically, Jew's fleeing the pogroms, hence the numbers of Isaacs, Abrahams and surnames prefixed by Ben amongst the population.) Not strictly Cornish, but this has (they say) led to a higher degree of 'oddness' - quite noticeable if you go to that particular town - in the people of the region. I'm of course from more normal stock. My mid Cornwall town is considered positively metropolitan in comparison to these backwoods.

-----0-----

Can you believe that the director of campaigning for the Conservative Party, would be stupid enough to go out and put a bet on the date of the election, days before it was announced. For a few measly hundred quid of profit this supposedly clever man risks his entire career on an illegal bet (it's illegal to bet in the UK using insider information that gives you an unfair advantage), and that of his wife, an actual candidate in one seat, to boot. (He's stepped back from his duties, she clings on her position while the investigation into the affair is carried our.)

And they are not alone.

As the days go on, more and more of them are being exposed for having done the same thing, including a Sunak bodyguard from his close protection team. The original candidate discovered first, when being questioned by reporters as he walked down the road, wouldn't admit to having used his advance knowledge, but said he'd made an 'error of judgement' in placing the bet. Well not if he didn't know that the election was due to be called when he placed it. In that case, I'd have said his judgement was pretty spot on - almost unnaturally so!

But how ridiculous the whole thing is. It sums up the Tories almost to a man. Grubby. Sleazy. Downmarket. To have their entire campaign derailed over such a greedy little scandal. Entirely typical and entirely appropriate.

-----0-----

Horror upon horror, Kier Stamer has "admitted" that he thinks Jeremy Corbyn would have made a better Prime Minister than Boris Johnson, while answering questions in last night's TV leaders debate. Can you believe it! The closet red! The borderline communist! See - he hasn't changed a bit!

This is the take in this morning's Telegraph, who can find nothing more significant in an hours debate between the public and our next potential leaders, than this worn old shibboleth - the Corbyn commie connection - with which to entertain their readership. Why? None of them are going to vote for Stamer anyway. They are Farage men to the last. Stamer could have crawled out of the sack with Stalin that morning and it wouldn't have made any difference to them.

Fer frick's sake Telegraph, get your journalist's head back on and do some actual reporting why don't you!

-----0-----

And lastly, the absence of Nigel Farage in last night's leaders debate on the BBC should be noted. The BBC could justify his absence insofar as ReformUK don't hold any seats in the House, but given that they're polling certainly equal to the Tories now, it was a conspicuous absence.

Farage is of course a 'not one of us' candidate in the eyes of the BBC (one commentator even noted the look of disdain that came on presenter Fiona Bruce's face when an audience member had the bad taste to mention his name) and his refusal of a platform in the debate last night is a measure of the fear in which the establishment hold him. He is the Jeremy Corbyn of the right.

Andrew Marr recognised in an LBC radio post the other day that Farage and Reform are not going away. His absence last night was a glaring one and gave him more publicity than a forensic assessment of his thinking would have done. He might have all of the appeal of a dog turd to Fiona Bruce, but he is a turd that she will one day have to sniff.

[Avatar]

I think it'd be a bit of a stretch for that to occur Av, but who knows . Incidentally, I've remembered that people who used the 'whistle' were sometimes refered to as 'whistlers' or 'wind-suckers' in a not entirely complementary manner as well.

Allow me to stand firm on my knowledge of how search engines work. Even as I type this, the Watch is being crawled by 4 different bots, and 8 have visited in the last 24 hours. (See attached.) The fact that those words appear on this page will be salted away by them, and retrieved should anybody make such a search.

The only real delay will be the amount of time it takes them to update the various indices that they draw on for searches in specific locations.

As for the ribbons, I think that's a fairly (historically) common (for a given meaning thereof) ritual that has arisen in various unconnected parts over the world at various times.

--A

[peter]

I bow to your superior knowledge of the tech stuff Av, and am sure that if you say it will happen, then as surely as night follows day, then it will. . I have my doubts that anyone will be actually searching for the term however (except for cursory one I might do out of interest), and as with all things internet related, it will still be lost to the world as a cultural oddity of the past, as surely as a drop of water dripped into the ocean is lost, purely by virtue of the size of the pool in which it swims. Such is life however, and we can never know what gems lie lost for ever to the ever turning pages of history.

The ribbons thing somewhat reminds me of the prayer flags of Nepal and Tibet. I think it probably has similar roots in terms of its origin, quite possibly more via some common basic nature of how the human brain/mind works, than any actual passage of the activity, meme like, from one region to the next (although the latter must be possible as well).

-----0-----

George Galloway is not by any means to everyone's taste, but he is no fool and even his worst enemy would concede that his understanding of foreign policy is considerable. (For an example of this, I'd recommend watching him on YouTube, in performance in front of a US committee, in which his answers to the questions put to him were erudite and well informed - a real cut above the normal and of which his questioners were duly impressed.)

Which is why his recent statement, given from a podium in which he was giving an election speech (he is standing as a Workers Party candidate), that if Kier Stamer is voted into power, he Galloway guaranteed that within six months the UK would be at war, should be listened to.

His absolute political opposite Peter Hitchens, another extremely erudite and knowledgeable individual, made the observation that he doubted the timing of the prediction, but didn't doubt the accuracy in terms of the possibility of war, because of the very dangerous territory we were straying into in Ukraine. He also observed that we should not discount the idea just because it was coming from George Galloway.

Now let's put this into context. Galloway is fighting a seat in Rochdale, against a normally guaranteed Labour opponent. He, Galloway, only holds the seat because of reaction against the Labour policy of supporting Israel in its activities in Gaza of which Galloway is hugely critical in both cases. He won the seat in by-election not long ago and is fighting it again in this election. Clearly he doesn't want to be ousted by the Labour man he is up against, and therefore anything he can say to discourage people from voting Labour (both in his own constituency and more broadly in the country) is to his advantage.

But he is, for all his faults, an honest man, and it's unlikely he would make such a prediction out of self-interest alone. It just isn't his way. Like Hitchens, he may not think the six months is all that likely (although he did guaranteed it - a bit extreme even for him, if he didn't believe it), but he wouldn't be saying it just to stir up fear alone. That is not his way. If he says it, he believes it, so let's accept this.

Now, looking a bit deeper.

I've said before about the rumour that spread not long after Sunak called his suprise election, that he'd done so because he didn't want to be a wartime prime minister. You have to remember that Sunak has only been PM for 18 months. He assumed the role by default of their being no other contenders following Liz Truss's premature departure. By calling this early suprise election, he denies himself the opportunity of at least going down in the books as having held office for 2 years. It's a big knock to his legacy in the history books, so it won't have been taken lightly.

Word has it that Stamer is far more inclined to be a wartime leader than Sunak, but this in itself doesn't really amount to much. Except.....

Someone made the observation the other day - and I think that this is highly significant - that there is no way that Sunak, as both unelected by the country or his own party as leader (not to mention his heritage, which I'm afraid does play a role in this), could take the country into war. The public simply wouldn't wear it. Absolutely necessary to have a leader in situ whose credentials are undeniable.

And suddenly, alongside the talk of national service and needing to build up the armed forces, the talk of citizen armies and boots on the ground in Ukraine, the early called election, things begin to look a bit ominous. The question arises as to whether we are being primed for something. George Galloway said in his podium speech, that the war he was talking of was not the war of a few dressed up special forces guys in a dessert a long way away. Not the war of a guy on a consul somewhere directing drones to fire missiles on people that he couldn't see. But a real, true to life war with people you know being called up and shipped away, with tanks and bullets and guns going off around the heads of people we love.

I don't know. Perhaps George Galloway knows something that we don't - or perhaps he's just reading the signs in an environment in which he's been swimming for half a century. But either ways, suddenly it seems we should at least give him some credence, on the basis that (if no other) it would be foolish not to.

[peter]

"And the forces gathered against the thorn that pierced them in the side....."

So ran the words of a song of the 1990's and we see the truth of them in the current media and establishment lashing being dished out to Nigel Farage for having the temerity to voice an opinion.

It started with a comment he made during an interview with the BBC's Nick Robinson, in which he said that the West shared responsibility for Putin's invasion of Ukraine bu virtue of its policy of eastward expansion. "Of course the act of invasion was Putin's responsibility," he said, "But it was the eastward expansion of Nato and the EU that gave him the excuse to do so," he continued.

Now you may or may not agree with this, but it's a valid opinion that can be argued by returning to the historical/political facts of the situation between the East and West since the fall of Communism and the collapse of the Soviet Union.

But sensing an opportunity to weigh in against the usurper that lately stormed into the political race for Number 10 (though Farage is quite honest that he isn't going to win the keys to that particular door), the political establishment (backed in large part by the client media) has seized upon his words as a stick with which to beat him, irrespective of the truth or otherwise of what he says.

So consolidated has the propoganda war been against Putin and his actions (because it wouldn't do for him to be seen as anything other than the one hundred percent villain of the piece) that Sunak, Stamer and even piping little Ed Davey have been able to ignore the facts of the argument he is putting, and simply vilify the man himself as a "Putin apologist" and all the other terms of abuse that can be levelled at you (and I know - I've been on the receiving end of some of them in these very pages) for outlining the history that led up to the invasion.

Sunak has responded by saying that Farage is "completely wrong and only plays into Putin's hands". Such "appeasement", he said, making use of a good old term loaded with historic negativity, was "dangerous for British security." Now I'd argue that ignoring the historical facts in dealing with an aggressive opponent is itself a danger to British security, but that's an argument that the BBC and liberal media will not choose to examine, just as they will not choose to examine the arguments that Farage is putting in support of his comments. In fairness, the Telegraph is running an extended interview with Farage this morning in which he says that he "intends to put the record straight", as to the meaning of what he said. Note here, the Telegraph has pretty much signed up to the defenestration of Sunak as Conservative leader - indeed is desirous of it - and is looking for a rightwards shift in the Party following his departure. In light of this, it isn't surprising to see them as the one outlet giving Farage at least a platform from which to mount his defence. Farage might or might not be part of the Tory Party's future, but he is certainly an agent in the shifting of the Party to the right. As such, the Telegraph are not going to do anything to hinder his continuing to undermine Sunak and the One Nation wing of the Party (who he has belatedly in his career, come to represent, proving the old adage that attainment of power nearly always has a moderating effect on a politician's position, as the reality of office comes home to roost). This rightwards shift is something they see not only as desirable, but absolutely essential to the survival of Conservatism asa political force in this country.

Moving on to Kier Stamer's response, he in his turn has labelled the Farage comments as "disgraceful!". Well as the man who will likely be at the helm in the event of the situation in Ukraine widening to include other players, he would say that wouldn't he. He'll be using the exact same state propoganda machine as the Tories to ensure only the official narrative is given any oxygen in the forthcoming months. Anything that even slightly brings into question the absolute black and white clarity of the Putin bad, West good, picture they are painting, will be ruthlessly pounced upon and stifled in the cradle. As I've said before, the one thing upon which the Conservatives and Labour are exactly in step over is foreign policy. It doesn't even need to be discussed in this election, such is the agreement between the established parties on its direction. And that direction is that anything involving Russia, China or anyone associated with either must be bad and must be fought against. There can be no cooperation, no dialogue with these rogue nations riddled with evil intent. The only responses to them can be suspicion and aggression. Trust me, if Stamer believed anything different he would not be in the place he is today, looking at taking up the reins of power in the very near future. He knows exactly what he is required to say in this situation, and will trot it out like a good puppy.

And Ed Davey. Well there isn't much point in going into what he has said on the matter. No one will be listening to him anyway.

And so it goes on. The establishment holds its grip on power as always and just prepares to present a different face of itself for a period. Any true threat to its dominance will be crushed underfoot by the media, used as a weapon rather than a tool for the dissemination of information, and the status quo will be maintained. Meanwhile the true unseen masters of the West decide whether war is to their benefit or not. Let's hope, for the sake of the people who would be called upon to pay the price, that they decide it is not.

-----0-----

Yesterday, Arron Bastani from Novara Media posted a clip in which he discussed with Michael Walker, Kier Stamer's propensity for lying and his almost pathological ability to seemingly forget anything he had ever said in the past, when making any current contribution to the dialogue on any subject.

Batani went so far as to say he truly believed it was an illness. He said that in comparison, Boris Johnson was the lesser of the two in terms of his lying catalogue, and that, believe me, is some claim.

He showed a segment in which Stamer was seen heaping praise upon Faiza Shaheen as the perfect Labour candidate, before she was deselected as the candidate for Chingford and Woodford Green in May of this year. It was not Shaheen's unsuitability as a candidate that resulted in her deselection, Bastani speculated, it was her potential to become a second focus of attention within the parliamentary Labour Party that Stamer was afraid of. A more left wing individual than Stamer himself, Shaheen had spoken out unreservedly against the humanitarian disaster in Gaza, and had been withering in her condemnation of the actions of Israel in the same. This alone would certainly have gained a black star in Stamer's universe, but her potential as a possible future leadership candidate will have sealed the deal. Weak men fear strong opponents around them, even as colleagues, and tend to clip their wings before they get overly influential. Everybody knows however, that Shaheen is a tip-top candidate for Labour and I predict she will win as an independent candidate and come back to haunt Stamer yet.

Meanwhile of Stamer himself, Bastani told this tale. He'd been speaking to a tory mp (Bastani that is) and the man had said the following. Truly, he said, he had no idea - not the slightest - where Stamer stood on the political spectrum. He could, he said, be to the left of Jeremy Corbyn - or he could be to the right of Tony Blair. It was impossible to say. As Bastani followed up, this is a worryingly uncertain situation to be in when looking at a man who could hold near absolute power in this country for the next decade and a half.

(Edit: Just an observation, but I think Bastani forgets about Stamer's training as a lawyer. He has spent his entire career lying in support of things he doesn't necessarily believe to be true. How else are you going to either defend those you believe probably to be guilty, or indeed in Stamer's case, pin guilt on those you believe are quite possibly innocent. It goes with the territory and is serving Stamer very well in presenting the chameleon like persona upon which you can never get a hold. )

[Avatar]

I have my doubts that anyone will be actually searching for the term however...

That is certainly a fair point. But then, the important thing is that the knowledge exists, not that anybody uses it. (I too shall be testing my hypothesis of course. )

--A

[peter]

I've got a feeling Av, that I've come across the 'phenomenon' before. I've certainly had the experience of having been searching for something that I've previously posted on - some obscure subject or another - only to have my own post pop up near the top of my search results. I hadn't really given it much thought however, in terms of how it should be, but your explanation would certainly fit the bill.

Meanwhile, I think it worth noting, just how significant the current UK election could be, in terms of its historical nature re elections in general.

Should the polls actually be realised and the Tories suffer an existential level defeat, it would represent the first collapse of a major UK political party for a hundred years. Not since the demise of the Liberals, has a major party of political force in Britain gone to the wall. The Conservative Party is the most successful political party in the Western world - ever! For two plus hundred years it has been at the forefront of British politics and its fall would represent a sea change in domestic politics the like of which the significance would be hard to overstate. The big question would have to be what would arise to fill the vacancy its collapse would create, and it is here that the real risk lies. Would for example, a new right-wing political force arise under the guise of the Conservative name (and this is the important thing to get), led by someone say like Suella Braverman, that was a populist manifestation of something like the National Front (to call it by its true name) of France, or the other similar movements across Europe. This might well include the emerging Farage led Reform UK, or could simply squeeze them out by effectively stealing the political ground from under their feet. Either way, it would be important to realise that this would not be the Conservative Party of the past two hundred years, but something entirely new simply masquerading under their name. Alas there is reason to believe that such a distinction would be lost upon the vast majority of voters who would have no reason to consider the nature of the new beast that they were supporting, but who in reality would be throwing their weight behind something totally different from what the Conservatives of old would recognise as their party.

Possible also that a new name would arise to cover this new beast, or indeed that Reform UK could itself gain traction over a few general election cycles (as Farage has said that he wants to see happen) to fill the gap. Whatever way it were to happen, it represents a major shift in British politics, the like of which we have not seen for generations. Someone described what has happened thus. The Conservative Party, he said, is a beast that flies balanced by two wings. The Johnson led purge of the old style Conservative membership (carried out in pursuit of getting his Brexit Withdrawal Agreement through the House) effectively killed off one of those wings, and from that moment forward the party was doomed. What we are seeing now is the culmination of that action;the right controlled rump of the party that remained following his purge has never really regained political stability, but has lurched from one disaster to the next with scandal following scandal, until now it collapses under the weight of its own inadequacy. A sad end for a party that was once a mainstay of British society and a force for societal good (by virtue of the tendrils it extended into all the small areas of society - the womens institutes, the local small c conservative societies as examples - and from whence it drew its unique identity, before falling into the hands of the self-interested financial powers that only wanted connection with the party for what advantage it could bring).

Thus is a great institution fallen.

(As a sobering example of just how monumental the collapse of the core vote of the Conservative Party has been, the FT reports today that in two surveys that it has conducted, one in January and one, the results of which are just in, on the same cohort of voters, there has been a thirty percent drain of voters away from the party.)

[peter]

Continuing from the above, so where did it all start to go wrong for the Tories?

The modern party emerged in the 1830's following their initial formation in 1812. At the point of formation they were concerned only with promotion of the interests of the business class. They had no remit or opinion in terms of politicking for the public good - but in fairness neither did anyone else. The Whigs were the only significant opposition at that point and they were in the business of looking to the legislation which effected the fortunes of the aristocracy. No-one at this point was in the slightest bit concerned with the condition of the people, the dirty unwashed masses, and as far as most politicians were concerned they could go hang. The idea that government should be carried out in interest of the mass public just never entered their heads.

I forget which leader it was (and when) who shifted emphasis within the Conservative Party toward a more egalitarian outlook, but I think that by the mid 1800's this idea was established, from whence it held sway right up to the modern era.

The beginnings of the undermining of this came with Margaret Thatcher, who recognised that by careful introduction of legislation that favoued select groups within society, a source of revenue could be tapped into that could bring political advantage far in excess of that which came from reliance on the general public alone. Thus was born the incestuous relationship between money, power and politics which has blossomed into the perversion of governance which we see today. One could say that it is in fact, the Conservative Party returning to its roots.

But the blame in no part rests with the Conservatives alone. Tony Blair built upon the legacy he inherited from Thatcher (via John Major) on this score, and in turn handed over the button to David Cameron (who's surname incidentally derives from the term 'crooked mouth') and then rose to its apogee under the morally bankrupt management of Boris Johnson.

It takes many forms this two-way conduit: regulatory processes are corrupted, legislation is twisted and government grants and contracts are directed, while in the opposite direction payments of cash both to individuals and at the party level, open revolving door policies for lucrative employment opportunities post politics, gifts and sweeteners abound. And we have now reached the position where even any pretence of government in the interest of the people is barely bothered with. We all know that when Kier Stamer, or Rishi Sunak say that it is for public service, for the interest of us and our families, that they stand before us, it is bullshit. The country is governed in the interest of a minority group (principally the financial institutions and business sector) alone, and has been for years. Any attempt to change this (ala the likes of Jeremy Corbyn) is crushed from existence by an impenetrable armour of united force, backed by a client media who are balls-deep in the malignant association. This has been the destruction of the Conservative Party - what its wider social and political ramifications are going to be in the years to come, remains yet to be seen.

-----0-----

Startling news out of the blue this morning, that Julian Assange has cut a deal with the US prosecutors and is on his way to the Northern Mariana Islands, where he will plead guilty to a single charge in return for a commutement of sentence and restoration of his freedom to return to Australia.

Following over five years in HMP Belmarsh, it absolutely not before time, and it has been an ongoing stain on our legal system and nation as a whole that we have entertained any part in it.

Assange has been central to the release of thousands of documents demonstrating the criminal activities and cover ups perpetrated by our governments - and of course no such good deed of the magnitude of this scale could go unpunished. It's something of the order of - what? - sixteen years since Assange has been able to walk the streets as a free man. He's been incarcerated in deplorable conditions in Belmarsh, his health needs neglected. He's been attempted to be framed on cooked up charges of sexual assault, he's been forced to live in isolation and separation from the ones he loves. It's unlikely I'd think, that his health, both mental and physical, will ever recover.

This is the penalty he has already paid for the crime of exposing our governments at their worst. Yet there are those who will no doubt see his release as a derogation of the rule of law, of justice. I put it to these people that the only reason Assange is walking free today is that it was becoming obvious that he wasn't going to survive his incarceration much longer. His death in prison would have been worse for his captors than his walking free, and so he has been released. I have my doubts whether his health can ever recover from his ordeal, and it may yet be that our administrations are not in the clear as to holding the responsibility for his passing. I sincerely hope I'm wrong on this, and that Assange goes on to enjoy a life of freedom and happiness for many years to come. But something tells me that we haven't heard the end of this story yet, and that visions of his walking off into the sunset might be a tad premature.

-----0-----

The IFS have come out and said that both political parties of the ruling duopoly (ie Conservative and Labour) are selling us short on their economic promises. Neither have explained how the public service improvements they claim they will oversee can be funded without tax rises - and the truth is that it cannot be done. It's tax rises or public service cuts, say the IFS. No ifs or buts.

Well who knew?

[peter]

You can tell much about a country from the way it deals with its shit. And I'm afraid that ours, if my nose is anything to go by, is failing to pass muster.

Not a pleasant subject I know, but one that needs addressing. Not least because it is a literal in your face consequence of the failure of Margaret Thatcher's privatisation of the public utilities project.

For me, the problem started in the first shop I worked in, after leaving the veterinary practice where I'd formerly been employed (a sad story in itself that I'll keep for another day).

I noticed that the smallish shop had a tendency to smell of crap, in a certain aisle, when the weather was bad and the rainfall high. I reported this to the management and as per usual, they did nothing about it until one day, when one of the owners happened to be visiting, it was particularly bad.

The plumbers were called to check the pipes (or whatever they do in such circumstances), and duly reported that the system was all clear.

The problem remained unchanged.

Finally, following a couple more visits, a bigger firm was contacted, who carried out a more extensive examination. They reported that what was happening was that basically there was too much sewage feeding into too small a pipe volume as a result of a large number of new houses that had been developed over the years, with no proportionate increase in the sewage carrying capacity of the drainage network. Consequently on days of high rainfall, gas in the system was being pushed out through the drains and manhole covers (of which we had two in the shop) as a result of rising water levels within the system.

In short, nothing could be done about it.

My wife and I frequently drive the same route through west Cornwall as a relaxing outing through nice countryside. It's just easy to follow a route you are familiar with, with limited traffic and nice winding roads and scenery. Often, passing through a particular seaside village, there is a whiff of crap in the air, which has remained unchanged for years. It's another manifestation of this same overloading of the sewage system by increasing housing numbers feeding into an un-upgraded system. And the problem is getting worse - more widespread. The same thing is occurring in more and more locations, particularly since the period of high rainfall we have had in recent months.

And this is no less than a daily encountered manifestation of the failure of the privatised water companies to meet their statutory obligations in terms of upgrading and repair, of the systems they purchased when taking control of the formerly publicly owned utilities. This, they manifestly failed to do, preferring instead to pay out profits in dividends to shareholders, rather than meet the statutory obligations they took on board when taking over the companies.

And now, they want to be able to increase charges to customers in order to meet the shortfalls they have allowed to develop through their own negligence. Or if, as some people want, the companies are to be brought back into public ownership, they expect to be fully reimbursed for their share of the ownership which they will loose. The high cost of this reimbursement is in fact the reason given by Kier Stamer, for his reversal of his earlier commitment to renationalise the privately owned companies. He now says that the public interest will be best served by upgrading the system without returning it to public ownership. The cost of the purchase will simply be too high. Nonsense. And let me tell you why.

If you own a property that has a listing on it (ie it is deemed to be of historical significance and you are statutorily obligated to maintain it as part of your ownership contract), and you allow it to run into disrepair, the state doesn't come and put money into the property while allowing you to continue in its ownership. On the contrary, it seizes the property, carries out the necessary repairs and then sells it, paying you whatever residue remains following the deduction of the repair costs if you are lucky enough for there to be any, which is unlikely.

This is exactly the policy which should be followed in respect of the water companies. They have been negligent in respect of their statutory obligations and in consequence should forfeit ownership up to the point where those obligations are met in terms of financing the necessary upgrades. There is no obligation on the state to treat the companies any differently than they would private owners of listed buildings. And thus Stamer's argument falls flat at the first hurdle. It's just this type of abrogation of their responsibility to the public (over that of corporate interest) that has destroyed the Conservative Party. If Stamer is to stupid to see this, then it beggars belief that he ever made any headway as a lawyer at all. (And incidentally, as a lawyer, to be in the Crown Prosecution Service is regarded as being of the second grade at best anyway. If you are any good (the thinking goes) you won't have to rely upon the state to provide your income, but rather will make it in the cut and thrust of private business. It's by successfully rising to the top in this area of the profession that the laurals lie. Not in sitting in a state paid job earning salary. Go to any social gathering of the legal profession and you'll see this expressed in the conversation you hear. (And the same, incidentally, is true of the other professions. It's not for nothing that the Harley Street doctors hold the highest kudos within the medical profession. Here again, the private sector is the most respected within the profession itself. In the private sector, if you ain't good you fall. In the public, you get promoted away from the cutting edge. And Stamer, interesting to note, went all the way to the top.)

-----0-----

And finally, it appears that even the Google search bots, the things that scrape and scavenge even the lowest grade of rubbish churned out on the internet, have decided to ignore my post on the penwithel whistle (that Av confidently predicted would top the search results on the subject a day or two after its posting ).

No matter - I'm sanguine about being ignored, which is just as well given how often I must accept being so.

I'm reminded of the time that my neighbour brought me in some 'chitlings' to try. Chitlings, a Northern delicacy made from salt and vinegar soused pig small intestines, are not the most digestible fare (my father, who tried his, said he could feel it burning a hole in his stomach for 24 hours after eating it) and I decided that discretion was the better part of valour when it came to the beastly things, and when Jim (my neighbour) had gone back home, I threw them out on my back lawn.

A short while later (I lived on the coast back then) I saw a seagull pick up one of the pieces and swallow it. Noted for being veritable dustbins when it comes to rotting food waste, he stood there for a moment looking slightly perplexed, and then proceeded to hawk the thing back up onto my lawn. The chitlings remained there for days until I picked them up myself and threw them in the bin. For all I know, they remain on some forgotten landfill site to this day, seething away in the dust and filth, inured to both rotting and decomposition in any form, and will remain so until the universe finally farts out of existence at some unspecified point in the future.

[peter]

Oh God I'm so tired of our political leaders.

Last night they engaged in their final dick waving contest, butting heads over (you guessed it) tax, illegal immigration, the betting scandal, more tax, and on and on and on......

Nothing was resolved, nothing came out of it. Rishi Sunak told us not to "surrender" to Labour about 500 times (that fellow really is just a stuck autocue on legs) and Stamer told us of the Tory "lies" often and often again (which given his track record is a bit rich).

But for all this is a really important election for the UK - a really important election - it's a fucking bore.

Much has to do with the quality of the two leaders, and I really applaud the questioner who cut to the chase with, "Are you two really the best we can do?". Because he's dead correct. These two automatons, glove puppets for the powers that really call the shots in this country (the guys who run the financial institutions, the global corporations, the media empires, the big energy and big pharma companies) can barely string a sentence together that hasn't been pre-tested, shrink-wrapped to fit, and stashed away in their brains in little boxes with "Break glass in case of emergency" stamped on them. They are ss ultra-processed as a cheap value range box of turkey twizzlers and about as inspiring. Neither one has the slightest plan about how to rescue this country from the shit-end cul-de-sac we've backed ourselves into. No inspiration ala the Corbyn manifesto of 2017 that just for a brief moment had people fired up with imagination about what could actually be, what we could achieve, if we just had the will and nerve to bring it about. But that, of course, was killed off almost as quickly as it appeared, stifled at birth by an establishment invested in ensuring that nothing will ever change - ever, ever, ever.

And so we yawn through the pointless spectacle of these two, throwing insults and schoolyard taunts at each other for an hour plus, before retreating to their 'command centers' to congratulate themselves on how well they have done, when in fact they have done exactly nothing. Which is quite possibly exactly the point. I've always been one for stressing the importance of voting - even in this sham election - but I'm seriously beginning to ask myself what is the point. These pair and their lacklustre ideas are not going to change anything. They are specifically turned out not to change anything. Stamer is absolutely correct when he says he has changed the Labour Party. That, indeed, he has. He's taken a vibrant, ideas fuelled party under his predecessor, and turned it into an identikit facsimile of the Conservative Party. He's taken the King's shilling, drunk the establishment kool-aid, and is firmly on board for the duration. There is no hope of redemption there. But that, I promise, is the last thing he will change, except for the worse. And quite possibly the very much worse.

And Sunak. He's so ready to fuck off for his new life in America he's almost got starting blocks strapped to his feet. He puts up a good performance, but we all know where he's at. He just wants out, like a spoiled kid who's used to always getting his own way, never expecting to be challenged or God forbid, to actually fail at something..... The gig ain't what it purported to be and so he stamps his little foot, plays at being "aware of how frustrated you all are" (methinks he doth protest too much), and prepares to board the plane to never-never land, from whence he'll never be seen in this cold grey little shit-pit of a country for as long as the Pope's a Catholic and bears shit in the woods.

So why, I wonder, are they bothering. Why, I wonder, are we bothering. And it seems that countless millions of us aren't. Turnout is reckoned to be going to be as low as it ever has been for a post-war election (around 59 percent in 2001 from what I can tell, but the data is surprisingly difficult to access - or perhaps not surprisingly difficult). It's not surprising. People are increasingly aware that the whole thing is a sham. An illusion of democracy, presented on a four yearly basis in order to keep people believing, cooperating, with the system that is abusing them. Milking them for their taxes and giving them the absolute minimum - or even less than the minimum - that can be gotten away with in return, while simultaneously hoovering up the profits of the collective national labour, into the pockets and hidden bank accounts of a tiny percentage of the population. And people are getting wise to it. If Corbyn did one thing before he failed and fell, it was to bring out the idea that it doesn't have to be this way. That in our tens of millions, it is us the people who have power. We just have to realise it. We just have to seize it.

And so I say this. Don't waste the one tiny opportunity you have to express your opinion of these clowns. To put two fingers up to these leeches that will drink your blood while simultaneously shaking your hand. To these pathetic stick-men they parade before us in these mock debates. No - you get out there and vote. But start a meme (too late now, but hey). Show your contempt for the two-party UniParty and vote for a no-hoper. A Green, Lib-Dem, (fuck it) Reform, Independent, who doesn't stand a chance. Send a message to the puppet masters, we see you, we are not fooled.

This is how I feel today. Who knows; tomorrow might be different.

(Nb. Today's post arises out of a sense of absolute frustration that came upon me reading the accounts of last night's leaders debate. The crushing sense of the futility of the whole exercise. The pointlessness of it all. There was nothing - nothing - I realised, that these two clowns had to offer me. I couldn't give a shit about immigration, at what point will taxes impinge upon my life. Last I was aware, my pension just about kept me from selling my arse on the streets, let alone representing a taxable pot of gold for the Exchequer to get its fingers into. But it was all so boring. How could I make a post out of that. Well, here it is. A peon to my anger and frustration (yes Sunak - you got that right!) that I present as an on the spot outpouring of the same. Sorry. It's the best I could do.)

[peter]

If you suddenly found that your partner was not just having an illicit affair, but had rather maintained a deception on you with a construct of lies and misdirection, constructed an edifice of complexity and subterfuge, was maintaining a second household unbeknownst to you and at your expense, then you would rightfully feel cheated beyond the point of no return, brought to a place where no retrieval of trust could ever be won back.

This is exactly how I feel when I think back upon the deception that was pulled over on us (and is still being maintained to this day) over the covid debacle.

Because with the benefit of hindsight, even if it were not obvious at the time (which for me it was), it is clear that the whole thing was bunkum.

I'll never understand why it was done - how it came about that those we trust to administrate in our interest (yeah, alright - let that rest) were persuaded to do this thing to us, either for malign reasons or simply as a result of a gross nievity when it came to trusting the words of the scientists they were advised by - but done it was, and this at least is beyond doubt.

Because choose whatever you might say now, you know this was not the biblical level plague it was painted to be. There were not carts laden with the dead being drawn away from every street, the hospitals were not overflowing with the sick and dying as a result of a rampant disease raging through the population like a scythe through wheat.

We all know that whatever figures were nightly trotted out as (what was it) 'having had covid in the last 24 days' (or some such) were massaged facsimiles, resultant from it being a virtual offence to say that anyone had died from anything else.

Equally we all know that the average age of the people dying from 'covid' (even with those massaged figures) was 82 years old, that the average person of reasonable health was no more at risk of dying from covid than from the usual common all garden flus and colds that we shoulder every year without so much as a second thought. That it was only the always weak and vulnerable that were at risk, as is and was always, the case.

We all know this now. Some will admit it openly, some will prefer not to do so (for reasons best understood by themselves). There will also be some for whom the admission will be simply too painful to consciously make: those who allowed (or were forced to watch) their loved ones die alone. These people will never be able to admit that they were hoodwinked into doing what they did: for them the covid myth must be maintained within their minds and understandably so.

But for the rest of us, the perception is clear. With the benefit of hindsight - with what we saw and experienced with our own eyes - we know what was done. How the media and the commentariat were used to manipulate us into briefly believing that black was white. That government psyops on an epic scale were brought to bear on populations of individuals way too unprepared to mount a defence against such sophisticated and precision an attack. That fear was used to reinforce these mass manipulation techniques developed by the behaviour science units within our administrations, and that the average person was as a lamb to the slaughter against such tactics.

And this is what I ask you. How can you ever.....how can you ever......be brought to trust once again, the system that has once so badly abused your good faith?

Like that partner who discovers, perhaps slowly or perhaps in a sudden burst of enlightenment, that they have been duped to an epic level, to a scale that almost beggars comprehension, how can you ever learn to trust your betrayer again?

It goes against good sense to do so. Surely. Correct me if I'm wrong, and if I'm not, consider where this leaves us.

[peter]

(Srapped post number 1; too controversial. Self censored. Try again )

[peter]

Less than a week to go and the competition is getting down and dirty.

In what Nigel Farage is suggesting was a set up 'sting' operation, one of the Reform UK campaigners has been undercover recorded calling Rishi Sunak a f****** p***.

This has been wheeled out under a storm of protest in the media, with cod outrage being expressed by the commentariat, clearly in the hope of damaging the ReformUK vote before next Thursday's turnout to the polls.

What they don't seem to get however is that none of the people intending to vote Reform will be put off in the slightest by this idiot's (or stooge's- take your pick) racist outburst (or preplanned performance (again, take your pick). Most of them think in similar terms.

According to Farage, this campaigner turned up at one of the Reform UK centers a week or so ago and was "clearly acting a role" he was attempting to project forward. This is of course, just what Farage would say (wouldn't he), and could be dismissed as such, but for the niggling fact that it turns out the bloke "had done some acting" (BBC News last night) and was currently out of work. Suddenly the idea that this was some out of work hack actor, set up to do a hatchet job on Reform doesn't look quite as farfetched. Quite.

I can't really pick the bones out of this because I don't trust any of the players in it. As far as I'm concerned, they're all bad actors, media, Farage, racist campaigner and undercover filmers, the lot of them. It might be genuine or it might be the establishment up to its tricks. Who knows. Who cares.

Elsewhere the Daily Mail are running an eight page pullout telling Tory voters in every constituency how to vote tactically to prevent the Stamer super-majority. If he doesn't get one,they'll be able to claim credit, and if he does, well it won't matter then anyway.

The Times has Kemi Badenoch telling us that we have to see through Farage's act, that he's only in it for the publicity and doesn't care a jot about the country or its people. For him it's 'Farage first, the rest nowhere'. She's quite possibly correct, but in fairness, she's done her bit in pushing the Tories to the right, and preparing the ground for Reform to seem like an acceptable alternative voting point for disaffected Conservative voters. Not much point in bemoaning it now Kemi.

The Guardian has a op-ed

Kier Stamer must win. Only his government can shape the future we want to see. TheGuardian.

Not hiding your preference under a bushel there are you boys?

But let's understand exactly what that future is, shall we? It's a future where exactly nothing changes. Where the little guy 'has to be looked after', but only by you establishment hacks who understand what's best for him. What that future most certainly doesn't involve is him having any say in the matter for himself. Like Victorian philanthropism, it's a paternalistic place where the little people must be looked after like a pen full of spring lambs, but most certainly have no say in what they might think is best for them. You have to understand. Educated people, people from the right backgrounds are the one's who need to be making these decisions. Not the people themselves - not them! That isn't the kind of socialism we have in mind at all. Ours is the socialism that sees the same ruling class continue to rule, the same establishment continue to enjoy its preeminent position, but just with a bit more thought for those down at the bottom. That way you can feel okay about all of the advantages you enjoy and experience none of the guilt of continuing to enjoy them. It's great. It's like wearing Solidarnosk badges back in Uni back in the nineties. Makes you feel 'down with the people ' - sort of warm and fuzzy.

Nah. I don't buy it. You'll have to do better than that. You had your chance to prove yourself when Corbyn received his mandate from the people - the youngsters who you feature today at Glastonbury with such yah-yah establishment "Kyewl", but who you fucked over big time when the chance came to really do something to help them. So no. Fuck off! The future you want to see is not the one I'd have in mind - not at all.

[peter]

Power corrupts. Or so they say. And there are few more powerful people in the world than a British Prime Minister with a sound majority in the House of Commons.

So can you imagine the scale of damage that can be done if the person that achieves such power is already corrupt upon arriving there?

But of course you don't have to because we all saw what happened when Boris Johnson (who everybody and his mother knew exactly what he was - Michael Gove had even spelled it out for us) got there.

And this is what worries me about Kier Stamer.

He'll be there, having lied through his teeth at every turn in his political career, and most probably in his career as a lawyer before that, but in large part the UK public seem pretty unaware of it. Though in fairness it's possible that they have some gut sense about the man, because he almost inexplicably never gets popularity ratings himself that would seem consistent with those that the Labour Party as a whole currently enjoy. The public seems to sense some underlying wrong about the man. Because the blunt truth is that we know nothing about what he stands for, despite the fact that he has been campaigning before the public for six weeks and has led the Labour Party for four years.

And it can be assumed that on achieving office, when he has at his disposal this great power, including that of the full state machinery with its propoganda capabilities and behavioral modification units, he will use it to the full. With quite possibly 12 or 16 years of unrestricted freedom to do with the country exactly as he chooses, no-one has the slightest idea of what he will do. We can be sure that unlike Boris Johnson he will not simply waste his time in office. He won't spaff his power up against the wall with indulgence in indolence and excess living. He'll rather consolidate his power, make the necessary changes to secure his position, and if Rishi Sunak is to be believed (and for once he just might be), will prepare the ground for his holding power for a lot longer than our election system would normally allow for.

And if it happens, then it is only ourselves that we will have to blame.

Because it is we who have allowed this state of affairs to develop. The state of affairs where truth has been jettisoned the yardstick against which our politicians are judged, via the medium of our journalists and the media they represent. We've allowed the fucus group and the propoganda mill to replace the simple requirement of telling the truth, swopped manipulative soundbites for persuasion via reasoned debate. And without truth, without reasoned debate, our system simply ceases to function. It is as nothing, a pointless exercise, and we are prey to whatever predatory forces are able to scramble up the greasy pole to the apex position.

So when the bad shit starts to happen - and it will - remember this post and reflect on where our political indifference, our failure to attend to the quality of our political class, has brought us.

For my own part, I'm going to keep voting, but am sorely tempted not to. Because I see now that the system (including in the broader sense of the word) is geared such that no meaningful change can be achieved via the ballot box. Not while first past the post and the UniParty duopoly persists (for as Farage rightly said yesterday on a YouTube post, what we are getting with Labour (or what the establishment at least thinks it is getting with Labour) is but a change of management, not in any sense a change of fundamental structure that would put power back in the hands of the people (if it was ever there in the first place). [God, my parentheses went all to hell there, but I hope you get my meaning.]

So yes, I've decided that I will vote, but will never vote for an 'establishment' party again. Not until the establishment realigns itself with the interest of the people. It'll be the Greens or possibly the Lib-Dems that I go for (certainly not Reform) - they represent the kind of social democracy that I'd like to get back to (mixed economies with public ownership of essential utilities and a strong private sector underpinning a safety net of public services - a post war consensus style of government).

But, but, but.....

Here's the rub. In doing so I support the very rotten establishment system that I would see brought down. Because they rely entirely upon the legitimacy that our votes give them, in order to perpetrate the scams they pull over upon us. Because that, when the chips are down, is always going to be the default argument. You voted for us. You gave us the power. (No matter that the system was rigged so that no power was truly ever ours to give.) But the fewer people vote, the less this argument works. On a 60 percent turnout with the winning party only taking say 35 percent of that, then only 21 percent of the people have voted for the government that results. That's not much of a mandate to do anything too extreme - say take us into war or whatever. Thus it is that the system requires that we get out and vote. It has no fear of loosing control: it knows that the rigging is such that it remains with its hands on the reins, whichever of the duopoly wins (because it provides the wherewithal to achieve that win). It has no worries on that score. It is the mandate or lack thereof that is important. And for this to work, for the scam to be perpetuated, it needs us out and voting.

So why do I do it?

I suppose it's because the right to vote, of universal suffrage, was so hard won, was denied us so long, that it is hardwired into me - us - to do so. But at least by not voting for the duopoly, I'm not supporting that particular aspect of it. And imagine if a number of parties all got a significant vote share giving a broad balance of MPs of different parties (and independents) in the House. And they had, between them, to form a government. How much of a restraint of the worst of our system would that give. A situation muchly to be desired, I'd say. So yes, I'll vote - but only for a party that supports PR, and not for one that is hog-tied by reliance upon corporate sponsorship and donations. I like my politicians unbought, thank you very much.

[peter]

Amid the furore about Nigel Farage's Ukraine war comments and the behaviour of his candidates/campaigners in Reform, one thing that seems to have gone unnoticed is the smooth way media attention has slipped away from coverage of the Conservative gambling scandal and onto this more profitable (for them) area of attention.

"Phew," Rishi Sunak must be thinking. I bet he could have kissed Nigel Farage when that bloke (plant or otherwise) made those racist comments, despite his no doubt genuine disgust at the comments themselves. It's an ill wind that blows no good, as they say.

The one thing that the media don't seem to get however, is that none of the people who are going to vote Reform are in the slightest bit put off by such offensive views, not least because they share them. Half of them never read a newspaper or watch a television news program anyway. Not of the legacy media anyway. They are more influenced by what they see online, in GB News, Farage's postings and other right wing offerings from the likes of Tommy Robinson etc. And even if they did it wouldn't make any difference to them. So much of the effort put into undermining the Farage project is wasted anyway.

Meanwhile in Europe the march of the far right seems to be going on apace. There's a kind of odd irony (no doubt not lost on Farage himself) that we were the country that chose to leave the EU in what was seen as an outward expression of the right - a 'take back control' thing, with all its attendant nonsense ("Get them foreigners out of here," and all that - only to find ourselves the 'sensible ones' who have isolated ourselves from the very movements that Farage and his ilk would so categorically approved of. Suddenly he'd have found himself entirely at home within the political movements arising in the turbulent mess of European politics. Who knew?

But let's have a look at the morning's offerings.

(One observation I'd make before I do so is that much of the sort of desperation we see in Sunak's face these days, whenever he appears before a camera, must be to do with his thoughts on his political legacy. Not much fun being trounced big time in an election - another thing altogether, going down in history as the last leader ever, of the British Conservative Party. The Party that ruled strong for the better part of 200 years. Now that's a political legacy that would stick. And the connotations of it would not be good (akin to an Eden or somebody, remembered for only one bad thing).)

But onwards.......

(And incidentally, the overnight success of Marine Le Pen's far right National Rally in France is likely to bolster the vote for Reform in the UK, as voters leaning in that direction think, "Yeah, that's sticking it to them; we'll have some of that!")

The Times leads with how Sunak is going to be pouring scorn on Farage's ambitions to 'form the next opposition', saying a vote for them is essentially the same as a vote for Labour. He seems to have totally given up on the idea of actually winning the election. (Which in itself helps to make the loss a self fulfilling prophesy of sorts: you need to project at least a degree of confidence in these things or you might as well forget it. He seems to have forgotten this, and the Conservatives won't forgive him for it.)

But probably the most serious headline is in the 'i', who tell us of the increasing numbers of economists who are nervous that neither the Conservatives nor Labour have anything like an idea about how to actually grow the economy (despite their claims to the contrary) and avoid the clear cuts into public services that are going to occur if they stick to their policies of reducing taxes rather than raising them. Neither seems to have the slightest idea as to how to increase the shockingly bad inward investment figures - inward investment without which no reasonable expectation of future growth can be prophesied.

Sunak will tell us that Putin is hoping for a Labour victory, says the Telegraph, who only yesterday I believe were suggesting that Putin was interfering by trying to promote Reform voting by YouTube and Facebook interventions etc. (Mind you, wasn't it the Telegraph who said on one day that Corbyn was putting the world in danger by his desire to see us get rid of our nuclear deterrent, and the following day said that he was doing the same because he had said that he wasn't prepared to push the nuclear button under any circumstances. Mmm....) Stamer for his part is going on a building spree. He's going to build millions of houses, he'll tell us. Millions of 'em! So many we won't know what to do with them - which is probably true because none of the first time buyers that they are meant to be for will be able to afford them anyway. They'll probably finish up being snapped up by the richest part of our society, desperate to find somewhere to stick all of the case that has been flooding up into their accounts in the past few years as the rest of us have been getting poorer. C'est la vie.

And lastly, I missed my local Labour candidate's visit to my house on Saturday. It's a shame, because I'd have had one question I'd like to have put to her. It's one that causes me trepidation to think about. What exactly will Kier Stamer's Britain look like in 16 years time: what will be the feel of it? I have my doubts. Oh Lord, I have such doubts. And they center around one word. Authoritarianism.