What Do You Think Today?

[Lefdmae Deemalr Effaeldm]

Marine le Pen, whose father formed the Front National or National Rally Party in 1972 has gone to great lengths to soften the image of the party, but is absolutely of the same stock of which her father was formed. She is a master of the sound bite and absolutely knows what to say to make her extreme views seem palatable.

Well said, thank you!
Many people don't get le Pen, she's subtle enough. And alas when info is not right on the surface, most horrible things can get overlooked.

In appropriate company:

[peter]

I haven't read the notorious 'Sharon Stone' article in the Sunday Mail which is currently causing such stir in the UK, but if I have the gist of it correctly, it all seems a bit overblown to me - a storm in a teacup that deserves a passing contemptuous glance and no more.

For the benefit of anyone who hasn't come across it yet, basically a few unnamed front bench MPs on the Tory side have accused the deputy leader of the Labour Party Angela Rayner of crossing and uncrossing her legs (ala the famous scene in the film Basis Instinct, but not,it should be noted, in a similar state of 'undress' {at least I don't believe that the claims run that far}) with the intention of distracting our notoriously randy PM, who she sits pretty much opposite.

On hearing about the story, my reaction was (perhaps typically given my gender) to find it amusing, while also feeling sympathy for Rayner, for whom it must be embarrassing. But more mature heads than mine definitely did not see the funny side of this, as evidenced by an outpouring of anger and outrage that such a story should have been run.

Prme Minister Johnson, on hearing of the story (he told us yesterday) immediately phoned Rayner to tell her of his disgust at the misogynistic piece of trash journalism, and to commit to unmasking the culprits behind the story and bringing them to book. Sir Lindsay Hoyle, Speaker of the House, duly weighed in, condemning the article, expressing his sympathy with Rayner and saying that such things would likely put off many younger women who would otherwise have had thoughts of giving service to their country in parliament.

This is all so good and certainly the deputy leader of the opposition deserves to have these 'champions' jumping to her cause - but would it be wrong of me to suggest that there is just a touch of prurience about the coverage of the affair: that the media, in their hyperbolic response, have given this miserable bit of titillation far more oxygen, brought it to the attention of inestimably greater numbers, than would have been the case if they had left it where it deserved to be - firmly embedded between the junk filled pages of the rag which laughingly purports to be a serious purveyor of news, in our low-brow society. Not only do people get the leaders they deserve in this world, it may be said, but also the journalism.

As to Hoyle's suggestion that upcoming female talent might be put off from entering the fray, I don't buy it. If anything it might serve as an example of the kind of wounding treatment that they might expect as reward for offering up their services, and one which they might be well advised to take on board, because it will be the the fare on offer most days (to greater or lesser degree), and they will needs have recourse to a thick skin if they are to throw themselves into that particular arena.

And it is to be expected. They cannot, after all, have it both ways. On the one hand, they cannot want to push themselves up into the limelight, to grasp the nettle of public recognition and status, without accepting the downside of occasionally humiliating and unfair treatment that goes with it. Sir David Steele, erstwhile leader of the Lib-Dem Party, was unflinching in his admitting that the projection of him in the program Spitting Image (as a tiny insignificant puppet with a squeaky voice, half the size of every other one n the show) was a significant factor in his failure to win over public support for his party. But he did not complain about this (as has not, to my knowledge, Rayner herself) - he recognised it as part of the 'devil's pact' he had made on entering the public arena.

My guess is that most young women who would choose to enter the fray, would be more than aware of the kind of treatment they might receive from time to time, and consider it a small price to pay for the benefits and privileges that success in winning high office brings. Being possessed of a wallflower and snowflake type of character are not, I'm thinking, key personality traits required for aspiring political candidates - and I suspect that any who would have been likely to be put off by the Rayner incident will have decided against the career long before it enters their thinking.

As to the story itself - let the PM be as good as his word and ensure that the said culprits are 'named and shamed' - or if the paper will not name the individuals behind the story, let its editors and owners be punished (in the court of public opinion if nothing else) for running what must be considered to be a cheap and low grade piece of tittle-tattle grub-work.

[peter]

A month or so ago, my wife cottoned on that we were on a particular tariff with our energy provider whereby we paid a cheaper price for electricity at night and a more expensive rate during the day.

Since we no longer used 'night-store' heaters (for which these particular types of tariff were designed) it made sense to change to one which would bring us to a cheaper 'variable' tariff during the day. She had, on one occasion once before, tried to change away from the less economic tariff, but had been given some reason as to why she was contractually bound into the 'economy-7' method of payment.

As this no longer applied (for whatever reason) she determined to once again attempt to change us to a tariff more suitable for our needs (especially important given the hikes in energy costs we are currently experiencing). She duly contacted our supplier and gave the necessary instruction.

We have a so called smart-meter in our house which tells us the tariff we are currently paying, and my wife was concerned when a few days later the tariff had not changed. Contacting the company once more (a process frustrating of itself, due to the long waits on tele-systems designed to put you on hold and play you banal music) she was told that the instruction had been put through but for some reason "the system isn't acting on it". The girl said she would repeat the instruction and that the meter should show the new tariff within 48 hours.

It didn't.

Phoning back yet again, she went through the entire process once more, and to cut a long story short, a month later we find ourselves engaged in complaints procedures, writing to the ombudsman, contacting Ofgem - you name it.......... But still paying the higher tariff.


By this point it has become patently clear to me that we are not meant to be allowed to adjust our tariff to the cheaper rate. Given the state of play nationally, with the smaller energy companies going to the wall and the bigger ones stepping up to take larger and larger shares of the market, it is becoming increasingly difficult to actually change your energy supplier - a key requirement upon which the entire functioning of our post-privatised energy market depends. It is only via the competition between the different providing companies that the benefits of having a privatised as opposed to a state-run system can be realised. In the absence of this competition, what you have is a virtual monopoly system where a small number of companies effectively hold their customers in bondage (and can get away with the kinds of stunt we are currently experiencing) by virtue of the difficulty of changing (to any advantage, even if you could) to another company.

So much then, for the benefits of privatisation - yet where are the calls for the immediate and permanent recall of these essential utilities back into public ownership? Deafening is the silence in the media, in the House of Commons, on the BBC, about this further demonstration of the failure of the Thatcherite model under which we now labour. Oh no - there was one lone voice that suggested a re-nationalisation of the utilities such that they could once again be run in the interest of the public rather than the private shareholders, wasn't there? It was that of Jeremy Corbyn. But we can't listen to anything he said now, can we. He's an anti-Semite.




---------------------------0------------------------


It was amusing to note the embarrassed way in which Sainsbury's announced their almost doubled profits for the last quarter in the media recently, following the increase in prices that they have passed on to their customers in recent months. With a moist eye they told how they were doing everything in their power to ease the burden of the price increases on overstretched households, and that the embarrassingly large profits they were enjoying could not be expected to continue into further quarters. Yes, well - that's a given isn't it. But in the meantime it's a case of 'make hay while the sun shines' and beggar the rest. When, I ask you, was it ever different? Money in the bank is, after all, money in the bank, even if the only ones we the public will shortly be able to visit are the food kind! Thank heavens for Aldi is all I can say.

[Forestal]

I have been described in the past as a communist, although I prefer the term Anarco-libertarian, but this is my idealistic position. In reality, I certainly lean more towards the communist side, as humanity as a whole is too immature and to complex in its systems of defunding the poor to dismantle entirely.

That said, I maintain that there are several key infrustructures that any country must have absolute control over in order to truely be sovereign.
These include:
1. Energy
2. Water
3. Food production and/or distribution.
4. Public transportation

With publically owned energy, there is none of this tarrif switching, or unfairness in being unable to do so, we would all pay the same rate/unit, which is dictated by a centralised government. This would be particuarly useful with the current Russian situation, as those in charge could not attempt to channel Russian crude through independant companies, mixing Russian and Foreign oils at a 49.9:50.1 ratio in order to cover up the origin of the product. Particularly with vehicle fuels again seeing record profits and having "more money than we know what to do with" - yes, that's because you're profiteering at the cost of those who really can't afford your bullshit. Government control of all energy supplies and production should (barring any internal corruption, of which there is always some) allow for fairer prices for all.

Water is an essential to life (and it could be argued a key factor in the current Russo-Ukrainian war due to the closing of the North Crimean canal, as well as other conflicts through history), thus it should never be possible for a privately owned company to control this asset. It is innately strategic.

Food production is already government subsidised, although I see no reason why the government couldn't own their own farms in a sort of neo-feudalism. As long as the rights of farmers are protected, which they easily can be, this system can be made functional. Equally, food distribution is a massive industry that the large chains have hold of by the short and curlies. Record profits every year as people increasingly can't afford to put food on the table, and farmers are underpaid for their goods because the shops have to take a share at every stage of the procedure. This system is rotten. I'm not old enough to remember the 1950's, but that's when price control was removed from the government and given to individual businesses. This killed small food distributors for the most part - and it ruins our food economy today.

Public transport as we all know is great in some places and awful in others. Some places indeed aren't suitable for private mass transport, however, this is because these places are not profitable and thus people in those areas suffer from lack of supply. There are ways in which a publically owned transport system could be arranged so that all areas are covered through subsidy in more populated areas to enable those lesser utilised routes. Tighter control over sizes of vehicles used, routes and standardized fuel supplies. Many people, myself included, avoid public transport because it is too expensive - because of this.

I understand none of this will ever happen, the corporations would never allow it. Lobbyists are too powerful in this regard and greed is too powerful. For a good example of where this is headed, take a look at the futuristic sci-fi game Shadowrun (the TTRPG, not the video games), where the Mega-Corporations rule the world openly. It is not too far fetched to see this happening in our own future.

/rant.

[peter]

Absolutely nailed it there Forestal.

I'd possibly add road construction and maintenance to your list and also think that there should be a much greater role for the state in provision of housing.

In respect of the latter, the chronic housing shortage that successive governments have faced (and been singularly unable to address with any degree of success) demands, I believe, a complete rethink about how we approach this most basic of necessities.

I'm not suggesting that we simply throw up lots of state housing ala the Soviet bloc of old - far from it. What is needed is a degree of 'blue sky thinking' about how the state and private sector can combine forces both in the construction and development of housing stock, and the purchasing of housing by the public once it is ready for habitation. Would it, for example, be so difficult for local councils to run low cost twenty five or even forty year mortgages for first time buyers, such that the eligible individuals were effectively buying their council properties from day one of their moving in?

Or the establishment of a state run 'bond' system where people could invest capital for a guaranteed return of X percent over the rate of inflation, that money being available for local councils to 'borrow' for investment in the building of the housing they need, and who, in turn, would provide the mortgages for eligible individuals to buy in their localities?

Surely all of these things are possible with a little bit of innovative thinking?

And with an army of potential labour that could be trained with the necessary skills in construction in short, state run, courses it should be possible to tie the construction, sale and purchase of housing all together in a way that is designed to meet our housing needs for the future into a seamless whole?

And with a progressive and ambitious plan for the construction of 'new towns' and utilisation of brown-field sites, surely anything is possible?

Why should such things be beyond us? I don't believe it. I think the vested interest in keeping up the value of housing, in always maintaining a shortfall between supply and demand, is the only thing that prevents us from approaching the housing problem in such innovative ways as to turn it into a means to reinvigorate our economy, rather than the shameful millstone around our necks that it currently is.

I've always said, Government of a country is not that difficult. Give people security of abode, security of work and security of income and the rest will fall into place. There is no better way to get people started on the right course in life than to give them a secure home to step out from. Ownership of their own property gives them something to work for, a base from which all other things stem, and the current system of leaving it in the hands of the private sector, where financial gain and not the creation of a stable and strong base upon which society can rest, simply doesn't cut it.

This is absolutely an area toward which the state needs to turn its attention and the property speculators be damned. Tie the whole thing together; planning, construction, labour-force (and education thereof), sale and financing. Security of abode for all. How hard can it be?

[peter]

By any standards the transgressions of Kier Stamer and Angela Rayner pale into insignificance next to those of the Downing Street party scandals, but the Mail newspaper is adamant that it is going to scream and cajole it's readership into attempting to equate the two situations in some form of weird balancing act in which the one (ie the Labour leadership beer and a Chinese takeaway) is supposed to justify the other (multiple parties in Downing Street with beer fridges, suitcases of wine, disco-kareoki events and kids swings being broken).

A number of people have crowingly pointed to the story as they have collected their Mail newspaper from the shop, while claiming that they couldn't care less about "a few parties in Downing Street" during lockdown. No - I suppose not. But then, they wouldn't be the ones who have been saddled with the burden of not having held the hands of their dying loved ones in care homes and hospital wards up and down the length and breadth of the country. They wouldn't be the people who missed events of significance in their lives - funerals, weddings, christenings - because they were not breaking the rules set by our leadership. Because they actually believed what they were being told - that to engage in mixing in unrestrained fashion was to risk spreading the virus and placing the lives of those vulnerable people who they later came into contact with at risk.

Besides which, the "few parties at Downing Street" argument is no longer the point. We all know that they were behaving in Number 10 as though it was party season in Toyland - for them it was. Champagne Charlie Johnson was at the helm and had little time for boring stuff like playing by the rules and running the country. No, the significant thing now is not the parties, it's whether Johnson knowingly misled parliament.

Now this may seem like small fry, paling into insignificance next to the jamborees being held in the seat of government, but it really isn't. Because our whole system rests upon the foundation that the legislature (that's the MPs sitting in parliament), when making the decisions that will pass into law, are doing so based upon true and accurate information. And on this basis, as set down in the ministerial code and by convention for long, long, before that, any member of parliament, or Government representative speaking in the House, is bound by the strictest code of honour, to tell, and to be assumed to be telling, the truth. And to be found not to have done so is, beyond any argument, a resigning offence.

It is absolutely right that this should be so. Parliament is the highest sovereign body in the land. Before it, under it, all must bow down. It is greater than any one person, Prime Minister, King or Queen. It is the embodiment of the Law under which all are subject and by which all are ruled. And these things are important. Without them chaos and despotism are but a thin step away, and this is why what Johnson may or may not have done in undermining this institution is of such major significance.

So whether Angela Rayner was at a rally or not, whether Kier Stamer had a beer or even whether Wilfred's swing got broken in a boozy free for all in the cellars of Number 10, are neither here nor there. If Johnson deliberately lied to parliament then it must be exposed that he did so and he must resign in ignominy as has this porn-oggling fool who thought it funny to be sitting watching trash on his phone when he was supposed to be creating the Law under which our lives are governed.

This is why the dull partygate affair must be brought right out into the open.

[peter]

The cost of living crisis. The war in Ukraine. Angela Rayner's legs and tractor-porn. Kier Stamer's beer and a take-away, the Sue Gray report.

Young lives stunted. Future prospects reduced to zilch. Cancer treatments brought to a standstill and hospital waiting lists through the roof. The economy in tatters, the national debt at a record high, lives shattered, pensions ruined, inflation and plummeting investment values. The future as bleak for many upon many of us as has been the case for generations - perhaps ever. An elite that is so sheltered from the reality of life for the millions, that it can pretend these things are not happening, that it believes that with a few dead cats and rabbits in hats that our attention can be turned elsewhere.

Wrong.

The legacy of a decade of Tory Government.

Never forgive. Never forget.

Now go out and vote and show your displeasure on the ballot paper.


------------------------------0-------------------------


In any properly functioning democracy it is the role of the media to hold the Government of the day (and political leaders across the board) to account. To hold their feet to the fire over sins of omission and comission and to expose their failings without prejudice or fear of reprisal. Yet this has not, is not happening in the UK and we have to ask ourselves, as a matter of no inconsiderable urgency, why not.

As a case in point, the Sue Gray report, which is by accounts so damning of the Prime Minister that it would demand his almost immediate resignation upon its release, is prevented from being given an airing for no other reason than to protect Johnson from this eventuality, and yet our media say nothing. On the contrary, moves are afoot to discredit the report before it is even out, by the reportage that one of Gray's advisors had made some derogatory tweets about Johnson in the past.

Neither is Kier Stamer or the Labour Party exempt form this protective covering. The abject failure of our official opposition to mount an attack on the Government, to drag this shameful sham of an executive into the cold glare of public scrutiny, over the past two plus years, is given no coverage whatsoever. Satisfied that after a period when its interests were threatened, 'normal service' has been resumed, the establishment has cut a lackluster and incompetent Leader of the Opposition all the slack he needs, not to be held to account for his failure to do his job.

Why is this? Why is our free-press and audiovisual media so singularly failing in its critical democratic function, to allow the political class of the day to get away with what they have done, what they continue to do, without let or hindrance? The answer is (of course) that you actually need more than a 'free' press for the media to function in its given role. Not only must the media be free and unmuzzled, but it must also have no vested interest in supporting the leadership of the day. And this is where we have abjectly failed in supporting this critical leg of our democracy (and are paying the price).

That the BBC is partisan to the establishment interest is no surprise - it is the state owned media outlet after all. Like Pravda before it, it knows exactly where its interest lies and will do nothing to rock the boat. But the privately owned media? Why do they not operate in an unfettered way to expose the failings of our Government as they would do were there an ounce of integrity to be scraped off the bottom of their shoe? The reason (and it is almost too obvious to be worth saying) is that they have formed as cosy an alliance as it is possible to have with the leadership of the day (or I should say successive leaderships). The revolving door between the most influential journalists and presenters with the political leadership, the behind the scenes connections and communication between our media Moguls and our top politicians means that they are virtually joined at the hip. A Faustian pact that results in news being reported in just sufficient detail and fashion to give the appearance of being neutral, of being critical, but always directed and swayed away from the areas where the real story lies, where the real damage is being done. This week alone, huge swathes of legislation passed through the House of Lords that hugely impacts our freedoms, our democratic rights to protest etc, with virtually no coverage whatsoever in the mainstream media. Our hard won democratic rights have been savaged and we haven't even been told about it.

As long as this deeply, deeply unhealthy state of affairs persists, people will never see through the fog of distractions and misdirection that they are subjected to, will never get a fix on the true scandals that are going on beyond their limited focus. And that's exactly the way that the establishment, the movers and shakers of our society, like it.

[peter]

Netflix, Sky TV, Amazon Prime. BT Superfast, Virgin Media, Talk Talk.

These are names that are common currency in our society today and we we all turn to them for our connection, both to eachother and to the society we live in more broadly. We bank, communicate, organise and take entertainment from this range of services that have become integral to the way in which we live our lives.

But suddenly, for huge numbers of us, this cruising through life on a wave of technology is under threat. Because when the economic tsunami that we have brought upon ourselves - and we have brought it upon ourselves.....none of it was necessary - really begins to bite, many people will find themselves having to sacrifice one or more of the above services just in order to eat and heat.

This is the brutal truth that no Government Minister is going to tell you, no smooth talking politician from either side of the phoney division that runs down the centre of the chamber of the House - that things are, for many of us, going to get worse than you can begin to imagine. When the result of all of that money printing and borrowing and throwing it away paying people to sit at home, when the consequences of run away inflation and plummeting money value, of rising interest rates and debt levels sitting in the trillions all start to kick in - then vast numbers of us simply aren't going to be able to ride it out. At least not in the style to which we have become accustomed, not living the lives to which we are used.

So it will be the Netflix or the Prime that will go first, when suddenly we discover that our disposable income doesn't meet our monthly payments anymore. Then the screw will tighten further and further, and suddenly the choice of whether the phone contract or the fuel bill is paid will be staring us in the face. It will be back to free TV via your aerial and landline phones as the penny begins to drop - that you simply cannot keep up with the cost that living in the modern world demands of you.

And so the much talked about, but little experienced inequality gap will suddenly become a real thing in your life, as it is in many third world countries today - the real places where the real effects of being amongst the haves, or the have-nots, can be seen. Your existence (if you are amongst the unlucky ones, which I have little doubt that I will be...... you probably will be as well so don't feel to smug about it) will over a period, be pushed back into that of former times, back into the world of your grandparents and their parents before them.

And by this point we are into the world of the UK future. A world in which two societies live in parallel. The one, that has managed to cling on by its fingertips to inclusion in the haves - for whom inclusion in the forthcoming tech revolution that will utterly transform life for its membership, increasing by the day their separation from the caste below, will mean that they race ahead enjoying stratospheric heights that we can at this time barely imagine. The other, a brutal and dirty sluice-chanel of effluent running alongside the rich streets of the glittering cities of the haves. A grubby under-society composed of those who are for ever excluded from the pleasures and sensory delight of the other, the gap unbridgeable, almost like two different species existing side by side.

But what of governance of this huge unruly undermob? Surely the structure of the society above will demand that the proles so far beneath them are in some way recorded, listed for quantification purposes, for taxing and regulating? Well - only up to a point. Because once you start limiting access to things like health services, civil amenities etc to only those with internet access, smart devices and the future technologies that will transform ones connectivity even further, integrating people into a seamless 'collective' bound together by the tech - well at this point the rest cease to matter. Neither productive nor engaged they can essentially be forgotten about. Like the untouchables of other places, their health, their vulnerability to criminal elements that will prey upon them, the swirling mass of their degradation will be something that can be ignored as if it were a war between groups of rats in the sewers beneath our streets. Now we are looking at a truly medieval level of existence.

I don't know how long it's going to take to reach this happy state of affairs, but that it's coming does not require the vision of a Roger Bacon......a simple extrapolation of what is currently happening will do. And there is always the possibility that the tech giants will realise that their profits are actually dependant upon the mass affordability of their products and will act accordingly. There's not much profit in making TV shows if no-one can afford to see them after all. Besides which, to be a member of the undermob may actually not be as bad as you think. Because, oddly enough, there is and remains, actually quite a lot of good in people. Left to their own devices, without the interference of Governments and media giants pulling them this way and that, telling them what to think and that they need this or that gadget in order to be happy, it's entirely possible that they may actually come to their senses and discover that the really important things in life are not things at all. That it is what we can do for each other, that it is enriching your mind, not engorging it with crap, that actually bring out the best of a life. And that's something that the members of the uber-collective will never get.

[peter]

Amid speculation that the Tories could sustain spectacular losses, the UK public prepare to go to the polls in local elections up and down the country.

Given the cost of living crisis that is affecting virtually every household in the land, the partygate scandal, and the public perception of Johnson as a man that can be trusted about as much as a fox in a chicken coop, tory MPs are bracing themselves for a bruising result - and one that many are prepared (if it is as bad as predicted) to throw in the towel of their support for the PM over. It didn't help that when confronted in an interview last night (which was supposed to bolster support for his party, not puncture it) about a pensioner who was traveling around in a bus by day in order to stay warm because she could not afford to heat her home, Johnson responded by taking credit for the free bus pass instigation which allowed her to do it.

Meanwhile, a few of the papers continue to try to weakly equate Kier Stamer's beer and a curry at an election rally during the pandemic, with the bacchanalian goings on at Number 10 Downing Street at the same time. The Daily Mail proudly announces its seventh day on the trot of running a Stamer-curry related headline, seemingly unaware that all but the most bug-eyed right-wing loons recognise this for exactly what it is - a pathetic attempt to swing attention away from the egregious dishonesty of their own man by the weak undermining of the credibility of another. The brain dead Mail readership may soak up this tripe, but for the bulk of people it remains a poor smokescreen at best and utter bilge at worst.

And going into the elections, it seems that the Tories are poorly positioned indeed. They have absolutely dissed their reputation for economic efficiency - about the only thing upon which their thin credibility could rest at best, and have landed themselves with a liability of a Prime Minister who none but the most blinkered and slavering nationalist would grant an ounce of integrity or moral uprightness. "But he took us out of the EU," comes the pathetic refrain in answer to the statement of the complete and utter destruction of our country, our way of life, our future prospects, "He's standing up to the Russians."

So fucking what! The jury is not so much out on the former as lying face down in the water, and in respect of the latter, Johnson could never be a Churchill (as in his own version of a wet-dream he would see himself) as long as he's got a hole in his arse. He is piggybacking on the struggles of the Ukrainian people against tyranny for no other reason than it suits his own cause, which is making Johnson look good himself. He couldn't give a flying frick about the Ukrainian people if they didn't have a purpose to serve in his own self aggrandizing agenda (and damn useful as a means of distraction from his partygate woes) and if you believe any different then you understand nothing about the man - nothing at all.

So with any luck, the British public will go out today and land the Tories a kick in the balls that will go right up their ramrod stiff back and explode in the head of the narcissistic scum-bag at the top. With a bit more luck, the self interested MPs who hitch a ride on the back of the party to wherever they can best get a finger hold on wealth and power, will recognise that their advantage now lies in the rapid and savage pulling down of the monkey at their head, and the elevation to their leadership of someone with a bit more social and public cachet - say at around the level of a piece of used toilet paper. If this dream like scenario were to occur, now that would be a cause for celebration, but I won't hold my breath. The Tories are in a mess. I don't believe they could organise to oust a bad and damaging leader any more than they have proven that they can organise to run a country.

[peter]

Have you ever been on safari?

If you have, you will probably have experienced that thing where they get you up early one morning for a pre-dawn bone-shaking ride out into the bush, where, after a couple of hours of shaking about, you will be treated to the magnificent sight (at a suitably safe distance) of a pride of lions sunning themselves lazily under a tree. Theirs seems to be a life of unbridled leisure as they yawn and stroll their way through the morning, with little to suggest the 'nature red in tooth and claw' existence as shown in TV nature documentaries from morning until night most days.

Have you ever wondered how the tour guides know where the lions are going to be; I mean it's Africa after all - it's frikkin' huge!

The secret is (certainly in some cases - maybe not all) that the lions are trained to the spot by the leaving of carcasses there on which to feed. They soon learn that instead of doing all of that running around and killing malarky, they can rather just hang around the area, and wait for their food to be delivered to them. It's a damn good survival strategy and beats the chance based one of actually going out on the hunt hands down.

You see, it's all about energy; income Vs expenditure. It might be the case that the lion pride who are out on the plain, chasing down the bucks and moving from place to place with the herds are getting more energy in - but by heck they are spending it out in order to achieve it. Where as your savvy pride who stay fixed to the spot (pretty much), whose only perambulations are of the smelling of the flowers kind, might not achieve the top dollar energy input of the hunters, but because of their much lower energy outlay their net energy (income minus expenditure) is much the same. And a damn site more relaxing as a way of life to boot.

So it's not rocket science to know that if you get fortunate enough to enjoy a safari camp on your extended territory, the clever money is to take full advantage of the well stocked larder that providence has put your way, and enjoy the spoils thereof.

Now (and this is where it is going to get contentious - because you knew it would) this underlying biological drive, to maximize the energy efficiency of your operation, is not limited to animals alone. We as humans have no special status that lifts us above such considerations, even though we rarely couch our thinking in these kinds of terms. And this at heart, is always going to be the problem with any kind of welfare system designed as a safeguard for people when they fall on hard times. Because it relies upon people to rise above this basic animal equation of energy double entry bookkeeping, and move into the realm of less basic things like 'social contracts' and the like. Because such welfare systems can only operate to the advantage of society if the broad understanding of the people is that you don't use it unless you have to. But there will always be an element of society that cannot get this, or simply do not have sufficient social responsibility in order to be bound by it. There will always be the lion pride who will choose to sit under the tree and wait for their meat to be delivered to them. The job of society must, if it is going to operate such a welfare system, be to work out how to discourage this type of (perfectly understandable) behaviour. If it does not, then it gives fuel to the arguments of those who would abandon any such type of safety nets and return to the law of the jungle as a rule of existence and simultaneously lays down the ground work to destroy the benevolent system it would create.

To those who would throw their hands up in horror at such an argument I say this. I am well aware of the sort of 'social Darwinism' aspect of this thinking - but because it is unpalatable does not demand that it is wrong. I, more than most of the liberal intelligentsia who would decry such an argument, have a direct contact with such behaviour. I live amongst it, experience it on a daily basis, around me where I live and in the job I do. I spend a proportion of my life serving people over the shop counter who are fully capable of working for a living, yet choose not to do so simply because they can. They become expert in the box-ticking exercise that unlocks the jackpot of benefit payments, and are perfectly prepared to live life at a lower level of abundance (in comparison to the benefits that working might bring) in return for not having the demands that life as a working individual would thrust upon them. They are not bad people - they have just made the lion under the tree choice, and in a world where the returns of working at the low-end of the market (where the bulk of them would be employed) are so minimal, who can blame them.

The problem is not theirs - it is the problem of society to work out a way of dealing with it in a fair and humane manner.

[peter]

Headline of the day award jn respect of what is now being called 'the beergate scandal' (the accusations in the media that Kier Stamer and others partook of beer and an Indian curry during lockdown while on an election rally) must go to the Sun newspaper for the undeniably clever "Stamer backed into a korma".

But this aside, despite what the Tories and the media would have us swallow, what Stamer and his cohort did during lockdown is absolutely neither here nor there. For starters, what is their point - that because Stamer broke the law (if he did - he would absolutely deny that this was the case), then it's okay that Johnson and all of those people in Downing Street did as well?

Try that one out next time you find yourself with your collar being felt by the rozzers.

If the accusation is one of hypocrisy, then it's hardly the revelation of the century that politicians can be hypocritical. If Stamer and co have broken the law, then let the police decide that it is so and bring them to book. It adds not a jot or a tittle to the case of whether Johnson and crew broke the law, which it has apparently been decided (and accepted by them, because not a one of them contested the fixed penalties that were handed out) they did, and should be treated as an entirely separate issue.

And besides, as I have said above, what matters more than anything is whether Johnson deliberately attempted to mislead the House. If Stamer has likewise done this then he must go as well. We haven't got this far in the campaign to 'balance out the wrongdoing' yet - but we no doubt will. At this time I will, I assure you, be as inflexible in my judgement of Stamer as I have been in respect of Johnson. I'm completely in balance with one thing in this, and that is my dislike of both of them.

We are firmly back into the judgement of the merits between a louse and a flea in this situation, and as (was it) Boswell or Johnson (the other one) pointed out, it's a pointless exercise.

[peter]

Gosh - where to start!

In a rather plaintive report yesterday, the WHO reported that world Covid death figures were in fact (they estimated) three times worse than the official figures given as a result of failure in many countries to record deaths properly (India and Russia being significant cases).

Well, in the famous words of Mandy Rice-Davies, they would say that wouldn't they. Having been instrumental in causing the biggest overreaction to any world health situation, well, ever, they desperately need to justify their doomsday predictions against a world death total of around five million, which set against a population of approaching eight billion people barely registers as a blip. According to today's Telegraph, the organisation have included, by a piece of circuitous logic that makes my head spin, the deaths that have resulted from conditions other than Covid, but caused by people not being able to access normal health services due to their being overwhelmed or suspended (the more likely case if my local hospital was anything to go by) as a result of the virus. Am I being obtuse if I point out that those people wouldn't have died if it hadn't been for the disproportionate reaction to the Covid situation and they had been able to access services as normal; is it not then a circular logic to present them as Covid deaths? I'm confused (not).

As well as a bizzare inclusion, something to do with the fact that the figures should be even higher if you adjust for the lesser number of road deaths due to people not being out in their cars due to lockdown, the report informs us that Sweden, who you will remember, didn't bother with the lockdown or restrictions policies at all (and were roundly criticized for it) had one of the lowest death rates in the world. Lockdown advocates will no doubt argue that this is a result of population differences, or health differences or some other differences.... but that's all just hollow rhetoric. Their cities have population densities not dissimilar to other Western countries and in respect to their obesity levels, well this applies to any disease, where overall general health will affect survival rates. The bottom line is that they fared no worse as a result of not attempting to 'flatten the curve' than any country that did. Now our economy is screwed and theirs isn't.

So sorry WHO, this isn't going to wash. Sure, you'd have liked for your prophet of doom scenarios to be realised but they weren't. No amount of cooking the books now is going to alter this. The figures are what they are. Unless we include the massive increase in death from other causes that you in part caused as a result of your histrionic pronouncements that so influenced the policies followed by Governments across the world.

And so to economics, or rather the economy. It's worth starting with a comment in the FT from a JP Morgan asset management spokeswoman. "The combination of the pandemic and Brexit have changed the fundamentals of the economy, particularly its ability to generate persistent inflation."

You could say that again! With the Governor of the Bank of England saying yesterday that we are teetering on the brink of recession, that inflation rates will be upwards of ten percent (the highest for forty years) by the end of the year, and that like it or not, we are going to have to see interest rises being used as a means to control it (with all of the pain in terms of domestic finances that that causes), it would be an understatement to say that things are looking a bit ropey.

As the tally of yesterday's local elections are being performed, the news in respect of the Tories much feted reputation for economic competence is not good. To put it bluntly, the economy has gone to hell in a handcart under their stewardship. It's a basket case. It's not pining for the fjords, it's dead, and no amount of glue from the Tory spinmeisters is going to stick it back on the perch! It's an ex-economy!

So we have a Government that 'got Brexit done' - the first act in the bending over and rogering of the UK economy. Then we have the hyperbolic pandemic response (proven as ineffective and unnecessary by the Swedish example) delivered as the coup de grace, the killing blow to our future chances as a nation. Tory economic competence - you've got to be kidding me. And no amount of referral to Jeremy Corbyn, notes from departing chancellors, references to "wider world problems" is going to cut it. Twelve years of Tory 'management' of the economy and here we are. The basket case of Europe. Out in the world on our own and prey to just about every other country with even the slightest interest in striking a deal with us, beholden to accept whatever shit terms they offer us, no matter how flimsy and counter to our interests they might be. Taking back control? This lot couldn't control their central heating from the knob on the wall, let alone the economy of our country.

[peter]

Well the local election results are in and after a bruising result for the Tories and a less than stellar one for Labour there is only one really significant story in town, but not one that is going to flag on many people's radars and this is the result in Northern Ireland.

For the first time ever the people of the province have returned a Sinn Fein majority making what used to be the political arm of the IRA the largest party in the Northern Ireland Assembly. Already the DUP have said that they will not enter into a power sharing agreement with them as the leadership and this cannot bode well for the future in terms of the Good Friday Agreement and maintenance of the fragile peace in the region.

Like it or not this vote, as much a psychological triumph as a physical one, must perforce be seen as an incremental if not significant step toward the ultimate reunification of Ireland and the beginning of the end for the Union of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Boris Johnson will now be faced with the prospect of I) having to renegotiate the terms of the hated Northern Ireland Protocol (by the Unionists at least) if he is to get the DUP on board in Stormont, and ii) the possibility that he might be forced to allow for a referendum in the province on the question of reunification.

It has been the position of successive UK Government's that if the people of the province demonstrated that they wanted to secede from the Union, then parliament would not stand in their way. The province was created in its modern form with the specific purpose of never allowing an Irish nationalist leader to hold the reins of power in NI, and yesterday's vote will be anathema to them. It's as clear a demonstration of the wavering commitment of the province to its union with the UK as could be asked for, and the nationalist cause will not be slow to seize upon it. It is going to require very careful handling - and a political leader with muchly greater skills than Johnson - to navigate through this political minefield without precipitating a return to the troubles of the pre Good Friday Agreement days. No-one wants to see a return to the bad old days of the troubles, Unionists and Nationalists alike, but wanting peace to be maintained will not be enough. Feelings will be running high and high feelings have a tendency to take on a life of their own.

But more broadly, the vote in Northern Ireland can only be seen as the first step in an almost inevitable break up of the whole of the UK proper. Scottish independence is almost a given as well and would be energised and invigorated in the face of any similar movement in the province. Johnson could well find himself going down in history as the leader who oversaw the break up of Great Britain after five hundred years of collective history (more in the case of Wales) and this can only haunt him in his dreams at night.

And what of England in this future scenario? Of the various elements that make up the nation of The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, England is the one part which has bought into the idea of Britishness more than any other (and this only because of its South-Eastern centricity - in reality the North and the South of England are as different as chalk and cheese and even Churchill believed that they should be broken into two self-governing regions), and how it will react to suddenly finding itself cut adrift to rely on its own resources is anybody's guess. There is little actual national identity left in the English people, such has its presence been swamped/overshadowed by its collective Britishness (and this has been a necessity in no small part due to the hegemonic nature of its relationship with the other parts of the UK). So what will emerge post a breakup of the whole nation into its constituent parts is a question that no-one knows the answer to.

In some sense Johnson and his milieu would not be to bothered by this. England (particularly the South East) has always had the lions share of the wealth of the nation, and the shedding of the troublesome parts to leave a profitable heartland, under Tory control in perpetuity as it would be, might not seem too bad an option to many of them. But once this 'happy' state of affairs has come to pass then make no mistake, the next set of problems, in the shape of a fractious North of England, would not be far over the horizon. The differences have been papered over to a degree, but the North-South divide is a very real one (and Johnson's 'levelling-up' agenda has been a recognition of this, an attempt to bring the North into the fold as it were - to give it a sense of inclusion), and one that, once the nation of England finds itself out on its own, will take on major significance.

So there you have a glimpse of the shape of things to come - history in the making as it were - and the results in NI yesterday are but the first step in this process. As for me, I'm beginning to find interest in the word Dumnonia, not much heard in the conversation of the people of this land for a thousand years. Think on brothers, think on!

[peter]

Do you remember how we all asked how Boris Johnson was going to do it? How, after scrapping Theresa May's backstop idea, he was going to square the circle of keeping the border between the North and the South open (a condition of the Good Friday Agreement), but still satisfy the demands of maintaining the integrity of the customs union (which the EU demanded was integral to any withdrawal agreement) without putting a border down the Irish Sea (which the Unionists of Northern Ireland would never wear).

Theresa May had said that "no British Prime Minister would ever countenance the setting of a border down the Irish Sea" - to do so would weaken the Union of Northern Ireland with the rest of Great Britain beyond measure - and Boris Johnson had cheered in agreement with these words along with the rest of the House.

Then of course, once he was Prime Minister, having during his campaign implied that he had a 'cunning plan' (like Baldrick before him, who he now is starting to look increasingly like), he went ahead and did exactly that. How he ever got the DUP to agree to go along with it I'll never know - and Arlene Foster, who was responsible for this, must consequentially share responsibility for yesterday's result in which for the first time in its history, the province returned a vote that will (or could) put a nationalist leader in as first minister of Stormont.

But now that piece of legerdemain has come back to haunt him (as it was always going to) and Johnson is in the soup. Because circle's can't be squared: they can only be broken and the chips thereof be allowed to fall where they will. And this is exactly what Johnson has done. Now he faces the following dilemma.

Sinn Fein have won a majority in the province and so should head the new parliament at Stormont. The DUP, (the largest Unionist party in the province) have, by the terms of the Good Friday Agreement, to take up their position alongside the winning nationalist party (as said, Sinn Fein) in a power sharing agreement, but this they have said that they will not do.

Stormont had (and I hope I have this correct) already been reduced to inactivity (I'm not sure that it was even sitting) by the DUP's deep unhappiness with the way that the EU were operating the Northern Ireland Protocol (essentially the way that goods coming from the UK into the province were being monitored and regulated), saying that it was eroding the unity of Northern Ireland with the rest of Great Britain, demanding that they could not enjoy free movement of goods from one region of the United Kingdom to another (ie theirs). (Certainly, I've been noticing that many offers on goods are now being advertised as "available in participating stores with the exception of Northern Ireland.) The Westminster Government have for their part, been complaining vociferously to the EU about the (what they see as) "overzealous" way that the Northern Ireland Protocol is being administered from the EU side.

But this was always going to be the case, and Johnson has already made himself look like a fool in the past by saying that he didn't understand what he was signing when he agreed to the protocol. This is patent rubbish however and the EU knows it. Johnson was doing exactly as he has done in every situation he has found himself in since the day he took office - flying by the seat of his pants. Doing or saying whatever is necessary to get through the day. No more than this.

So now the whole house of cards is starting to drop. The DUP, far less than happy about having to share power as second fiddle to the nationalist Sinn Fein already, have said that the only way that they will even contemplate such an arrangement is if the Northern Ireland Protocol is completely renegotiated. The EU are saying, "no - you signed it, you stick by it", and the Johnson administration are saying, "well if you won't renegotiate it, we'll simply pass legislation by which we can override it whether you like it or not."

If it comes to this pass, as it seems inevitable that it will, then the EU will take the UK to court for having broken the terms of an international treaty, the UK will mount the defence that it was legally entitled to do so because it was acting to protect the interest of a pre-existing agreement (namely the Good Friday Agreement) and the judgement will go where it will. America will be pissed off on numerous counts, not least because it was instrumental along with Tony Blair in setting up the Good Friday Agreement that Johnson's actions have undermined (Sir David Frost described it as being currently "on life support") and because the last thing it wants to be doing is continuously trying to settle squabbles between two of the members of the Western coalition that it is desperately trying to hold together in the face of Russian aggression in the Ukraine. So Boris Johnson will likely face a kickback in terms of future trade agreements and cooperation with the US on this score.

And if we go ahead and pass legislation to override the Northern Ireland Protocol unilaterally, what will be the EU response? It could run from exacting penalties in the form of the triggering of Article 16 - the clause that allows either the EU or UK to suspend any part (or indeed all) of the withdrawal treaty, to the tearing up of the whole agreement. What it will not do is to sit back and watch the integrity of the single market and customs union be compromised by the UK acting outside the terms of its agreement.

So this, in a nutshell, is the can of worms that Johnson has opened up for himself. Northern Ireland sits on the verge of braking away from the Union, or worse, descending into the chaos of bloodshed once more. The EU sits on the verge of tearing up the withdrawal agreement and casting the UK out into a cold world in which its economic prospects look decidedly shaky at best and the country is facing economic circumstances on the domestic front that would make a leader with no other problems turn grey at the thought of them.

Johnson's premiership was always going to end up in carnage for our society, our country, our lives. Michael Gove knew that he was not fit to be the leader of the Tories, even less so to be Prime Minister of the country. He said so in what was probably the last really honest thing that came out of his mouth. Now here we are. And all because the stupid people of this country thought that Boris Johnson was funny.

[peter]

The Government are making noises that they are going to re-open their dispute with the EU over the Northern Ireland Protocol in the next few days with the NI Secretary Brandon Lewis saying to them that the Protocol must be fixed or we will unilaterally take the actions necessary to fix it ourselves [basically just pass Laws to override it].

Foreign Secretary Lizz Truss is known to be the most hawkish on this issue, feeling that the Protocol should simply be abandoned, while sources close to Gove and Sunak suggest that they are acting to thwart this provocative act. They feel that the economic kickback and the increased likelihood of a UK-EU trade war [which we would inevitably loose] make this a less than sensible attitude. In a veiled insult to Truss their source said that "there are those who understand the protocol, and those who are trying to involve themselves in it.

It's all about trying to get the Northern Ireland executive up and running at Stormont, and this can't be done until the DUP come on board and agree to sit under the newly elected Sinn Fein leader as First Minister in the power sharing agreement. This, they say, they will not do while the Protocol is in place hampering the flow of goods between the UK mainland and the province. In truth it's more about the psychological effect, the unspoken implications as it were, of there being a border, a barrier, down the Irish Sea. For the Unionist cause, this is like the first step toward the separation of NI off from the rest of the UK and they won't wear it.

But the odd thing is that while the Johnson administrations attempts to woo them back into the Stormont Executive chamber by threatening the EU over the Protocol might be good for the DUP [with whom Sinn Fein would have to share power], it could actually hamper the formation of the power sharing executive from another angle, because of the other groupings involved in it besides the DUP [ie Sinn Fein and others], a majority are in favour of the Protocol. Thus any moves on the part of the UK government to trash it are not going to go down well with them.

Now this might all seem like pretty dry stuff, but it is of critical importance. The Good Friday Agreement via which peace in the province is maintained is only hanging together by a thread [Sir David Frost described it as being on "life support" - no small thanks to his actions as chief negotiator and arch supporter of brexit I might add] and the formation of a functional power sharing executive in Stormont could be the only thing that will prevent the blood from flowing on the streets of Belfast. The Unionists of the province are in no mood to be messed around with - they feel that they have drawn the shit-end of the stick [they have] and that Johnson has sold them down the river [also true]. Johnson is sitting on a powder-keg of his own making and is walking a knife-edge trying to avoid a complete meltdown.

The truth is that Johnson bought his much vaunted 'getting of brexit done' on the back of the Unionists of Northern Ireland, after promising them that he would never do this [or see it done]. It was only via the agreement to put the border down the Irish Sea that got him his withdrawal agreement, with the EU at all, and now it's time to pay the piper. Let's hope that the payment does not take the form of death on the streets of the province.

[Avatar]

As for me, I'm beginning to find interest in the word Dumnonia, not much heard in the conversation of the people of this land for a thousand years.

Whenever people talk about the breaking apart of the Union, I always ask "What about Cornwall?"

--A

[peter]

In Westminster whenever that question is asked, the reply usually is, "Well, what about Cornwall?"




So Kier Stamer has decided to take the fight to the Prime Minister over the beergate allegations and has come out swinging. Well, what he has done is to make a statement saying that it he is issued with a fixed penalty notice for his attendance of the Durham curry event, then he will "do the right thing and resign."

This puts Johnson in a really difficult spot - because he (Johnson) of course hasn't. Tory MPs may well be wishing now that the Daily Mail had not been so assiduous in keeping up the pressure for the police investigation into Stamer to be reopened (remember - it was all investigated at the time and no offense was found to have been committed). In fairness Stamer can be fairly sure that he will be cleared - no really new information pertaining to himself has really emerged during this 'round 2' of the affair - but even if he is found to have been in breach of the law, he will be able to retire with his integrity intact and Johnson will look terrible. If as is likely, he is cleared, then he still gets a bit of kudos for having stepped up to the plate and been prepared to survive or fall on his principles.

Suddenly tonight, Tory MPs don't want to talk about this anymore. I wonder why?



Brandon Lewis (the Northern Ireland Secretary) said today that the province deserves a Government that is stable and accountable to the people. And that in the face of being a member of a Government that has never been out of crisis from virtually day one, whose leader has been near to being thrown out countless times for misdemeanor after misdemeanor. And accountable? Don't make me laugh. Wallpaper, Owen Patterson, the PPE contracts scandal, partygate, the list goes on.....At what point have this shower shown the slightest bit of accountability from the moment they took office.

Sir David Frost has the brass neck to say that the Northern Ireland Good Friday Agreement is virtually dead in the water when he and his half arsed protocol (not to mention his avid support of Brexit) are possibly amongst the chief reasons why this might be so. Has the man no shame? Have either of them no shame.

The Tories are changing the rules on what you must present in order to be able to vote in elections (photo ID is now going to have to be presented) secure in the knowledge that the demographics most likely to be excluded (the young and socially disadvantaged) are not the ones that will vote for them. In addition, constituency boundary changes due to come into effect next year make it harder to return Labour MPs in around ten seats.

When are the people of this country going to wise the fuck up?

(Interesting to read that if only the under twenty-five year olds had been able to vote in the 2019 election, the Labour Party would have won just about every seat. Maybe there is hope for the future after all. Another interesting fact was that taken by educational status, all areas where the liberal democrats won councils were areas of higher uptake of higher education, all areas where the Tories won were in places where the uptake of higher education places were lowest. Go figure.)

[peter]

In a reasonable bit of reportage on Stamer's statement that he will resign if landed with a fixed penalty notice for his attendance at the Durham post campaigning curry event, the take of most papers is his 'gamble' in doing so.

Not so the Mail of course, who have it that he is piling inapropriate levels of pressure on the police to find him innocent. Not that they piled inapropriate levels of pressure on the police to reopen the investigation by running headline front pages on the subject for eight consecutive days, ot that the Tories piled pressure on the police by requesting the reopening just prior to the local elections.

And lets look at the police actions themselves. When the initial reports of the Downing Street parties were flooding out, they were reluctant in the extreme to investigate them. For an extended period they claimed "nothing to see there" and would have continued to do so had not the Sue Gray report, in progress at the time, been uncovering infringement after infringement in the seat of government. When they did eventually decide that maintaining a refusal to investigate was beginning to look suspiciously like the granting of favour to the Conservative leadership, they used their investigation into the parties as a means to prevent the release of material highly damaging to the PM and Downing Street contained within the Gray report, from being made public. This protective injunction remains in place to this day.

Contrast the police actions when the complaints were advanced that the Labour leader and his cohort may have similarly (if to the nth degree smaller) breached the Covid regulations pertaining to mixing. They were (in the common parlance) 'on it like a car bonnet'. None of the reluctance to investigate there. Suddenly it was top priority and done so swiftly that you could barely breathe between the complaints being made and the police investigation being instigated. That the investigation concluded that no rules were broken does not mean it was shoddily done, or that incriminating evidence of wrongdoing was withheld - it might just be that.....errr...... no rules were broken.

Given that the police have acted with what could be seen as a suspicious degree of bias (if you were of a cynical type of mindset) in the manner of their enthusiasm (or lack of) to investigate these putative transgressions, it is not unreasonable to think that the decisions that are currently being considered (ie whether to issue the fpn's to Stamer and Co) will follow the same political trajectory - so what, in these circumstances would Johnson and his Downing Street fixers like the police to do? (If we can work this out, we will likely have a good idea where this is going.)

It's a knotty one. If Stamer and Rayner (for she also has stated her intention to resign if found in breach of the rules) do get issued with fpn's, then they are forced to resign; so much for the good in terms of portraying the Labour Party in a bad light - but then it leaves the PM looking like an absolute stinker, and we can't have that. But there is a way here, to have both your cake and to eat it.

If you remember, when Dominic Cummings was found by the same police force to have breached the rules with his Barnard Castle trip, he was cautioned but not fined. So there is a precedent for this. It puts Stamer in a tricky spot as well. He is both guilty and not; he is not put into the position where he has to live up to his word, although he still can if he chooses. Already the Labour leader has been coy about saying what he will do in these circumstances (I think he should resign on principle anyway - either that or fight his innocence in the courts proper until the bitter end, as is always his right to do). But such a result would serve Johnson pretty well - better than a complete restatement of the earlier decision that no rules were broken. That allows Stamer to maintain the pressure on Johnson to resign without the stain of hypocrisy hanging over his head.

So this is my bet as to where the investigation will land. Sort of guilty, sort of not. A fudge between the two leaving Stamer still under the hypocrisy cloud, but not forcing him to have to take the act that the PM should have taken when the fixed penalty notice arrived on his doormat (and thereby making him, the PM, look like a complete blackguard in the process).

So this is, as I say, is my bet. As we used to say at the White City greyhound track in my youth (hem hem), [cockney accent] "I'm offering five to four on the dog - who wants it!"

[peter]

Today's papers are replete with pictures of Prince Charles looking wistfully at the crown of his mother as he, for the first time, reads the Queen's Speech at the state opening of Parliament. The Queen, unable to attend because of "episodic mobility problems" has not missed one of these speeches for 59 years, believing apparently that "to be seen is to be believed". (Not sure that that applied to Prince Andrew when he gave his notorious Emily Maitlis interview, but let that rest.) It marks the start of a new era with the Queen effectively taking backseat role and with Charles acting in her stead in a form of regency. With the best medical technologies and expertise never more than a hairs-bredth away from her, they should be able to keep the old girl propped up for a year or two yet, so he may be gazing longingly at that crown for a little while yet. Poor chap. By the time he gets it, it will be too late for him to do anything with it. Like other monarch's in the past, his allotment in the historical records will be limited to a line or two slotted in after pages of coverage of a more illustrious parent. Cruel world (and I rather like the bloke). (I rather wish he'd succumbed to the temptation to reach across, snatch up the crown and sit it on his own head; he must have had it..... c'mon - you know I'm right! )

I'm not making any observations about the Queen's Speech (in which the Government sets out its agenda for the forthcoming parliamentary session) because there isn't anything in it. Nothing to help the people who are being crucified by the cost of living rises. Nothing on the Northern Ireland Protocol (and brexit repercussions generally) which threaten to plunge the province back into conflict. Nothing that isn't designed to limit our freedom to criticize the Government, protest against their actions, or further enrich their own cohort. Exactly, in other words, what you would expect from a Johnson statement - a bladder of hot air released in a rasping raspberry and giving off a decidedly unpleasant smell. Par for the course.

[peter]

So Tory MP Lee Anderson thinks that we have generations of people who can't cook and budget responsibly in running their homes. He says further, that a meal can be put on the table for 30p (about 35 cents).

Predictably enough, his comments have raised a storm of protest in the media buy there is an element of truth in them. On the latter point, yes - if you were very careful and stringent in how you did it, it could be done (assuming multiple meals from the same purchased items and a very limited range of variety in your diet) but this is to miss the point isn't it? Why should a person who is working and putting in the effort have to make such choices? Does Anderson expect to have to put 30p meals on the table for his family? Or is it only the feckless poor that should have to live in this scrimping manner? People who's income is being hammered by rising prices at the one end and increasing taxes at the other?

But it is true that people do not budget very well. Our society is one based on debt and consumerism in conjunction. Each fuel eachother in a vicious circle that entraps people via the continuous outpouring of advertising (defined as the retail equivalent of the farmers stick in his swill-bucket) and media coverage. We are conditioned to judge ourselves and others on the clothes we wear, the cars we drive and the houses we live in. Under these circumstances is it any wonder that people do not budget well? A whole generation has been lost to the iniquitous smart phone, the 'must have' this and the 'must have' that. If you do not possess these things, you are not equal in the eyes of your peers, you are in some way a lesser person, and the pressure is always to be up there with the latest gadgets and fashion.

This is the society that we have created and it is no good now for the likes of Anderson to bemoan the fact that people have bought into it. If they hadn't, his party would not have been in power for ever and a day and he wouldn't be sitting where he is. In fact, it would be his and his kinds worst nightmare if we were any different - if we suddenly became prey to a rising awareness that we really don't need all of this shit. That in fact, the latest phone is no better than the last one - that the hours you we spend glued to a three inch screen might actually be better spent elsewhere?

The Tory Party are the party of business and in the presence of the feckless poor and their bad management business is booming. If they suddenly were to get smart instead of getting a smart phone, to begin with the thrift and household management that Anderson would have them adopt, the first place where it would be visible would be in the line on the graph getting flat, and we can't have that now can we?