lefthandpalm

Only in America

2012-01-24T15:47:00.003+13:00

Crikey, there's polls out putting Gingrich in front in Florida. Might be a post South Carolina bubble, but if Romney can't win Florida, he's in big trouble. Same poll shows Santorum trailing Paul. Surely Santorum knows it is over?

I suppose Romney's only chance is to hang on a bit longer and hope people wake up and realise they're on the verge of making Newt Gingrich - NEWT GINGRICH - their presidential candidate. The flaw in this strategy is that it relies on them deciding Mitt Romney is a better option. Which is like saying you prefer cold piss to warm shit.

Send in the clowns

2012-01-21T09:12:00.002+13:00

In an interesting twist, Mitten Romney has been told he didn't win Iowa after all:

The Republican presidential frontrunner Mitt Romney has suffered a setback when the party stripped him of his victory in Iowa after a final tally of votes.

His rival, the socially conservative former senator Rick Santorum, emerged with the most votes, a majority of 34.

Funny how Romney kept declaring how he'd won Iowa when he was eight votes ahead of Santorum - but now Santourm is a whopping 34 votes ahead, Romney it is all "A virtual tie". Twat.

In the long run, this may actually play into Romney's hands, as it will keep Santorum in the race a bit longer, and thus keep the anti-Romney vote coalescing around Gingrich.

The real winner, of course, is Barak Obama, for whom things are working out brilliantly. Romney and Gingrich are ripping chunks out of each other. Gingrich looks like he's going to win South Carolina, and Romney has been stripped of Iowa. This could drag on for months, draining resources, enthusiasm and authority from whichever one of these clowns is eventually chosen.

Wonder if it is too late for some 'Bolt from the blue' candidate to join the race and win the nomination on a 'Thank fuck it isn't one of those repulsant jokers' ticket?

Still, there is something to be said for the AMerican process - it really exposes candidates to scrutiny. Our leaders just seem to appear and tell us they are king. Whichever one of the Republican nominiees wins the privilege of getting trounced by Obama, they will have earned it.

Odd place, this

2012-01-20T16:50:00.005+13:00

According to Alexa, the top searches leading people to lefthandpalm are ...

1	nigger warts	15.25%
2	oliver walker murder case	9.04%
3	chris trotter 2008 sunday star columns	7.78%
4	olive walker	4.09%
5	sunday star columns by chris trotter in 2008	3.89%
6	rehash crap blog	3.71%
7	marsoc	3.71%
8	13 year old in jail	3.33%
9	sunspot cycle length	3.12%
10	corrolate	3.11%

'Nigger warts'?? Who the fuck types that into a search engine?

Other than 15% of my devoted readership, I mean.

Lurgee's paradigm XI: Hansen says the oceans will boil!

2012-01-19T16:56:00.002+13:00

You've got to love Anthony Watts, the denier's denier, the gift that keeps of giving.

The latest nugget of excrement to be deposited on his website is a claim that 'unhinged' James Hansen is saying AGW will cause the oceans to boil!!!!!! Like on Venus!!!!! Even though the 'AGW friendly' Wikipedia has a page where John Houghton says, "[there] is NO POSSIBILITY of [Venus's] runaway greenhouse conditions occurring on the Earth"!!!! OMG!!!! Madness!!!!

Or bullshit.

First of all, a minor point - the interview with Hansen is from 2009, if not earlier. It has always been available on the interwebnet. Why is it only now being honoured by Watts? Is he, perchance, finding very little at the bottle of that barrell he is vigorously scraping?

If you actually read what Hansen said, he did not claim Earth's oceans are going to boil as a result of human activity. The crucial passage:

A runaway greenhouse effect means once the planet gets warmer and warmer, then the oceans begin to evaporate. And water vapor is a very strong greenhouse gas, even more powerful than carbon dioxide. So you can get to a situation where it just -- the oceans will begin to boil, and the planet becomes so hot that the ocean ends up in the atmosphere. And that happened to Venus.

He's describing, in response to a direct question asking him to explain what the runaway greenhouse effect was, what a runaway green effect is. he is not saying this will happen on Earth. He cites Venus as an example. He is not saying this is what will happen on Earth, and he is not at odds with Houghton.

Watts tries to shore up his shonky argument with a bit of misdirection, bringing up the very tired, CO2-levels--were-higher-in-the-past-and-the-oceans-didn't-boil-then-did-they non-argument. Yes, Anthony, and the atmosphere was very different then, full of all sorts of particulate crap from volcanoes, and probably unbreathable. That balanced out the CO2. But I don't think we want to go there, since our lungs aren't adapted to breathing in that sort of gunk. Anyway, it is a strawman. Hansen is not claiming Human CO2 will cause oceans to boil. He says massive increase in atmospheric water vapour, from melting icesheets, will cause the oceans to boil. The question is, whether the temperature increase from CO2 released from human activity, will be enough to start the processes.

Still, this seems to be a popular meme -of-the-moment. But at least we can be assured anyone referring to it is a hard core, braindead denier.

Coalition scorecard - 50p tax rate

2012-01-09T21:11:00.001+13:00

+1 ... David Cameron's intention to retain the 50p rate of tax shows that some sanity remains in Downing Street.

OVERALL: 0/10. Another steal from Labour. Smart politics by Cameron, gradually substituting sensible, centrist policy for the divisive lunacy of Osbornism. Also sane economics. Of course, it's only a rumour at this stage. A few more nudges left may see the coalition in positive territory!

I was, of course, completely wrong

2012-01-09T08:58:00.001+13:00

"Yes, folks, Perry, Cain, Bachmann and Santorum (remember him?) are officially the Republicans that Republicans won't vote for."

That dig at Rick 'Second in Iowa' Santorum must be one of the most Not Right things I've posted in a while.

Beacon of the vanities?

2011-12-21T22:50:00.002+13:00

So, anyway, back in 2003, a certain George W Bush suggested that by invading Iraq and deposing Saddam Hussein, a process would be initiated that would see the country transmogrify in to a "Beacon of democracy" which would serve as a example to the benighted regimes of the Arab world. Iraq would - by some process that was never really made clear - reinvent itself as a sort of Sweden-with-sand, a peaceful, democratic, equal and tolerant society.

So - to quote another rightwing sage - how's that hopey-changey stuff working out for yah?

It isn't looking too good, unfortunately.

Two leading members of Iraq's largest and most powerful Sunni tribe have warned of imminent sectarian chaos in the wake of the US withdrawal, claiming that the government of prime minister Nouri al-Maliki is promoting an anti-Sunni agenda.

The sheikhs, leaders of the highly influential Duleimi tribe, both insist that Sunnis have been increasingly marginalised over the past year to the point where they now have little input into affairs of state in post-US Iraq.

Their warnings come as Iraq's vice-president, Tariq al-Hashimi, defended himself over claims in an arrest warrant issued for him that he had used his guards to act as hit squads to target political rivals and had ordered a recent car bombing near the Iraqi parliament.

Norway, with the occasional racist terrorist maniac on the ramapage, might be a closer analogue.

Ho, hum. Don't say we didn't warn you.

Ha-Ha!

2011-12-20T12:33:00.002+13:00

Seasonal good cheer, courtesy of Anthony Watts:

"The fact that they are trying to keep people from replicating their studies -- that's the issue," Watts noted. "Replication is the most important tenet of science."

Obviously, he's already dropped the BEST study, which successfully replicated the work of climate scientists from publically available data, down the Memory Hole.

Scoundrel

2011-12-20T12:29:00.002+13:00

Nationalistic bollocks combined with Christian cant in the latest bulletin from Planet cameron, a curious world where poor people don't exist - apart from for moat cleaning and similar menial chores.

"But what I am saying is that the Bible has helped to give Britain a set of values and morals which make Britain what it is today."

I hope to God (Boom! Boom!) he means the New Testament and not the psychotic nonsense of the Old Testament. And only the bits in the New Testament that are directly attributeable to Jesus. who was quite a likeable chap, and not the ravings of the bigotted Paul.

But if he does mean that, he needs to actually demonstrate those virtues in action. There's little evidence of the teachings of Jesus affecting our domestic or foreign policy.

In otherwords, another political hypocrite trying to take advantage of one of the few times of a year people really bother about religion in any sense, to proffer shoddy blandishments.

Ah-hahahahahah!!

2011-12-15T05:57:00.003+13:00

From the Guardian:

James Murdoch has told a parliamentary committee that he did not read a critical email sent to him in June 2008 by the editor of the News of the World, which indicated that phone hacking at the Sunday tabloid went beyond the activities of a single "rogue reporter".

Colin Myler forwarded Murdoch a note from the tabloid's legal manager Tom Crone, warning of a "further nightmare scenario," because there was fresh evidence of hacking involving a News of the World journalist other than the jailed former royal editor Clive Goodman.

However, although Murdoch replied to the email from Myler within three minutes of it being sent on 7 June 2008, offering to discuss the situation further, he added that "I am confident that I did not review the full email chain at the time or afterwards".

He received the email, he replied to it, and a few days later Murdoch met with Myler and Crone and agreed to pay £700,000 to settle the Gordon Tayloer hacking case that the email was about.

I repeat: James Murdoch is asking us to believe that met with his editor and top lawyer bloke three days after the email was sent, and agreed to pay someone £700,000. Without having read the email and without being told what it was all about.

Can anyone be less credible candidate for running anything, far less the Entire World's Media?

Frozen planet

2011-12-13T21:00:00.002+13:00

What is it with Polar Bears? Is there something about these ursine albinos that makes it impossible to be honest about them/ First we had those claims about millions of Polar Bears being drowned because BP was stealing their ice floes to plug the Deep Water Horizon gusher (or something like that). Now this shocking revelation that parts of David Attenborough's Frozen Planet weren't actually filmed on Arctic ice floes:

The BBC has denied misleading viewers over footage shown on the Frozen Planet series of a polar bear tending her newborn cubs.

The corporation insisted it would have been impossible to have filmed the scenes in the wild amid criticism reported in the Daily Mirror that the commentary had failed to tell the audience that the scenes had been shot in a zoo.

The BBC said the way the footage had been captured had been "clearly explained" online.

"This particular sequence would be impossible to film in the wild," a spokeswoman said.

"The commentary accompanying the sequence is carefully worded so it doesn't mislead the audience and the way the footage was captured is clearly explained on the programme website."

Have to say, whoever composed the "carefully worded" line is stupid beyond the call of duty. I can imagine the nefarious forces of The Right regurgitating it anytime the BBC reports on anything, ever.

Other than that, what of the 'allegations'?

I thought the fact that nature documentaries are manipulated was so fricking obvious it didn't need to be pointed out, by and large. Still, the right are naive fools who accept such lunacies as 'trickle down theory' as gospel, so perhaps it needs to be spelled out in BIG LETTERS OF DOOM. Or the right could be eradicated. Either way, problem solved.

There was some French doco that filmed the goings on in a meadow over the course of a year (n.b. the producers did not take adequate steps to make sure it was clear some of the footage had been edited, even though the resultant documentary did not actually last a year) which had some sort of capitalist bird creature devouring insects and every time its beak struck one of the gallant little proletarian bugs it was accompanied by a ridiculously overdone thonking noise. At no point did a caption flash up advising us that this was not the genuine sound a bird's beak makes when devouring insects.

I mean, with such manipulation of the gullible viewer, how can we possibly accept anything, from the Moon landings, through evolution, to climate change? the Zapruder film was obviously 'enhanced' by the addition of blood and brain material flying across the screen. The real version shows Oswald handing a beaming Jackie O a flower.

In other news, the background music that accompanies animal antics in the wild ISN'T ACTUALLY THERE. It's added in afterwards. Cheetahs do not, as a rule, play musical instruments. So any slow-mo action of them running after a gazelle while the Chariots of Fire theme chunters along is ... whisper it ... not quite authentic. And snails don't generally listen to Bolero while they are procreating. Mind you, that's maybe because they've seen '10' and know that it doesn't work.

Republican candidates II

2011-12-05T11:26:00.002+13:00

Iowa must be a strange place. polls there have Obama thrashing Romney and Gingrich, but tied with Paul. New Hampshire polls have Obama thrashing Gingrich, losing narrowly to Romney and just beating Paul.

Looking at the national picture, Obama is beating pretty much everyone pretty much all of the time. Romney and Gingrich run him close-ish. Intruigingly, Paul and Huntsman aren't obscenely far behind Obama, given how marginal they are. The rest of them are currently so far behind I could probably beat them.

Yes, folks, Perry, Cain, Bachmann and Santorum (remember him?) are officially the Republicans that Republicans won't vote for.

Republican candidates

2011-12-03T08:58:00.003+13:00

Interesting to see Newt Gingrich - NEWT GINGRICH - moving up in the polls. Have the Republicans decided the only way to defeat a man with a silly name is to find a candidate with an even sillier one?

Jon Huntsman still getting 1%. At least he's consistent. Pundits are generally sympathetic, saying he's performing well at the debates, but no-one seems to be listening. I suspect he's the candidate I would be likely to vote for, which tells you everything you need to know.

Still, he did pass the Captain Beefheart Test, managing to name a Beefheart album - two infact - without sounding like a fool. It might also explain his resolute lack of appeal. Perry is Garth Brooks. Gingrich, Bon Jovi. Romney, the Mormon Tabernacle Choir. Ron Paul is Neil Diamond. Michele Bachman, Britney Spears. Rick Santorum, all of the Village People. And Huntsman is Captain Beefheart.

Inevitably, because he's sane, we're told Huntsman is a Rhino - Republican In Name Only. Maybe his musical taste is the sticking point, and if he'd only endorse the musical stylings of Shania Twain, the American right would welcome him with open arms and great tumescence.

(Yes, I know, she's a Canadian. I was being amused at the preference for sentimental, conventional faux-American crap to indigenous brilliance.)

I don't think Romney will get the nomination. There are too many people fervently not wanting him, and he isn't winning any new support. Once they can all agree on who to vote for, he's toast. he can't cannibalise Huntsman's support because Huntsman doesn't have any (though he does have three appealing daughters). I don't think the Cain-Bachman-Perry-Gingrich factions aren't going to suddenly decide the Mormon is okay after all. Nor will they agree to vote for each other. I think Ron Paul may emerge as the unity 'anti-Romney' candidate.

Perry has lead, Cain has lead, even Bachmann once managed to get up to the 15% 'contender' threshold. I think Gingrich will fade quite quickly once people actually remember Who He Is. I also think he's too unprincipled for the right (ironically, this might have helped him with the soft middle) whereas Ron Paul is principled to a fault. Paul also opposed the Iraq invasion, interestingly. I don't agree with 99.973% of everything he says and stands for, but I admire his integrity.

Current polling has Gingrich in the lower stratosphere as Cain plummets. Cain expected to withdraw from the race. Romney dead in the water - he's been stuck at about 25% for millenia and he's got no-one to steal support from, except Jon Huntsman's 3% (And if they've stuck with Huntsman this long, they're probably fanatical Captain Beefheart fans voting on that alone). The factions still supporting Paul, Bachmann, Perry and Cain aren't likely to switch to Romney. I can't see Gingrich lasting however, he's too ... Gingrich. I suspect Perry will start to rally, or Ron Paul at a long shot.

Though part of me hopes the anti-Romney's will be so hag-ridden by their hatred that they'll unite behind Huntsman, completely blanking out that he's more of everything they hate about Romney. And, bizarrely, I suspect this is the only scenario that Obama needs to be worried about.

Jeremy Clarkson IS an arse, but let's not get silly

2011-12-03T00:44:00.002+13:00

Oh, too late ...

Sometimes, I think the mysths about the unions being infiltrated with Moscow trained agitators must be true, because otherwise how can you explain the totally unBritish response to this little outburst?

I listened to his remarks replayed on the radio and, to be honest, they made me laugh. Yeah, bad taste. But I'm British, that's what we do. Certainly didn't require the creeching of various offended unionists and the upshot was it allowed clarkson to look like the big man for apologising.

The line actually reminded me of something in the book, The Restaurant at the End of the Universe, by Douglas Adams. An integalactic rock band, Disaster Area, plans to cap their show by crashing a space ship into a sun, causing who knows what catastrophic effects ont he orbiting planets. This leads to protests by intergalactic environmental protesters. They are invited to a meeting with the record company, to reach a solution. A solution is reached - the protesters are all shot.

Credit where it's due

2011-12-01T19:40:00.003+13:00

Don't often have much to say about Pompous Chris, but he deserves some recognition as being the first commentator to foresee the resurgance of Winston Peters, as long ago as 2009. But this could have been written two weeks ago, not two years ago:

Since the loss of 2008, he has watched and he has waited. And now, thanks to John Key’s extraordinary political naiveté, the moment for him to make his move has arrived.

Like his namesake, Winston Churchill, he’s been dwelling in the political wilderness – driven from power by his enemies, and deserted by his friends. But on Sunday, sensing a moment of national peril, and with the people's supposed "representatives" all succumbing to "sickly white liberal" appeasement, he stepped forward to demand action.

This is National’s worst nightmare: Winston live on network television; whistling "Dixie" and flashing that trademark grin. Naturally, Messers Farrar, Slater and Hooton will spit and snarl, but, in their Machiavellian heart-of-hearts, they know that Peters is on his way back – with scores to settle.

Genuinely uncanny.

That 70s show

2011-12-01T19:21:00.002+13:00

In the 1970s, contrary to popular belief, trade unions saved Britain. Yeah, I know, you've been told about the 'Winter of Discontent' when 'Councils couldn't bury their dead', plans were being made for mass burials at sea, and rats the size of cats were running happily across the rubbish mountains building up in every city square.

What's usually excluded from this analysis is what happened before. Inflation was running at 26.9% in 1975. It was eventually brought under control through a series of negotiated sub-inflation pay deals, with unions accepting effective pay cuts over several years to bring the crisis to an end. The Winter of Discontent came about whern the government tried to bully the unions into accepting 5% - effectively continuing to cut wages when the crisis was over. Obduracy by the government, not the unions, brought about the crisis.

George Osbourne and David Cameron should be more sensitive to history before crowing about the protests and strikes being a 'damp squib'. By imposing a 1% pay ceiling on long sufferring public servants, they may be repeating the mistakes of the Callaghan government. The paralells are intruiging - a minority government propped up by the Liberals, the Scots getting restive, an international depression, turmoil in the Middle East jeopardising oil supply, a 'socialist' in the White House ...

2011 Election

2011-11-26T18:58:00.005+13:00

Don't know if I'll do the full thing like I did last time, but I'll record whatever vague thoughts I may have.

I voted for the Mana Party, oddly. In the voting booth, I found I still hadn't forgiven Labour for that Free Trade Deal with China. Since Phil Goff had categorically ruled out a deal with Mana it made it a logical place to cast a leftwing, anti-Labour vote. I could have gone with the Greens, but I figured they would simply prop up Labour (or, Heaven forbid, National!). And I figured the Greens were comfortable enough, whereas Mana needed more of a boost.

Prediction @ 7pm - Labour in the low 30s, National in the high 40s. Greens 12%. NZ First 4.8%. No ACT in parliament tommorrow. that's what I think will happen and I think it is likely to be the best result the left can hope for. Probably, stopping the asset sales will be the best outcome.

CLARIFICATION - when I say low thirties, I mean VERY LOW. And when I say high forties, I mean VERY HIGH. I'm not envisaging a patchwork coalition based around Labour and the Greens. 31% or 32% versus 47% or 48%.

7.20 Wonder if this will be a 2005 election, where Labour started 10% behind and dragged it back, point by painful point, or if it will be a 2008 election, where there was very little movement from the initial shares?

Haven't said anything about the voting system referendum, because I've not been able to seriously countenance the idea of MMP being rejected ...

Best list ever

2011-11-26T18:22:00.005+13:00

Forget the party lists.

Rolling Stone has released its list of the top 100 guitarists of all time.

Johnny Ramone is at number 16. That in itself makes it a great list. But, even better ...

24 The Edge of U2

Johnny beats The Edge.

Best list ever. Without a doubt.

Coalition scorecard: Tory housing plans

2011-11-20T08:40:00.001+13:00

+1 ... Plans to encourage people to build new homes, basically acknowledging that Labour's plan to build our way out of recession was right all along.

OVERALL: -1/10. This hasn't been updated for a long time, basically because the government hasn't been doing anything drastically annoying enough (or, somewhat less lightly, sensible enough) to merit changes. Encouraging building of new homes seems a sensible policy, however.

Only a matter of time?

2011-11-17T15:17:00.002+13:00

This morning, I turned on the radio and went back to sleep, and as a result I had a confused series of dreams inspired by whatever Geoff and Simon happen to be talking about. One of them was that John Key had been caught impersonating as police officer, wearing a fake moustache to disguise his identity, in an effort to retreive the recording of his Evil Plans discussed with John Banks. I am not making this up. Or rather, I am, because I'm fairly sure I dreamed it and it hasn't been repeated in subsequent bulletins. But I really did dream it.

Thing is, John Key has become so unstuck over this affiar that I wouldn't have been surprised to discover it had really happedned. In fact, it took me a few minutes after lugging myself out of bed, to realise that it (probably) wasn't true. But given how poorly Key's reacted to it - getting all imperious, invoking Millie Downer, suicidal paarents, bolting out of press conferences and telling the people of New Zealand what they are interested in - I wouldn't be surprised ...

Then there was Don Brash's weird interview with Simon Mercep slightly later on, once I was fully awake. I'm no fan of Brash, but I felt a smiggen of pity for him, as he tried to nervously chuckle his way past every question about his career prospects as ACT leader.

I doubt this will have enough of an impact to lose National the election. But it may cost them their majority. And if the Labour-Green bloc can nudge up to that 45% threshold, who knows what may happen.

A week ago, I'd have laughed (bitterly) at the the use of the words "Goff" and "Prime Minister" in the same sentence. Now I'm not so sure it won't happen. Which must be a worry for Labour, as they've made all those promises in anticipation of not having to keep any of them ...

Why is it ... ?

2011-11-09T18:29:00.004+13:00

John Key can see, so clearly, the recklessness of continuing to run up debt during a recession, yet is so blind to the recklessness of stalling on climate change?

You'd think he was motivated by something other pure principle, wouldn't you?

Still, no different from Labour's masquerade of principled policy.

Is it just me?

2011-11-07T18:56:00.002+13:00

... Or is there something a bit suspicious about labour's sudden interest in putting out Good, Substantive Policy for an election that they're almost certain to lose?

Capital gains tax? Great.

Getting agriculture into the ETS in 2013? Great.

Raising the Super age? Great.

Universal child benefit? Great?

These are all good policies. Sensible policies. Mature polices. Probably, since we don't live in a good, sensible mature society, vote costing, election losing policies. So - since lots of the better, more sensible and mature part of Labour's constituency are bemoaning the fact their party has become a bunch of neo-liberal apologists - what better time to offer them a bunch of sops than at a time when it isn't going to make a blind bit of difference to the result?

Then, in 2014, when everyone's a bit sickened of John Key's peculiarly successful brand of politics - essentially doing nothing but smiling at random Big Events and with Important People - Labour can shed some crocodile tears and say to these good, senseible, mature voters, "Well, we offerred the electors all these good, sensible, mature policies in 2011, and they were rejected. So this time around, we'll offer essentially the same things as National, and hoepfully squeak in with a bit of help from the Greens, who are almost as long suffering and naive as you lot. But at least we're not National, so you should vote for us."

And again ...

2011-11-04T21:02:00.001+13:00

Four dead and fifty trapped in a fresh mining disaster in the PRC.

Bloody business as usual

2011-10-30T19:15:00.002+13:00

Okay, so some brave soldiers were killed in Afghanistan today.

This is tragic for them, for their families and friends, and for the people of Aghanistan as it's going to speed the withdrawal from that unhappy country, and leave it to blunder back into the dark ages of Taliban-Warlord Hell. We mourn these deaths, because soldiers were sent there to fight a barbaric regime and it's terrorist acolytes. Whatever terribel things have been done by colaition soldiers in Afghanistan, whatever blunders there have been, and however it ends up (I'm betting; badly) there was a moral case to be made for them and that their deaths were in pursuit of some good end.

But also today, another 29 miners were killed in an explosion in China.

The connection might not be immediately obvious. But think about it. These men were working in the ramshackle, corrupt and deadly mining industry in China. Chinese mines drive the Chinese industrial boom, which in turn produces the apparently endless quantities of consumer baubles we're so hungry for. Without those baubles, our quality of life will take a hit; so I suppose you could say these miners also died in pursuit of - from our self interested point of view - some good end.

Last year, over 2,400 people died in mining accidents in the PRC - this is considered an 'improvement' on 2009. Never mind the other deaths related to mining, but which didn't actually happen in mining accidents, and the maimings and sickness associated with the industry.

Only I don't think you'll hear their deaths being discussed or mourned with quite the same intensity. After all, admitting our life style is based on driving people into death trap mines isn't something we're entirely happy thinking about too much.

I was, of course, completely right - "Murdochs should FOAD," say shareholders

2011-10-11T08:56:00.004+13:00

... Some of them, at any rate (1).

Obviously, a good thing. The media world will be far better without the malignant influence of the Murdoch's, though it is likely more Cthulhoid horrors will simply arise in their place, unless Something Is Done to limit ownership of the media.

And, in fairness, while it is edifying to watch the Murdoch's being eviserated in slow motion, it is also a distraction from the reality that they're only one part of a decadent, corrupt and self serving media establishment. Slaying News International should only be a start to the process of ethical cleansing in the media - but it will probably be the end.

To wax French for a moment, should we regard the media as something akin to the means of production? They do not produce value, true, but they do produce meaning and consciousness. And producing consciousness helps create consciousness. Media companies and institutions are sites of hegemonic control, and of hegemonic dispute. They can either be reactionary, or progressive, or (most liekly) both at once. Obviously, no-one wants Pravda and Tass, but equally, we need more than The Sun and Fox News.

We aren't well served by the media in all manner of ways, because we've created a media than finds it is in its interests to work against our interests.

Something needs to be changed.

But nothing will be, most likely.

1 - "Rupert and James Murdoch should leave News Corp board, claims US shareholder advisory group," by Richard Blackden. Published in The Telegraph, 10th of October, 2011. (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/mediatechnologyandtelecoms/media/8818903/Rupert-and-James-Murdoch-should-leave-News-Corp-board-claims-US-shareholder-advisory-group.html)

Lefthandpalm is not dead

2011-10-09T18:35:00.000+13:00

... I'm just incredibly lazy / busy.

Blair admits, "I am hypocritical scum"

2011-08-21T08:51:00.002+12:00

Kind of ...

Writing in the Observer, in his first public verdict on the riots, Blair says: "In 1993, following the Bulger case, I made a case in very similar terms to the one being heard today about moral breakdown in Britain. I now believe that speech was good politics but bad policy. Focus on the specific problem and we can begin on a proper solution.

"Elevate this into a highfalutin wail about a Britain that has lost its way morally and we will depress ourselves unnecessarily, trash our own reputation abroad, and worst of all, miss the chance to deal with the problem in the only way that will work." (1)

What a tosspot. He's saying, in effect, that it was okay for him to do it back in 1993, but not for others to do it now; or that he was voicing genuine outrage in 1993, but now realises it was misplaced, in which case he's tacitly admitting he was a lightweight fool, prone to over-reactions and rash judgement; with the further implication that he might not know what he's saying now, and we can expect a similar reversal on other vexing issuers such as Iraq.

Why can't this egregious arsewipe simply go away, forever?

1 - "England's riots shouldn't be blamed on 'moral decline', says Tony Blair," by Daniel Boffey and Toby Helm. Published in The Guardian, 20th of August, 2011. (http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/aug/20/englands-riots-tony-blair)

I was, of course, completely wrong - Nick Griffin clings on

2011-07-26T13:48:00.002+12:00

The BNP leadership contest has been decided:

Now that all the votes have been counted, we can announce that Nick Griffin MEP has been duly re-elected to lead the British National Party for a fixed term of four years. The winner, Nick Griffin, received 1157 votes, whilst Andrew Brons, the loser, received 1148 votes. Eleven ballots were spoiled. (1)

So less than 2500 people actually give a toss who leads the rabble to oblivion? That's actually reassuring.

Disastrous result for both candidates, really. Brons lost, but Griffin only won by a whisker, so he's got no authority and his opponents will already be scheming against him.

1 - "Party Leadership Election Result: Nick Griffin re-elected Party Chairman," unattributed article. Published on the BNP website, 25th of July, 2011. (http://bnp.org.uk/news/party-leadership-election-result-nick-griffin-re-elected-party-chairman)

The right's responsibility

2011-07-25T16:28:00.003+12:00

I wasn't going to make any comment on the politics of the Norwegian massacres, because the idea of dignifying the atrocity with association with political discourse is repugnant. But the picture being revealed around these events; the reaction of the right to the atrocities and the revelation of the killer's identity; and the undeniable links between Anders Behring Breivik and the further right of mainstream politics justifies some comment.

My initial reaction on hearing the identity of the pepetrator (I have the advantage of having been asleep at the time of the initial expllosion and shootings, so don't have to worry about awkward questions along the lines of "Who did you think it was at first?") was that it is a pitiful symptom of How Things Are that they have to clarify the perpetrator wasn't Muslims. That suggests Al Queada's project is coming along nicely.

I imagined there would be a shameless volte face, people moving swiftly from "Islamic terrorists waging JIHAD" (1) to "Unchecked immigration provoking resentment and acts of barbarity in the indigenous population" (2) would be in the offing. While some did manage that about-turn, there were plenty of people refusing to give up the idea that this just had to be a Muslim, that it couldn't actually be a Christianised European behind this. It had to be a convert to Islam. Or even the whole thing was a hoax, an attempt to besmirch the far wright by associating it with psychopaths.

Of course, the kneejerk bigots who were so bloody quick to accuse Muslims and so bloody slow to let the idea go tried to justify their assumption, claiming that it was a reasonable enough mistake in these times, when so much terrorism can be attributed to Muslims. A claim that was only valid if you erase the Western propensity towards terroristic violence from your memory and convinced yourself that only Muslims are likely to be terrorists. Recall:

IRA / Real IRA terror campaigns
UVF campaigns
ETA
Red Army Faction / baader-Meinhoff / Revolutionary Cells Movement
Unabomber
Oklahoma City Bombing
David Copeland, the London Nail Bomber
Robert Cottage and David Jackson, the would be BNP bombers
Greece's Revolutionary Nuclei
Animal Liberation Brigade

That's just off the top of my head. these groups and individuals were all active with in the last 10 to 20 years. Only a long time if you live in some weird world that effectively started on the 11th of September, 2001. Loads more out there. It could have been carried out by Islamists, but it isn't accurate to say it was very likely to be. It would be wrong to rush to attribute an unprecedented act like this to anyone without evidence pointing that way.

The point was there is a strong tendency of terrorist violence in Europe and the US, even before we started importing the Muslims. I'm not suggesting Baader Meinhoff were holding a Scandinavian reunion tour.

It would have been reasonable to say that it might have been an Islamist attack; even that it is was likely to be one. But the automatic assumption that this was an act of jihad and who rushed to accuse Muslims, and who still try to cling to that belief, didn't make an honest mistake because they inaccurately weighed possibilities. To make your presumption reasonable, you have to ignore the whole history of politically motivated violence in Europe. The killer - though he'd reject the comparison - has a lot in common with the Baader Meinhoff mentality. The kneejerk bigots jumped to the wrong conclusion because they're obsessed, fixated bigots. Reasonable people deal in possibilities and likelihoods, and don't immediately spew their bigotry when huge gaps remain.

People abandoned sense and intemperately banged their drums and screamed about J-I-H-A-D before the facts were in. There was no suggestion of 'likelihood' or 'possibility' then, just the immediate, automatic assumption this had to be an Islamist act of terror. Which illuminated their mindset perfectly.

If people are going to go about spouting divisive, bigoted, hatefilled rhetoric (from any ideological standpoint), there are going to be violently inclined idiots who will use it as an excuse for, and an incitement to, violence. The killer cited bloggers like Fjordman and Pamela Geller, who occupy a pretty sinister intellectual space. When they, Geert Wilders, and others of that ilk fulminate about treachery, Eurabia, J-I-H-A-D and the like, it may be irresponsible. Like shouting "Fire" in a crowded theatre, to borrow Wendell Holmes's old analogy.

As Bill Clinton said, when Gabrielle Giffords was shot - "Anything any of us says falls on the unhinged and the hinged alike."

1 - "Terror Attack In Norway, Huge Explosion Rips Through Oslo," posted by ZIP on Weasel Zippers blog, 22nd of July, 2011. The point of interest in this case being the comments following the post. (http://weaselzippers.us/2011/07/22/breaking-possible-terror-attack-in-norway-huge-bomb-blast-rips-through-oslo/)
2 - "Extremism strikes in Norway," by 657. Posted on the EDL website, 23rd of July, 2011. (http://englishdefenceleague.org/extremism-strikes-in-norway/)

Norway shootings & Fjordman

2011-07-24T00:19:00.003+12:00

Can we just take everything as said about the atrocity in Norway, which has resulted in the deaths of 91 people, thus far? I'm not even going to waste time linking examples of the disgusting frenzy of assumption that this was perpetrated by Muslims. Just take it as said. Unarmed teenagers being chased around an island by a psychotic gunman sounds like the plot of a really lousy horror film.

A rumour has been swirling round some of the further reaches of the internet, that the killer is an anonymous Norwegian blogger who posts as Fjordman. He's pretty extreme, posting on places like Gates of Vienna and Jihadwatch. The rumour was given legs when it was recycled on Little Green Footballs, a site from which Fjordman has apprently been banned but at this time, it is completely unsubstantiated, and I suspect it will stay that way. It's been pointed out that Fjordman has been posting online since the attacks started, so it could hardly be him.

And yet ...

Checking out Gates of Vienna, I tracked down some of these comments (1). Something odd. Someone under the name 'fjordman' is posting on Gates of Vienna, alright, but their blogger profile has only been active since April (2), whereas Fjordman, as a blogger and a commentator, has been active for far longer than that. The blogger profile associated with his original blog was created in 2005 (3). So why is he now using a different profile under the same name?

Of course, it may be there's no mystery, and he just forgot his password ...

1 - "Terror Attack in Central Oslo," by Baron Bodissey. Posted on the Gates of Vienna blog, 22nd of July, 2011. (http://gatesofvienna.blogspot.com/2011/07/terror-attack-in-central-oslo.html)
2 - Profile of the blogger Fjordman, created in April, 2011. (http://www.blogger.com/profile/17466900069876051351)
3 - Profile of the blogger Fjordman, created February, 2005. (http://www.blogger.com/profile/05991840850036778692)

To all those complaining about the amount of coverage of phone hacking

2011-07-22T05:58:00.003+12:00

You don't think systematic illegality, cover ups, obstruction of justice and possible attempts by the people involved in all that to influence police and politicians, possible collusion between the police and politicians with those same people, is not the real issue?

Yes, the discussion has moved on from the phone hacking per se, because the problem has turned out to be much bigger and more more pernicious than just hacking into the voicemail of celebs, John Prescott and the occasional murdered school girl.

You may say that the News of the World acted illegally, and in accessing Millie Dowler's voicemail, it added to the torment of Millie Dowler's family. But it only did so in a misguided, pettily criminal effort to get the exclusive, to sell newspapers. Whereas the BBC, the Guardian, the Independent, even the likes of The Telegraph, are exploiting this - and thus adding to the torment of Millie Dowler's family all over again - in pursuit of political ends - the break up of Murdoch's hold on the British media.

Bollocks, say I. News International did a lot more than seek to sell newspapers. They appear to have obstructed a police inquiry, bribed police officers, and possibly attempted to suborn very senior police officers. Senior executives seem to hold too much power of politicians, past an present. I am quite confident there is a lot more shit to be squeezed out of this story, but what is already known is sufficient.

Yes, some of the coverage is a bit over the top, but what do you expect? It isn't just the News of the World that has to sell papers, you know, and I don't think a headline like "New Developments In Alleged Accessing Of Voicemail Messages Some Years Ago That's Been Dragging On For Years" is going to boost sales. Blame the sales driven, profit fixated, lowest common denominator, Jordan-is -automatically-news culture of the press (I blame Thatcher). There is a real issue underneath all the froth and the media wankfest - just like there was with the expenses scandal, which featured a similar wankfest - but you're trying to deny that.

News Corp RIP?

2011-07-19T06:31:00.002+12:00

The Wisdom of Crowds is starting to suggest it is All Up for Rupert Murdoch (1).

This is something of a massive hostage to fortune, but I suspect there won't be a News Corp in a couple of years time.

If Murdoch stays, it will destroy the brand. If he goes, it will destroy the brand.

If the name does survive, it will be for a much reduced rump of companies, with most of the holdings sold off, and no-one called Murdoch anywhere near the levers of power - though possibly still clinging onto the levers of profit.

1 - "News Corp shares fall as pressure grows," unattributed article. Published by the BBC, 18th of July, 2011. (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-14181119)

2011-07-18T11:15:00.002+12:00

Guardian journalist Nick Davies has compiled a handy list of uncomfortable questions Rupe, Jamie and Bekah might have to answer.

A couple, for Brooks, are particularly interesting:

Surrey police, who were investigating Milly Dowler's disappearance, were provided with information about that voicemail by the NoW. Was that done without your authority? Are you confident that Surrey police have no record of your being involved in the decision to tell them about that voicemail?

When you were editor of the Sun, you published confidential medical information about the illness being suffered by Gordon Brown's infant son. Did the Sun obtain that information directly or indirectly from a health worker? Did the Sun pay a health worker or anybody related to a health worker for that information or for a story related to that information? (1)

Sounds like the Guardian Knows Something.

1 - "Rebekah Brooks and the Murdochs: questions that need answering," by Nick Davies. Published in The Guardian, 17th of July, 2011. (http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/jul/17/brooks-rupert-james-murdoch-select-committee)

Gordon Brown vs The Sun

2011-07-16T18:01:00.003+12:00

The other day, Gordon Brown laid into The Sun and News International in an interview for the BBC and the Guardian, which was then Streisanded across the rest of the media (1).

The Sun called foul over a claim, attributed to Brown in the Guardian's version of the story, that The Sun obtained Fraser Brown's medical records (2). The information was actually given to the paper by a member of the public who has "has links with the Brown family," though just how he learned of Fraser Brown's condition has not yet made clear.

The Guardian acknowledged an error was made and retracted the statement (3). The Sun, having been at the receiving end for a the last few days, was entitled to crow over the inaccuracy, especially as it was attributed to Nick Davies, the guardian journalist who has been leading the investigation into phone hacking (4).

Only, The Sun appears to piss on its own victory parade by doing exactly what the Guardian did - making a false claim about what gordon Brown said:

The apology came after we told how our source was the dad of another child with cystic fibrosis - and that the ex-PM was mistaken in claiming we were guilty of wrongdoing. (5)

As far as I'm aware, Brown did not claim the Sun was guilty of 'wrongdoing' with regards the information obtained about Fraser Brown. The Guardian described his comments on that topic as follows:

Brown said he had no idea how the Sun had obtained the information and questioned the paper's claim last night that this had been done legitimately.

"They will have to explain themselves. I can't think of any way that the medical condition of a child can be put into the public domain legitimately unless the doctor makes a public statement or the family make a statement. (6)

The way The Sun obtained the information was obtained was certainly not 'legitimate,' as Brown defined it, but at the same time not quite 'wrongdoing' as the Sun claims. Papers are given information by members of the public all the time; it's how they operate. Brown would have known this, and wouldn't have regarded a paper being given a tip as 'wrongdoing' on the part of the paper.

Nor does Gordon Brown state, or even imply, The Sun accessed Fraser Brown's medical records. That appears to have been wholly a mistake by the Guardian, as their apology indicates.

I think this is the quote that is causing the confusion:

I had my bank account broken into. I had my legal files effectively broken into. My tax returns went missing at one point. Medical records were broken into. I don't know how this happened. (7)

Brown mentions 'medical records' being broken into, but does not specify whose records, or who broke into them. Since the interview also described the publicizing of Fraser Brown's condition, people seem to have made the link between one and the other, though brown doesn't actually make it himself. It may be he was referring to his daughter, Jennifer, who died in 2002 and whose condition was also revealed by the media. Or even his own medical records - remember the rumours about him being depressed, psychotic, hooked on anti-depressants and so on?

Importantly, he also doesn't directly accuse News International of being behind this specific :

I do know that in two instances there is absolute proof that News International hired people to do this and the people who are doing this are criminals, known criminals in some cases with records of violence and fraud. (8)

So he is only saying News International were definitely behind two of the instances referred to, but not all of them.

The Guardian blundered, honestly, in its haste to run its story. The Sun seems to have been lead astray by its pathological hatred of Brown.

1 - "Gordon Brown condemns 'disgusting work' of News International journalists," by Nick Davies. Published in The Guardian, 12th of July, 2011. (http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/jul/12/gordon-brown-condemns-disgusting-work-news-international)
2 - "Brown Wrong," by Tom Newton Dunn. Published in The Sun, 13th of July, 2011. (http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/3691926/The-Sun-exposes-the-allegation-that-we-hacked-into-Gordon-Browns-family-medical-records-as-FALSE-and-a-smear.html)
3 - "Corrections and clarifications," by the Corrections and clarifications column editor. Published in The Guardian, 15th of July, 2011. (http://www.guardian.co.uk/theguardian/2011/jul/15/corrections-and-clarifications)
4 - "Guardian: Sorry, Sun," by Emily Nash. Published in The Sun, 15th of July, 2011. (http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/3696513/Guardian-says-sorry-to-The-Sun-after-accusing-us-of-hacking-into-the-medical-records-of-Gordon-Browns-sick-son.html?OTC-RSS&ATTR=News)
5 - ibid.
6 -Davies, op. cit.
7 - ibid.
8 - ibid.

Elephants in the livingroom II

2011-07-13T09:50:00.003+12:00

Tomorrow's print edition headlines, apparently:

The Guardian: "Parliament versus Murdoch"
The Sun: "Brown wrong - We didn't probe son's medical records"
The Times: "Crisis talks as Cameron as joins the revolt against the Murdochs"
The Daily Telegraph: "Hacking scandal executives face threat of police inquiry"
The Financial Times: "Parties unite in Commons vote to oppose Murdoch's BSkyB bid"
The Independent: "Party leaders unite against Murdoch"
The Daily Mail: "£1,000 bill for Green energy"
The Daily Express: "EU migrants to get British pensions"
The Daily Star : "Hacking scandal latest - Roo sues over tart leaks" (1)

Notice anything about the stories the Mail and the Express are leading with?

Back when I was just a teeny-weeny little student studying Film & Media at the illustrious instituation that is Stirling University in Scotland, one of my lecturers gave me the following definition of what determines if something is news worthy or not: "News is something that someone, somewhere, doesn't want you to know."

In this case, it's pretty clear that some of the media are trying to downplay the story probably because they're worried they're going to drawn into it. That's the news behind the news, as it were.

1 - "Phone-hacking scandal: live coverage," by Andrew Sparrow and Ben Quinn. Published in The Guardian, 12th of Jult, 2011. (http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/blog/2011/jul/12/phone-hacking-scandal-live-coverage)

Barefaced cheek

2011-07-12T21:20:00.002+12:00

You have to admire the chutzpah of this News International statement:

We note the allegations made today concerning the reporting of matters relating to Gordon Brown. So that we can investigate these matters further, we ask that all information concerning these allegations is provided to us. (1)

Yes, indeed. Having carried out our own whitewash investigation into how we allegedly hacked phones, impersonated people to obtain confidential information, consorted with criminals and insinuated one of our rats into the heart of government, we'd like you to tell us everything you know right now so we can carry out our own investigation.

Brilliant.

1 - From an unattributed statement released by News International. Quoted in the Guardian, 12th of July, 2011. (http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/blog/2011/jul/12/phone-hacking-scandal-live-coverage)

Coalition scorecard - phone hacking scandal

2011-07-12T16:18:00.001+12:00

-1 ... Cameron's attempts to brush off perfectly reasonable demands that he account for the hiring of Andy Coulson, in the face of the revelations that warnings were given.
-1 ... The government's slow, dim-witted, fumbling response to the NOTW scandal and failure to move on the BSB buy out until goaded into action by the opposition.

OVERALL: -2/10. Wracked by scandal, shown to be indecisive, corrupt and self-serving, the coalition (assuming it survives this latest trial) appears to be plunging back into the inky depths, never to resurface. Probably. In this and in other recent events, David Cameron's character, which was one of the factors that seemed to be ameliorating the innate hatefulness of Tory governments, has been found wanting, and he has been shown to be a bit of ham fisted blunderer.

Elephants in the livingroom

2011-07-11T22:28:00.004+12:00

It seems the Mail is happy to focus anything other than the hacking scandal (wonder why?).

Previously, Wills and Kate provided a couple of days banner headlines across the top of the website.

Now it is, "Pregnant at 15, daughter of Britain's most prolific single mother (... and, of course, she's on benefits just like mum)" (1) and below that, "The new north-south divide: Two families 300 miles apart earn £50,000... but one struggles and the other lives in luxury" (2).

I guess the first rule of phone hacking is: "You do not talk about PHONE HACKING."

EDIT - since composing this, I notice the Mail has bumped both these stories down the page, in favour of a write up on - gosh - Wills and Kate, and another on focusing on the Milly Dowler strand of the hacking saga. But it is still pretty token stuff.

1 - As described previosuly on lefthandpalm: http://lefthandpalm.blogspot.com/2011/07/should-mail-be-next.html
2 - "Pregnant at 15, daughter of Britain's most prolific single mother (... and, of course, she's on benefits just like mum)," by Neil Sears. Published in the Daily Mail, 11th of July, 2011. (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2013309/Pregnant-15-daughter-Britains-prolific-single-mother-And-course-shes-benefits--just-like-mum.html)
3 "The new north-south divide: Two families 300 miles apart earn 50k but one struggles and the other lives in luxury," by Alison Smith Squire. Published in the Daily Mail, 11th of July, 2011.
(http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2013278/The-new-north-south-divide-Two-families-300-miles-apart-earn-50k-struggles-lives-luxury.html)

Murdoch's morlocks

2011-07-10T19:02:00.002+12:00

Is Rupert Murdoch losing the plot? This from today's Independent:

Mrs Brooks continues to enjoy the support of Rupert Murdoch. Asked yesterday, before he left for London, whether she had his backing, Mr Murdoch replied: "Total." He added: "I'm not throwing innocent people under the bus... we've been let down by people that we trusted, with the result the paper let down its readers." (1)

200 people - mostly unconnected with this scandal - have lost there jobs, but he isn't "throwing innocent people under the bus"?

Or perhaps mere workers don't count as people to Murdoch. They're just morlock labour, to be used when they are useful, and discarded without a second thought.

1 - "The Battle of Wapping, Mk II," by Jane Merrick, James Hanning, Matt Chorley and Brian Brady. Published in The Independent, 10th of July, 2011. (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/media/press/the-battle-of-wapping-mk-ii-2310041.html)

Rupert and Tony (and Gordon and Dave and Ed)

2011-07-10T09:50:00.002+12:00

Another scorcher from Peter Oborne, who might be re-classified as an 'honourary leftie' for his recent columns:

David Cameron and Tony Blair both flew round the world to make speeches to Murdoch’s News Corp while they were in opposition. Ed Miliband was primed to follow suit before the latest scandal broke.

There were those who believed that Murdoch had debased and debauched British public life, and there is indeed great evidence that this was the case. For example, the News of the World was a respectable – if racy – family newspaper before Murdoch brought it under his ownership. As we now know, it converted into a flourishing criminal concern that took an evil pleasure in destroying people’s lives.

Though many were appalled, Murdoch himself was protected by his potent political contacts. Tony Blair, for example, would do anything to help out his close friend and ally. I can even disclose that, before the last election, Tony Blair rang Gordon Brown to try to persuade the Labour Prime Minister to stop the Labour MP Tom Watson raising the issue of phone hacking. And as recently as two weeks ago both Ed Miliband and David Cameron attended the News International (News Corp’s British newspaper publishing arm) summer party, despite the fact that the newspaper group was the subject of two separate criminal investigations. (1)

Oborne really goes to town on Cameron's infatuation with Murdoch and the hiring of Coulson, which was apparently driven by George Osborne, who has been out of the shitlight thus far:

It was at this point that George Osborne, then shadow chancellor and also Cameron’s closest strategic advisor, entered the fray. The immensely ambitious Osborne – who was already cultivating his own links with News International – made the case that Cameron should hire Andy Coulson.

Gordon Brown, of course, tried to cultivate the Mail and Paul Dacre, and massive questions need to be asked about that relationship.

1 - "David Cameron is not out of the sewer yet," by Peter Oborne. Published in The Telegraph, 8th of July, 2011. (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/phone-hacking/8626421/Phone-hacking-David-Cameron-is-not-out-of-the-sewer-yet.html)

What's next?

2011-07-10T09:39:00.005+12:00

Rebekah Brooks says there is 'worse to come' in the phone hacking scandal that destroyed the News of the World and put 200 people - but not Rebekah Brooks - out of work (1).

Obviously, we'll have to wait to find out what further slime has to float to the surface.

My imagination doesn't run to the depths the News of the World seems to plumb so effortlessly. Political dirty tricks, bridery, corruption and blackmailing MPs / cabinet ministers for information and / or dirt on their colleagues is about as far as I can go. Though that would certainly be nice and sleazy.

Worth noting that the much maligned Labour MP Tom Watson has been asking awkward questions about the News of the World and phone hacking for years (2). The same Tom Watson who was falsely smeared by untrue association with the Damian McBride-Red Rag scandal back in 2009.

It was the Mail on Sunday - another close friend of phone-hacking detective Steve Whittamore (3) - that first made the phony link between Watson and McBride, but The Sun also publicised the story and was successfully sued, paying substantial damages to Mr Watson for libeling him. The Sun and The News Of The World are both owned by Murdoch. Just a coincidence, I'm sure.

1 - "The worst is yet to come, Brooks tells journalists as they ask searching questions about paper's demise," by Tamara Cohen. Published in The Daily Mail, 9th of July, 2011. (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2012766/Rebekah-Brooks-tells-News-World-journalists-worst-come.html#ixzz1RaZT0DCE)
2 - "Profile: Labour MP Tom Watson," by Victoria King. Published by the BBC, 6th of July, 2011. (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-14043436)
3 - As described previously on lefthandpalm: http://lefthandpalm.blogspot.com/2011/07/should-mail-be-next.html

Should the Mail be next?

2011-07-08T09:53:00.003+12:00

The top story on the Mail's website today (prior to the announcement of the NOTW closure) was - inevitably - about the scandal surrounding the News of the World, Rebekah Brooks, News international and Rupert Murdoch's increasingly evil looking media empire.

The headline to the story was, "Even war widows were on the News of the World hackers' hit-list: Who else have they targeted?" though it has since been updated and the original version has disappeared down the memory hole (1).

The unasked question was, "Who has the mail been targeting?"

You see, the NOTW was not the only prolific red top employer of shady private detectives. Even though its jounralists seem to have commissioned the most flagrant breaches of decency thus far revealed, they weren't even the most prolific of Steve Whittamore's clients.

Tory grandee Michael Ashcroft obtained a list of 305 journalists who had contacted Whittamore with requests that were either definitely, probably or possibly in breach of the Data Protection Act:

Nevertheless, the ICO data released to me shows that the 305 journalists, the identities of whom have yet to be revealed, commissioned no fewer than 13,343 separate lines of enquiry from Whittamore. These transactions can be subdivided into three categories:-

• those which are positively known to have constituted a breach of the Data Protection Act, of which there were 5,025.

• those in addition which were probably a breach of the Data Protection Act, of which there were 6,330.

• those lines of enquiry which were questionable, but in relation to which there was insufficient information to form a definitive view, of which there were 1,988.

The 305 journalists worked for a total of 21 newspapers and 11 magazines, although some journalists worked for more than one publication. However, the concentration of activity was striking. (2)

Ashcroft goes on to reveal the papers which the unnamed journalists worked for:

Daily Mail 58
Sunday People 50
Daily Mirror 45
Mail on Sunday 33
Sunday Mirror 25
News of the World 23
The People 19
Sunday Express 8
Daily Express 7
The Observer 4
Daily Sport 4
The Sun 4
Daily Star 4
Daily Record 2
The Times 1
Sunday Times 1
Evening Standard 1
Sunday Sport 1
Sunday Business News 1
Mail in Ireland 1
Sunday World 1

The Mail, for all its sanctimonious frothing and screeching, is top of the list. It can't all be harmless tattle about Cheryl Cole type bimbos. Wonder when its time will come?

1 - The original headline was, "Even war widows were on the News of the World hackers' hit-list: Who else have they targeted?" and I know this because I saved the headline. But googling it now redirects to another, unattributed, story, "End of the World: James Murdoch announces News of the World will close this Sunday," published by The Daily mail, 7th of July, 2011. (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2012035/News-World-close-Sunday-announces-James-Murdoch.html)
2 - "What Price Privacy Now," by Michael Ashcroft. Date of publication unclear. (http://www.lordashcroft.com/pdf/WhatPricePrivacyFoIAreply.pdf)

NOTW

2011-07-08T09:46:00.004+12:00

So, the News of the World is to be closed, to spare Rupert Murdoch's blushes. 168 years, and snuffed out overnight because a geriatric antipodean is worried his other business deals might be affected. This is why Murdoch shouldn't be allowed any further access to the British media market. H's only interested in the NI brand.

Scuttling the NOTW is quite a spectacular act of desperation. If - as has been claimed over and again - it was just the action of a few rogue reporters blah blah blah - why the decapitation of a venerable title? It's a transparent act of sacrifice, the poor poker player throwing down a jack in the hope that everyone else has been bluffing.

It also begs the question, what haven't we heard yet that was so bad it required this sort of sacrifice?

Perhaps this is why:

Mark Stephens, head of media with Finers Stephens Innocent lawyer, said under British law the paper "may not be obliged to retain documents that could be relevant to civil and criminal claims against the newspaper—even in cases that are already underway."

If News of the World is to be liquidated, Stephens told Reuters, it "is a stroke of genius—perhaps evil genius."

"All of the assets of the shuttered newspaper, including its records, will be transferred to a professional liquidator (such as a global accounting firm). The liquidator's obligation is to maximize the estate's assets and minimize its liabilities. So the liquidator could be well within its discretion to decide News of the World would be best served by defaulting on pending claims rather than defending them. That way, the paper could simply destroy its documents to avoid the cost of warehousing them—and to preclude any other time bombs contained in News of the World's records from exploding." (1)

If so, then whatever still awaits revelation must be potent to warrant junking a whole newspaper. News International mustn't be allowed to get away with it.

1 - "News of the World closes – live coverage". Posted by Adam Gabbatt and David Batty, on the Guardian live Blog, 7th of July 2011. (http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/blog/2011/jul/07/news-of-the-world-closes-live-coverage)

That 'painless' benefits cap

2011-07-04T11:42:00.003+12:00

Ther Con Dem coalition has justified its plans to cap total benefit claims for households on the grounds that it is fair, as beneficiaries shouldn't receive more than a typical working family. They've argued it is essential to take these tough measures - while also claiming the cap won't cause any real hardship - because it will save money. They lied.

Straight from the ~~horse's~~ horse's secretary's ~~mouth~~ pen ...

Firstly we are concerned that the savings from this measure, currently estimated at £270m savings p.a from 2014-2015 does not take account of the additional costs to local authorities (through homelessness and temporary accommodation). In fact we think it is likely that the policy as it stands will generate a net cost. In addition Local Authorities will have to calculate and administer reduced Housing Benefit to keep within the cap and this will mean both demands on resource and difficult handling locally.

Secondly, we are worried about the impact of this measure on our ability to build social housing for families through the new affordable rent product. To fund new affordable housing development providers need to be able to charge rents of up to 80% of the market levels but the impact of the Overall Benefit Cap will prevent them from doing so in many areas greatly reducing their financial capacity. Initial analysis suggests that of the 56,000 new affordable rent units up to 23,000 could be lost. And reductions would disproportionately affect family homes rather than small flats. For example it would be extremely difficult to fund any 4 bed properties, so desperately needed, anywhere in the country - disproportionately impacting on families and therefore children.

Finally, our modelling indicates that we could see an additional 20,000 homelessness acceptances as a result of the total benefit cap. This on top of the of the 20,000 additional acceptances already anticipated as a result of other changes to Housing Benefit. We are already seeing increased pressures on homelessness services. I understand that there may be a suggestion around requiring families to divert a percentage of their non-housing (benefit) income to cover housing costs. It is important not to underestimate the level of controversy that this would generate (likely to dwarf anything already seen on the HB only caps) and the difficulty of justifying this in policy terms as well as implementation. (1)

Awesome, Con Dem coalition. A way of reducing economic activity and worsening the housing situation (through fewer social homes being built), increasing homelessness that costs more than the status quo? Outstanding work.

And on top of that, a rather hopeful suggestion that exempting Child Benefit from the housing cap might resolve these issues - finally turning the old stereotype of the benefit queen, who has children to get a better house, into actual policy.

This coalition is so crazed Eric Pickles - ERIC PICKLES - sounds sane and reasoned.

Meanwhile - as the coalition plots to make 40,000 people homeless at the taxpayer's expense, and connives to engineer an unjustified pay cut for public servants - the Tory MP Jacob Rees-Mogg turned his attention to another group of - apparently more deserving - beneficiaries:

As a result of what I have described the Queen is paying a higher rate of tax than anybody else. We should remember that and I hope that the Chancellor will be generous. I would like the 15% provision to be increased because we want to have a glamorous monarchy that befits the status of our nation. We are a great nation, a noble nation and a nation that has had power across the globe in the past. We have one of the finest histories of any country in the world. When I see the coronation coach being pulled through the streets of London, I want to see it being pulled by the finest horses that money can buy and I want to see it gilded with the finest gold that can be bought. I want Her Majesty to have as a jubilee present the finest window that can be funded by Members of Parliament. That is the status of monarchy that we want and I urge the Chancellor to remember that. Even though I know that we are in this time of austerity, that we are all in it together and that the Opposition spent all the money, maxed out the credit card and so on, we should look after Her Majesty. (2)

Yes, as long as the proles can see the monarch trot past in a pretty carriage pulled by some pampered horses, they'll know their place and accept their lot.

These freaks are beyond satire.

1 - "Full text of letter from the office of Eric Pickles," published in The Guardian, 2nd of July, 2011. (http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2011/jul/02/full-text-letter-eric-pickles-welfare-reform?intcmp=239)
2 - Jacob Rees-Moog, speaking in the house of Commons, 30th of June, 2011. As recorded in Hansard for that date, colum 1172. (http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201011/cmhansrd/cm110630/debtext/110630-0003.htm)

Miliband bashing

2011-07-03T18:13:00.003+12:00

So, Ed Miliband is being castigated for refusing to deviate from his prepare lines during an interview (1).

It was a shite performance, a horrible throwback to the Blairite days of always being 'on message' and controlling the media, making sure they could only use one soundbite.

In fairness, he has expanded his argument a bit elsewhere, but it was infuriating to watch him repeat the same thing. Fuck's sake man, seize the moment, Talk To The Nation. Your point isn't a bad one. Run with it. You've got a privileged position where you get to access the media, I don't get to do that, and I've got lots of things I want to say. Stand aside, man, and let me hog the camera!

That said, the thinking behind the obstruction is clear enough - It's also worth noting that Red Ed is trying a rather transparent policy of Following The Public Mood - condemning the government for forcing the crisis and the unions for striking while a deal is still possible.

Courtesy of UK Polling Report:

On balance the public remain opposed to the government’s proposed changes to public sector pensions by 47% to 37%. However, while they oppose the pension changes, they also tend to oppose the strike – 40% of people support the teacher’s strike on Thursday, 49% of people oppose it. (2)

Red Ed, his finger on the People's Pulse.

And there is something else to consider. Miliband has to watch his words because he knows the Conservatives, and the media, are desperate to portray him as some sort of barely reformed trotskyite dreaming of the 'Good old days' of the 1970s.

I think this sort of crap from the right is what is driving Miliband's tactics over the strikes:

But Cameron sought to steer the debate away from health and on to the union strikes due to be staged on Thursday.

He accused Miliband of choosing not to ask him about the forthcoming industrial disruption because he was in the "pocket of the unions".

"That's what we see, week after week – he has to talk about the micro because he can't talk about the macro," the prime minister said.

"What the whole country will have noticed is, at a time when people are worrying about strikes, he can't ask about strikes because he is in the pocket of the unions." (3)

It's also worth noting that what Miliband did was pretty much what Cameron - and every other PM - does at Prime Minister's Question Time.

The Tories are desperate to link 'Red Ed,' the 'pawn of the unions' with these strikes, so they can bang the old Thatcherite drum, like he's a re-heated incarnation of Neil Kinnock. So - while it's not edifying, nor inspirational - Miliband's obstinate refusal to depart from the scripted line is understandable.

1 - "Ed Miliband TV interviewer reveals shame over 'absurd' soundbites," by Mark Sweney. Published in The Guardian, 1st of July, 2011. (http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2011/jul/01/ed-miliband-interviewer-shame-strike-soundbites)
2 - "Latest YouGov polling on teacher's strike," by Anthony Wells. Posted on UK Polling Report, 29th of July, 2011. (http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/blog/archives/3688)
3 - "David Cameron hits out at Ed Miliband in NHS row," by Helene Mulholland. Published in the Guardian, 29th of June, 2011. (http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2011/jun/29/david-cameron-ed-miliband-nhs-row?INTCMP=SRCH)

Hari McLiary?

2011-06-30T12:34:00.004+12:00

Further to yesterday's post on Johann Hari's current troubles: Guy Walters has had another pop at Johann Hari in his blog for the News Statesman, citing further instances of lifting from another's work - in this case John Lee Anderson, writing on Hugo Chavez:

Despite the very slightest of tweaks, it's clearly a straightforward piece of theft from someone else's interview. That's plagiarism. Mr Hari has taken someone else's writing - that of Jon Lee Anderson - and passed it off as his own. Notice how Mr Hari makes it look as though Chavez has actually said this line directly to him - the cheesy pat on the knee, the schlocky looking away. This isn't an 'intellectual portrait', and it is most certainly not exclusive. (1)

For all Mr Walters's fulminations, this doesn't really change very much, because it is just another example of what Hari has already already admitted to: lifting quotes from other interviews and substituting them for interviewee's bungled attempts to say effectively the same thing.

It's unlikely it can be proven that Chavez didn't say pretty much the same thing to Hari 2006 as he did to Anderson in 2001. Famous people probably have their own little favourite suggestive or portentous anecdotes which they've honed and practised over years. I know I tell some stories in virtually the same way every time I recount them, hopefully not to the same people too often.

I think the much more serious charge is the allegation he simply made stuff up to make himself look braver and more daring.

1 - As described previously on lefthandpalm: http://lefthandpalm.blogspot.com/2011/06/that-other-great-voice-of-left-johann.html
2 - "Just before you accept Johann Hari's apology ....," by Guy Walters. Published on the New Statesman blog, 29th of July, 2010. (http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/guy-walters/2011/06/chavez-hari-interview-goodbye)

That other great voice of the left, Johann Hari ...

2011-06-29T19:06:00.003+12:00

... may be in a spot of bother (1).

The 'official' charges against him are rather flimsy, IMHO. He's accused of substituting interviewees oral attempt to explain something with their previous, more lucid, written statements, while still presenting them as the words spoken to him.

This isn't plagarism: he isn't claiming the credit for something someone else said; the words are still clearly identified as being those of the interviewee.

His crime, on this count, is simply not identifying that he's replaced something someone said to him with something the same person said or wrote previously, when they phrased it more succinctly or more beautifully.

It's a venal sin, though does create an unsettling feeling when reading his work. Did David Irving really say that when talking to Hari about his disabled daughter? Or did he say it on another occasion when he was just talking about disabled people in general, and Hari interpolated it for effect?

Still, if that was all there was to it, I'd be tempted to dismiss the fuss building up around his pudgy, oleaginous face as predictable rightwing excitement at being able to finally squash the wasp that's been sting them for so long; but it isn't.

It has been claimed - back in 2004, but now being eagerly reheated - that he misrepresented and invented events in at least one of his columns. Writes one Rowan ~~Williams~~ Wilson, appending his own observations to a letter published-or-possibly-not-published in the Independent:

I was the so-called ‘publicist’ mentioned in the article(I work for Continuum, the publishers of ‘Time for Revolution’,and was innvolved in organising the ICA event). A few minor, but incorrectly reported, details that I have personal knowledge of (eg,there was no taxi called, I didn’t say the things ascribed to me, Negri wasn’t behaving arrogantly as suggested, there was no angry confontation with ICA staff, etc) casts serious doubt on the veracity of anything that Hari says. (2)

Williams might say the details are minor, but I think they are actually pretty devastating; he's implying that Hari is changing things to make himself look bolder, braver, and more incisive.

If true, Hari has some very big explaining to do.

1 - "When does licence become invention?," by Guy Walters. Published in the New Statesman blogs, 28th of June, 2011. (http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/guy-walters/2011/06/hari-interview-truth-quotes)
2 - The quotation is a footnote to a letter submitted to the Independent, which was either published or not published by that paper, depending on which bit of the interweb you happen to be looking at. The original letter was written by Matteo Mandarini and Alberto Toscano, in 2004, in response to a piece Hari had written on the Italian communist, Toni Negri. (http://www.driftline.org/cgi-bin/archive/archive_msg.cgi?file=spoon-archives/aut-op-sy.archive/aut-op-sy_2004/aut-op-sy.0409&msgnum=232&start=21394)

I'm beginning to get fucked off with Labour

2011-06-29T14:33:00.002+12:00

There's something a bit worrying about their continual opportunistic attacks on what's actually good policy:

The justice secretary, Kenneth Clarke, faces another embarrassing U-turn over his controversial sentencing reforms on Wednesday as the Labour frontbench combines with rightwing Tory MPs to further attack his prison plans.

Tory backbenchers and Labour spokesmen served notice on Tuesday night that they would fight Clarke's plans to limit the use of remand in custody and tackle the explosion in the use of indeterminate sentences for public protection (IPPs).

Clarke's Commons opponents scent fresh blood after last week's U-turn when Downing Street disowned his plan to introduce a 50% maximum discount for early guilty pleas, although it would have stabilised the growth in the record 85,000 prison population in England and Wales. The move took out 3,400 of the 6,000 prison places Clarke was hoping to save over four years as part of his "rehabilitation revolution" and left him with a £140m hole in his spending plans.

A fresh revolt against his plans to limit the use of remand in custody would lose a further 1,300 saved places and mean he would have to find a further £40m from his justice budget. The IPP reforms would have saved 600 prison places and £10m. (1)

An occasional ambush or purposeful assault - such as Miliband's original attack - is understandable, because it highlighted how weak Cameron actually was. But the mania for forcing U turns seems to be what's driving Labour's tactics, rather than what's best.

They'd do a lot better in the long run, IMHO, if they supported sound policy, and opposed bad policy. As it is, they're going to look pretty fucking stupid if - supposing they get back into government - they start trying to introduce positive policies which they voted down in opposition. Stupid, short termist tactics, based on heaping humiliation on the government, no matter what.

It might be argued this is what opposition parties are meant to do, and the Conservatives have spent 13 years voting against (the occasional) good Labour policy while they were in opposition.

All that means is that the current opposition is as as spineless and unprincipled as the current government. Which is not a good thing. The fact that the Tories do something is no justification for others doing it as well. Quite the opposite. Isn't the whole point of not being the Tories is to not be the Tories?

Labour should pick and choose their targets, so they can score points; shepherd good policy through while simultaneously pissing off the Tory right; and show they can be constructive and coalitionable?

n.b. Coalitionable isn't really a word. Until now.

This blanket policy of oppositing pretty much everything and seeking to exploit any vulnerability is just weak, crappy opportunism, suggesting a massive degree of insecurity and rampant tribalism in Labour.

Looks like the 'Blue Labour' idea is really just the same old NuLabour authoritariamism, more carefully directed at People We Don't Like (prisoners, furriners, people on benefits and so on) instead of just being generally unpleasant to everyone.

1 - "Kenneth Clarke faces twin-track assault on jail reform plans," by Alan Travis and Owen Bowcott. Published in The Guardian, 28th of June, 2011. (http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2011/jun/28/kenneth-clarke-jail-reform-plans)

Doctors reject NHS plans; where is the Telegraph?

2011-06-29T14:25:00.004+12:00

From the BBC:

Doctors have rejected the government's revised NHS plans, urging their union to take a tougher stance.

Delegates at the annual British Medical Association conference voted in favour of calling for the Health and Social Care Bill to be withdrawn by 59%.

Amid mounting criticisms the government put the changes on hold in April. Two weeks ago ministers attempted to appease opponents by watering down certain aspects of the plans.

Dr Jacqueline Applebee, a GP from London, said the overhaul would result in one of the "biggest ever social injustices" as it would lead to charges for services and backdoor privatisation.

"We have a duty to past, present and future generations," she said.

Paddy Glackin, who is also based in London, added: "This is a slippery government that we cannot give any wriggle room to. This is not the time to back off, this is the time to push further and harder." (1)

A while ago, the telegraph ran a front page story about a bunch of Tory affiliated doctors who had written them a letter in support of the government plans. Wonder if they'll be giving this development similar prominence?

1 - "Doctors reject revised NHS plans," by Nick Triggle. Published by the BBC, 28th of June, 2011. (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-13942819)
2 - As described previously on lefthandpalm: http://lefthandpalm.blogspot.com/2011/05/telegraph-vs-balance-and-integrity.html

You couldn't make it up

2011-06-28T11:30:00.004+12:00

Michelle Bachmann reveals a bit too much:

In an interview before announcing her bid for the Republican presidential nomination in her birthplace of Waterloo, Iowa, Bachmann told a Fox News interviewer:

"John Wayne was from Waterloo, Iowa. That's the kind of spirit that I have, too."

Except as the conservative Washington Times reported, John Wayne – the star of movies such as True Grit and The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance – was born in Winterset, Iowa, more than 100 miles away from Waterloo.

The John Wayne of Waterloo was someone entirely different:

Waterloo's John Wayne was not the beloved movie star, but rather John Wayne Gacy, the homophobic serial killer. (1)

Satirists are really going to struggle to surpass this sort of madness.

1 - "Michele Bachmann gets her John Waynes mixed up," by Richard Adams. Published by The Gaurdian, 27th of June, 2011. (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/richard-adams-blog/2011/jun/27/michele-bachmann-john-wayne)

Ha ha!!

2011-06-25T10:27:00.003+12:00

Just stumbled upon this terrifying image:

And yes, I now have images of Gerry Brownlee stored on my computer. This may be illegal in some jurisdictions.

More amusing than the image itself, is the caption that accompanied it:

National MPs Simon Powell, Katherine Rich, former National leader Don Brash, National MPs Nathan Guy and Gerry Brownlee applaud John Key as he delivers his speech as the New Zealand National Party launch their election campaign at Sky City on October 12, 2008 in Auckland, New Zealand.

Now, I don't know what Gerry's hands may be up to, locked in his pits, but I'm fairly sure they aren't clapping (1).

1 - Photograph courtesy of zimbio.com, 12th October, 2008. Photo by Tim Hales/Getty Images AsiaPac. (http://www.zimbio.com/photos/Simon+Powell/Gerry+Brownlee)

Is this irony?

2011-06-24T18:58:00.002+12:00

The Guardian, commenting on the British Labour Party's convoluted policy review:

There is also dark talk of a mechanism to address waste in public spending. An inquiry could be set up on the issue. (1)

Wouldn't that be rather a waste of public money?

1 - "Labour's policy review is to scrutinise the party's decline – then bounce back," by Patrick Wintour. Published in The gaurdian, 22nd of June,2011. (http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2011/jun/22/labour-policy-review-bounce-back)

Nothing to be proud of

2011-06-24T18:23:00.002+12:00

So it's very nice that the Chinese government have decided to release Ai Weiwei. It's even nicer to think that pressure from the west might have had something to do with his realease, though this seems to be wistful thinking. When a regime brags that a newly released prisoner has shown a "good attitude in confessing his crimes," it probably isn't caving in. Ai Weiwei's silence on release speaks volumes, as they say. He's not triumphed over the viciousness of the regime; he's been broken by it and, like Winston Smith in 1984, is drinking at The Chestnut Tree.

Nor is it enough to note, as the Independent does, that Ai Weiwei was just one of over a thousand political prisoners in the PRC, and they remain imprisoned (1). That's better than celebrating a single release; but it's still missing the point. In fact, it seems to me to be a deliberate diversion.

By focusing on this or that celebrity prisoner, we can conveniently excuse our blindness to how we exploit Chinese labour, take advantage of the PRC's totalitarian tendency when it is convenient to us - we like those baubles and trinkets, but we don't like have to pay too much for them. We deliberately ignore the oppression of Tibetans and Uighurs, the arrest of workers who try to form independent trade unions, the thousands killed and injured in Chinese mines where cornoers are cut because of the desperate need to keep costs down, the brutal working conditions imposed by employers who are churning out toys for us to play with. We salve our cosciences by making a token fuss about people like Ai Weiwei, but purposefully ignore our own massive, hypocritical convenient connivance in oppression and state brutality.

1 - "Ai Weiwei is free; another 1,426 are not," unattributed editorial. Published in The Independent, 24th of June, 2011. (http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/leading-articles/leading-article-ai-weiwei-is-free-another-1426-are-not-2301849.html)

Has the British government gone mad?

2011-06-24T12:29:00.002+12:00

From the Indie:

MPs voted to ban wild animals in circuses last night after David Cameron's attempts to bully Conservative backbenchers into voting against the measure backfired and ended in a humiliating public defeat. In a decision hailed by campaigners as an "historic victory for animal welfare and protection", MPs of all parties unanimously backed a ban and the Government signalled that it would introduce one, ending forever the days of lions, tigers, elephants and other wild animals in the big top.

In an act of desperation, Conservative whips had warned they would impose the most serious parliamentary voting sanction, a three-line whip, to bring recalcitrant backbenchers to heel and get them to support the Government's alternative proposal of a licensing system. (1)

A three line whip? Over a ban on wild animals in circuses?

Clearly, the Conservative part of the government (as distinct from the Conservative Party) has had enough of being forced into U turns. Why the decided to make a stand on this topic is beyond me, and I'm glad to see they're attempt to bully their MPs into voting against their conscience failed.

Note, that this shows how untrue Cameron's claims to be listening and responsive are. He thought he could pull this one off, so suddenly the nice, touchy-feely Dave disappeared, to be replaced by a would-be tyrannical parliamentary autocrat.

A rare day when I'm impressed with the Tories, putting decency ahead of their factional interest.

1 - "Victory in the campaign to ban circus animals," by Martin Hickman,. Published in The Independent, 24th of June, 2011. (http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/nature/victory-in-the-campaign-to-ban-circus-animals-2302073.html)

Funny

2011-06-24T09:54:00.002+12:00

Paul Krugman discussing books:

I was at that stage, a college sophomore or thereabouts, when you’re searching around, looking for belief systems. I think it’s actually a point when you’re quite vulnerable, because you are looking for someone who is going to offer you all the answers. Some people turn to religious orthodoxy, other people turn to Ayn Rand. One of my favourite lines – and I haven’t been able to find out who came up with it – is that “There’s an age when boys read one of two books. Either they read Ayn Rand or they read Tolkien’s Lord of the Rings. One of these books leaves you with no grasp on reality and a deeply warped sense of fantasy in place of real life. The other one is about hobbits and orcs. (1)

To be honest, I think I've heard that before, possibly referencing someone other than Rand as the purveyor of fantastical delusions. Still, it's worth repeating, endlessly.

1- "Paul Krugman on Inspiration for a Liberal Economist," interviewed by Sophie Roell. Published on The Browser, 19th of June, 2011. (http://m.thebrowser.com/interviews/paul-krugman-on-inspiration-liberal-economist?page=1)

I was, of course, completely right- Brons seeks BNP leadership

2011-06-24T09:33:00.002+12:00

Almost exactly two year ago, I predicted the the elevation of Andrew Brons to the top of the BNP's Euro list meant the end of Nick Griffin's leadership. Following a long running civil war and Griffin's 'Do or Die' attempt to win a seat at Westminister in the 2010 election, Brons has finally heeded the call and declared his intention to contest the leadershit [sic] of the BNP.

Make no mistake, Brons is a piece of crap with links to the old National Front. He's - remarkably - a worse human being the Nick Griffin. Fortunately, he will likely lead the party back into crappy obscurity, where it can die a quiet death, starved of funds, publicity and with a membership numbering in the dozens.

1 - As described previously on lefthandpalm: http://lefthandpalm.blogspot.com/2009/06/sympathy-for-little-nicky.html
2 - "Andrew Brons MEP to Stand in BNP Leadership Contest," by Green Arrow. Posted on the British Resistance blog, 10th of June, 2010. (http://www.thebritishresistance.co.uk/pp-news/1006-andrew-brons-mep-to-stand-in-bnp-leadership-contest)

Respect is due: Brian Haw

2011-06-21T11:55:00.003+12:00

Veteran anti-war campaigner who mounted a decade long protest vigil outside parliament.

1 - "Brian Haw: A decade-long protest dedicated to peace," unattributed BBC article. Published by the BBC, 19th of June, 2011. (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-13829433)

Electric cars blah blah blah

2011-06-19T22:52:00.002+12:00

Yet more tiresome environmental twaddle:

The British study, which is the first analysis of the full lifetime emissions of electric cars covering manufacturing, driving and disposal, undermines the case for tackling climate change by the rapid introduction of electric cars.

The Committee on Climate Change, the UK government watchdog, has called for the number of electric cars on Britain's roads to increase from a few hundred now to 1.7 million by 2020.

The study was commissioned by the Low Carbon Vehicle Partnership, which is jointly funded by the British government and the car industry. It found that a mid-size electric car would produce 23.1 tonnes of CO2 over its lifetime, compared with 24 tonnes for a similar petrol car. Emissions from manufacturing electric cars are at least 50 per cent higher because batteries are made from materials such as lithium, copper and refined silicon, which require much energy to be processed. (1)

These studies come along every now and again, and they're blown out of all proportion by the dingbats who are trying to defend the status quo, and the dittoheads who don't bother to think about stuff.

Couple of points ....

Electric cars aren't just about reducing CO2. They're about reducing oil use because of peak oil. More electric cars means the oil we've got left lasts longer and thus costs less for the things that really, truly need it.
Technology may improve and with it, the manufacturing emissions may be reduced.
If the problem centres around manufacturing emissions, that's not a problem with the car, but with the manufacturing process. If the energy needed can be sourced from lower CO2 emitting sources, then the manufacturing process will be significant.
The difference between the electric car emissions and petrol car emissions is about 5%. That's not insignificant, even if there are no other changes, ever.

The findings are interesting, but not something to get to excited about. remember how far mobile phones have come in the least decade or so.

I despise electric cars, by the way. Horses and airships will be the prime means of transportation when I'm World King. Except for me. I'm going to ride about the place on a gigantic genetically modified Wolverine.

1 - "Electric cars may not be so green after all, says British study," by Ben Webster. Published in The Australian, 10th of June, 2011. (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/health-science/electric-cars-may-not-be-so-green-after-all-says-british-study/story-e6frg8y6-1226073103576)

Teske-gate

2011-06-19T22:37:00.003+12:00

So, Sven Teske, who was co-lead author on a chapter of the IPCC report on energy, also happens to be affiliated with Greenpeace?

Hardly worth getting excited about:

Last night, the IPCC said it had been made clear that the 77 per cent figure was only one of the estimates made from the models and that Mr Teske was just one of 120 researchers who had worked on the report. (1)

I mean, is that really worth soiling our bedsheets?

He was one of NINE authors who contributed to ONE chapter of the report. His affiliation with Greenpeace was clearly stated, and not revealed, by "the eagle eyes of Steve McIntyre," as Mark Lynas (who really should know better) claims (2).

In addition to his co-authors, there were co-ordinating authors and reviewers. He did not write the Techical Summary or the Summary For Policy Makers.

What is the fuss about? Are the IPCC not supposed to ask experts to contribute because of alleged potential bias? That sets an interesting precedent with regards the likes of Christie and Lindzen.

Still, always good to see how close to the bottom of the barrel the Ostrich Brigade are.

1 - "Climate change panel in hot water again over 'biased' energy report," by Oliver Wright. Published in The Independent, 16th of June, 2011.
2 - "Questions the IPCC must now urgently answer," by Mark Lynas. Posted on his blog, 17th of June, 2011. (http://www.marklynas.org/2011/06/questions-the-ipcc-must-now-urgently-answer/)

Random bit of Marxism

2011-06-19T22:32:00.002+12:00

From Capital:

Hence there is immanent in capital an inclination and constant tendency, to heighten the productiveness of labour, in order to cheapen commodities, and by such cheapening to cheapen the labourer himself. (1)

That is to say, a capitalist strives to increase the amount of surplus value (profit) he makes.

This surplus value is the excess hours worked beyond the point where a worker has created enough value to maintain himself. The capitalist thrives either by extending the working day, or, if that is not possible, by reducing the cost of living which the worker must recoup before creating surplus value. This is done by driving down the value of the commodities the worker needs to maintain themselves.

Hence, the delight of cheap imports. They reduce the cost of living for those still working in more developed economies, exerting downward pressure on wages.

1 - From Capital, by Karl Marx. The quoted passage occurs in Chapter 12, 'The Concept of Relative Surplus Value.'(http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch12.htm)

The Hillside proposition

2011-06-10T15:39:00.002+12:00

Does the announcement that Hillside Engineering will be laying off staff, following the loss of yet another contract overseas, mean it is of it time to consider a New Zealand version of Harman's Law (1)?

Harman's Law was a proposal by the last Labour government in Britain, requiring public bodies to work towards reducing economic inequality (2). It was facetiously dubbed "Socialism in a single clause," which might be going a bit far, but it is hard to see how it is a bad thing that local authorities should be asked to think of more than just the economic bottom line in their decision making.

There are social and environmental considerations as well. Social, because it's a social good to protect workers and jobs - ideas, I admit, that may be a bit strange to John Key - and the communities that they belong to. As a Scot, I know what happened to the working class communities of the Glasgow-Clydeside conurbation, once the shipyards started closing, and the mining communities when the pits were closed. The same things happened in New Zealand in the 80-s and 90s, but it seems John Key thinks enough damage was not done.

And there are surely environmental considerations as well. I don't think it can be possible to make rolling stock in China at less of an environmental cost than in New Zealand. True, shipping manufacturing - and thus emissions - to China is an established way that the West look less environmentally irresponsible than they really are. But environmental pollution is something that catches up with all of us. Our power and our practices must be less polluting than the Chinese alternative. That should be a consideration as well.

There's a moral dimension as well, since the PRC isn't renowned for its regard for human rights. But I don't suppose Phil Goff will have the chutzpah to argue that line, given it was he who signed off the infamous Free Trade Deal with the bastards of Beijing (3).

Finally, I'm not even sure there's an economic case to be made for sending manufacturing work overseas. After all, if we send $500 million of work to China, that's $500 million dollars vanished forever. If we spend it here, even if it is somewhat more expensive, the money is recycled through local businesses and communities. It goes to New Zealanders, and is spent again and again in New Zealand. I'm guessing there won't be much money being spent Hillside way any time soon.

So it is time for The Hillside Proposition? A statutory requirement that public entities and money is spent with a triple - or even quadruple - bottom line, where economic, social, environmental and moral considerations are weighed up?

1 - "Hillside's 'kick in the guts' ," by Matthew Haggart. Published in The Otago Daily Times, 10th of June 2011. (http://www.odt.co.nz/news/dunedin/164215/hillsides-kick-guts)
2 - As described previously on lefthandpalm: http://lefthandpalm.blogspot.com/2010/11/breaking-harmans-law.html
3 - As described previously on lefthandpalm: http://lefthandpalm.blogspot.com/2008/02/new-zealand-secures-infamous-first-fta.html

Coalition scorecard - sentencing reform abandoned

2011-06-10T10:57:00.001+12:00

-1 ... Wimpish about face on sentencing reform, demonstrating a lack of guts in the face of an opportunistic attacks from Labour, some bad press mutterings from the back benches. And Cameron has the cheek to suggest Miliband isn't "not really in command of the ship"

OVERALL: 0/10. The brief return to positive territory turns out to have been a dead cat bounce. Normal business is resumed, with a strange combination of spinelessness and dimwitted pro-prison folly leading to the scraping of sane policy.

1 - "Cameron denies 'complete mess' in health and justice reforms," by Helene Mulholland. Published in The Guardian, 8th of June, 2011. (http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2011/jun/08/cameron-denies-mess-health-justice-reforms)

Cameron demonstrates worrying spinal defficiency

2011-06-10T10:26:00.001+12:00

Couple of bad headlines and Cameron decides to further humiliate one of his more credible ministers, and ditch one of the better ideas that this dreadful administration has belched out:

David Cameron has ditched controversial sentencing plans to introduce a 50% discount for an early guilty plea following a meeting with the justice secretary, Kenneth Clarke, on Tuesday.

It has not yet been decided whether the change will apply to all cases or only the most serious. Downing Street denied that Clarke had been summoned to a meeting by the prime minister or in any way ordered to conduct a U-turn.

The leak of the meeting after cabinet on Tuesday has also irritated the prime minister, who will be uneasy at suggestions that he is conducting a series of policy switches as he comes under pressure either from the rightwing media or his Liberal Democrat coalition colleagues. (1)

Tony Blair must be looking on, admiring how flexible Mr Cameron's spine is.

1 - "Cameron shelves key parts of Clarke's prison sentencing reforms," by Patrick Wintour, Alan Travis and Hélène Mulholland. Published in The Guardian, 8th of June, 2011. (http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2011/jun/08/cameron-shelves-clarkes-prison-sentencing-reforms)

John Key's pro slavery rebellion

2011-06-10T09:17:00.006+12:00

I'll warrant John Key is not an assiduous reader of Karl Marx.

For all that, he seems to have an instinctive grasp of the wrong end of the Marxist stick. That is to say, he's a anti-Marxist, not in the sense he's opposed to Marx, but that he accepts the Marist model - perhaps unconsciously - but from the capitalist side of the Labour-Capital binary opposition. Even if he hasn't delved into the depths of Capital, Mr Key may be familiar with the opening lines of the Manifesto of the Communist Party:

The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles.

Freeman and slave, patrician and plebeian, lord and serf, guild-master and journeyman, in a word, oppressor and oppressed, stood in constant opposition to one another, carried on an uninterrupted, now hidden, now open fight, a fight that each time ended, either in a revolutionary reconstitution of society at large, or in the common ruin of the contending classes. (1)

Mr Key would immediately recognize that this is perfectly true; and that he is representative of the first party in each opposition - the freeman, the patrician, the lord and the guildmaster. In a word, the oppressors.

His latest pronouncements, on National's plans to further reduce the power of trade unions, are a typical part of the 'hidden fight' to reconstitute society not as the workers might want it, but as Mr Key and his ilk would rather have it (2).

In Capital, Marx describes how capitalist society is characterised by "a potracted and more or less concealed civil war between the capitalist class and the working class," which takes place in "the arena of modern industry" (3). Elsewhere, Marx referred to efforts to overturn the Acts as "a pro-slavery rebellion in miniature" (4).

Mr Key understands chipping away at worker's rights and trade union powers is very much for their own good. Like the factory owners Marx described, who claimed their workers sought to work long hours because they needed the money to relieve their debt and hardship. I almost expect him to crack his guileless, weak smile, and tell us, with an almost comically straight face, that all these advances in favour of the working man will hurt him more than it hurts us. I'll bet it does, John. I can see that pain etched in your face.

Marx, in 1867, was writing about the campaigns either for or against a limit to the working day of the English working class; a succession of Factory Acts had limited the hours worked by women and children. Mr Key is probably doesn't want to see children working 15 hour days, but he does want the work force to be more "flexible," in the hope of encouraging growth and jobs (5). He does want to see the inconvenient, hard won rights of workers diminished, and workers put firmly in their place, subordinate to capital. His finance minister thinks this would be an advantage to us (6). Well, to him, and his people, perhaps.

And, of course, John Key would love to see wages drop (7).

Is this Victorian attitude towards labour really the sort of person we want leading New Zealand in the 21st century?

1 - "Manifesto of the Communist Party," by Karl Marx and Fredrick Engels. Published in 1848. From the 1888 translation by Samuel Moore and Engels. The quoted passage occurs at the very start of the very first chapter, 'Bourgeois and Proletarians.' IT is reproduced on Marxists.org. (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/ch01.htm#007)
2 - "Labour law changes a campaign plank, says Key," by Claire Trevett. Published in The New Zealand Herald, 9th of June, 2011. (http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10731097)
3 - "Capital, volume 1," by Karl Marx, originally published in 1868. The quotation occurs in Chapter 10.7, "The Working Day: The Struggle for the Normal Working-Day. Reaction of the English Factory Acts on Other Countries." This quotation is from my copy of Capital, translated by Ben Fowkes. Marxists.org reproduces a slighly different wording (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch10.htm#S7)
4 - ibid. Marx used the term "pro-slavery rebellion" to describe the American Civil War, and was fond of using it to characterise moves against social reform.
5 - Trevett, op cit.
6 - "Bill English: NZ's low wages an 'advantage'," unattributed article. Published by RadioLIVE / 3 News, 11th of April, 2011. (http://www.3news.co.nz/Bill-English-NZs-low-wages-an-advantage/tabid/419/articleID/206359/Default.aspx)
7 - "Key “would love to see wages drop”," unattributed press release. Published by The New Zealand government, 19th of February, 2008. (http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PA0802/S00304.htm)

Them hoodies, down south

2011-06-09T19:04:00.003+12:00

So, some youngsters in Invercargill has set about the time honoured tradition of winding up the olds by wearing hoodies with obscene anti-Christian messages and pornographic images of nuns on them (1).

The olds, of course, have risen to the bait.

Both sides should ponder the words of Karl Marx, writing in a letter to Arnold Ruge in 1842:

... religion in itself is without content, it owes its being not to heaven but to the earth, and with the abolition of distorted reality, of which it is the theory, it will collapse of itself. Finally, I desired that, if there is to be talk about philosophy, there should be less trifling with the label “atheism,” which reminds one of children, assuring everyone who is ready to listen to them that they are not afraid of the bogy man ... (2)

If the yoof of today have to be offensive about something, it would be nice if they were offensive about something more important than ancient superstition. Climate change, our horrible rightwing government, child abuse, whatever. There's a lot more to be fierce about than someone who has been dead for two millennia. Talk about kicking a man when he's down.

And the olds shouldn't get so up tight about it. It's just children showing they're not scared of the bogyman. Christians, in particular, should welcome the attention. If there's one thing worse than being talked about ...

1 - "Profane tops 'horrify' in Invercargill ," by Evan Harding. Published in the Southland Times. reproduced by Stuff, 8th of June, 2011. (http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/5112236/Profane-tops-horrify-in-Invercargill)
2 - "Letter from Marx to Arnold Ruge," by Karl Marx (!). Written November 30 1842 and reproduced on Marxists.org. (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1842/letters/42_11_30.htm)

Why British Labour lost the election

2011-06-09T10:54:00.003+12:00

Courtesy of The Poverty Site (1):

Whatever else, good or bad it may have done, New Labour failed to do anything substantial to protect the interests of blue collar voters. The number of people living in households on less than 60% of the national average income stagnated. The numbers of those living on less than 40% of that average actually increased somewhat.

The poor, in other words, got poorer, and more people got poorer.

Meanwhile, unemployment remained steady at around 5% of the labour force - the industrial reserve army exerting downward pressure on the wages of those with jobs. From the start of the 80s though to about 1997, British unemployment ran at about or above 10% of the labour force, with an exceptional, short lived trough in the late 80s (2). Labour's term in office saw a drop in the number of people out of work, but no reduction in the numbers living in poverty. People were working to stay poor.

That 22% of the population living on less than 60% of the average wage represents some 14 million people, who didn't benefit from 13 years of Labour being in power. Is it any surprise they didn't turn up to vote in 2010?

One of the classic definitions of insanity is doing the same thing over and over, and expecting a different result. The British proletariat are not insane.

As for the rich? Well, last year the Telegraph reported that there were some 280,000 millionaires in Britain - 1.1%, of the population - could claim to be millionaires, an increase on the year before. These individuals were 'worth' £1.28 trillion. Admittedly, the figures were down on the pre-crash 2007 high of 489,000, but I suspect the current figure reflects the real level of wealth, as opposed to people who have managed to create the self-gratifying illusion of being millionaires in an inflated market.

1 - "Proportion of people in low income houselholds, 1979-2009," unattributed graph. Posted on The Poverty Site. (http://www.poverty.org.uk/01/index.shtml)
2 - "A Century of change: trends in Britain since 1900," by Joe Hicks & Grahame Allen.Research Paper 99/111, published by The House of Commons Library, 21st of December, 1999.
(http://www.parliament.uk/commons/lib/research/rp99/rp99-111.pdf)
3 - "Number of millionaires in Britain 'rises to more than 280,000'," by Murray Wardrop. Published in The Telegraph, 30th of September, 2010. (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/8033505/Number-of-millionaires-in-Britain-rises-to-more-than-280000.html)

Musical interlude

2011-06-09T10:33:00.002+12:00

Bluegrass punk courtesy of the Avett Brothers. These guys are so cool they can wear mustaches and still rock.

Other than the song itself, I love ...

a) the complete lack of any reaction from the industry suits and skirts gathered to view this manifestation of rock'n'roll brilliance, and
b) the way they show you a close of the drum getting twonked, in case you didn't get what the singer was on about, and
c) the banjoist brother's turn ups. Very. Fuck. Off. Cool.

Enjoy.

1 - "Kick Drum Heart," performed by The Avett Brothers. Clip posted on Youtube by kinkradio, 9th of September, 2010. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IxIl4zGrFBA&feature=player_embedded)

1080

2011-06-08T16:49:00.003+12:00

Just a passing thought on the debate about the use of 1080. I've heard a lot of people on variou media pronounce that 1080 'hasn't worked' because we still have possums, rats, stoats and so on and they are still eating native birds and animals. Peter Dunne is one, and he really should know better:

However, Dunne said 1080 had been used in New Zealand since the 1950s yet native bird populations remained in serious decline with predatory pests still the major culprits.

"Most people recognise that after 50-odd years of fighting a losing battle it's probably time to rethink your strategy, however not according to the proponents of 1080." (1)

Surely, some one like Peter Dunne doesn't need to have it spelled out to him, that rats and other predatory vermin breed at colossal rates, and it is probably impossible to entirely eradicate them from any area larger than small, isolated islands? That we haven't managed to wipe out the rats and the stoats is beside the point - no strategy exists that will completely eliminate them from the main islands of New Zealand. It's impossible. It's a containment strategy, and there isn't a realistic alternative.

Dunne and the dittoheads who say because 1080 hasn't achieved complete eradication, it isn't working at all, are missing the point. Possibly deliberately.

1 - "1080 report 'kick in the guts' - Dunne," by Kiran Chug and Danya Levy. Published in the Dominion post, reproiduced on stuff, 8th of June, 2011. (http://www.stuff.co.nz/environment/5111974/1080-report-kick-in-the-guts-Dunne)

Toynbee on 'chavs'

2011-06-08T13:56:00.002+12:00

The English speaking world can be divided into two categories - those who think that Polly Toynbee is more Hit than Miss, and those who entertain the opposite opinion. I'm probably in the former camp.

Pugnacious Polly set out to make the demarcation even clearer with this forthright piece, considering the subtext behind Britain's current sneering label de jour, 'chav':

That word slips out. This time it was used by a Lib Dem peer on the Equality and Human Rights Commission. Baroness Hussein-Ece tweeted: "Help. Trapped in a queue in chav land. Woman behind me explaining latest EastEnders plot to mate while eating largest bun I've ever seen." When challenged, she said she hadn't meant chav in any derogatory way. Of course not. But take a look at the venomous class-hate site ChavTowns to see what lies beneath.

She would presumably never say nigger or Paki, but chav is acceptable class abuse by people asserting superiority over those they despise. Poisonous class bile is so ordinary that our future king and his brother played at dressing up and talking funny at a chav party mocking their lower class subjects.

Wrapped inside this little word is the quintessence of Britain's great social fracture. Over the last 30 years the public monstering of a huge slice of the population by luckier, better-paid people has become commonplace. This is language from the Edwardian era of unbridled snobbery. When safely reproduced in Downton Abbey, as the lady sneering at the scullery maid or the landowner bullying his workers, we are encouraged to look back smugly as if these shocking class differences were long gone. The form and style may have changed – but the reality of extreme inequality and self-confident class contempt is back. (1)

This has provoked some furious comment, but I think she's got a point.

Chav is a term used by the lumpen-middle class desperate to distinguish themselves from the scum beneath, a category that allows the better groomed part of the hoi-polloi to comfort themselves with the thought that - while they might really be a bit shit, at least they aren't irredeemably sh*t. Wills might marry a bluestocking, so there''s hope for the aspirational middle class, but he wouldn't touch a Chav would he. Not in public, anyway.

Most of the comment misses the essential point of the piece. 'Chav' is just the starting point for her argument, which is really about contempt for the the working class in general, and our mysterious tendency to excuse the far greater rorting and cheating at the other end of the social spectrum.

ere's a massive sneer implicit in branding people chavs. Look at the example Toynbee gives of the Liberal Democrat peer, complaining about someone eating a bun - a BIG BUN! - and talking about television - TELEVISION - in public. Imagine! Eating and talking about something that interests you in public. Thank God none of us have ever done that, we might be branded chavs by some supercilious Liberal Democrat faux aristocrat!

It's the assumptions in the judgment that make it a bit like racism. If you think someone must be a worthless thick beneficiary scrounger with no work effick simply because they wear stupid faux jewelry from Elizabeth Duke, then you're really being a bit of a judgmental twat, really, aren't you?

Calling someone a chav akin to calling someone 'white trash' a few generations ago. It's a nasty, judgmental and small minded way of defining people, which reveals more about the person using it than anything else. Fuckingg Hell, eat a bun in public, get called a chav by a LIB DEM PEER.

I can't say Miss High And Mighty, txting her petty revulsion to the world, comes off more likable than the bun muncher. And isn't txting spite and contempt rather common?

1 - "Chav: the vile word at the heart of fractured Britain," by Polly Toynbee. Published in the Guardian, 31st of May, 2011. (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/may/31/chav-vile-word-fractured-britain)

Airlines crack down on fraudulent vegetarians

2011-06-08T13:50:00.004+12:00

Unbelievable, the depths some people will stoop to ...

AIR passengers will have their in-flight meal choices stored on a database in a bid to catch fake vegetarians.

Airlines claim they are currently losing millions of pounds a year to bespoke meal fraud by deceitful carnivores.

A US Airlines spokesman said: "Meat eating passengers are ticking the vegetarian meal box when booking their ticket just because it makes them feel a bit special for a while.

"Others simply claim to be vegetarians during a flight so they will get their meal sooner or because, for some reason, they don't like the look of the chicken."

One airborne vegetarian admitted: "On the ground I would eat rare veal but I just don't trust meat once you get it past 30,000 feet.

"And why is all airline meat the same shape? Is a chicken the same shape as a pig? No, it is not.

"Also, a lot of young women are vegetarian these days and I really, really need to have sex."

Under the proposals any 'new' vegetarians boarding planes will be asked to take a 'vegetarian citizenship test' where they must identify various roots and pulses from picture cards as well as demonstrate how to make a black bean and zucchini quesadilla.

The spokesman added: "Coming on our planes, eating all our cous-cous. And as for pretend vegans, we should be allowed to throw them into the ocean." (1)

Encountering the story on a third party site, I actually believed it was a Real Thing until I got to the line, "Also, a lot of young women are vegetarian these days and I really, really need to have sex." Up until then, it seemed almost plausible.

1 - "Airlines crack down on fraudulent vegetarians," unattribuited article. Published by the Daiily Mash, 27th of May, 2011. (http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/business/airlines-crack-down-on-fraudulent-vegetarians-201105273877/)

Save the children!

2011-06-07T20:16:00.002+12:00

I'm not quite sure where I stand, with regards David Cameron's latest crusade to save the children of Britain from their feckless parents who might otherwise dress them up in padded bras at age six, and feed them, exclusively, on MacDonalds (1).

Obviously, there's an element of hysteria, 'Dangerous Dogs Act' type Being Seen To Do Something, even if it is a complete over-reaction, and ushering in incompetent legislation that will outlaw pre-teens wearing anything short of a Burqua. Also, I'm uncomfortable with the state telling people what they can and can't dress their children in. Fuck's sake, if it gets own to this level of nanny statism, perhaps parenting licenses and testing is the way to go. Surely that would be more efficient, effective, and logical than trying to legislate competence into the hopelessly useless.

On the otherhand, i am deeply uncomfortable about the way children are being targeted by companies who only see them as a market for product, and have no scruples about exploiting children's intrinsic insecurities, uncertainties, needs and desires. Capitalism isn't interested in children, capitalism isn't interested in innocent children playing with sticks and mud. It's interested in exploitable non-adult consumers.

(Of course, we should be glad that capitalism is only exploiting our children as consumers, and not as producers, as happens in other parts of the world, for our benefit.)

I have no problem with little girls dressing up in mum's high heels and trying on mum's make up. I have no problem with little boys doing it either. I have, however, problems with children being purposefully marketed to with products that are intended to make them appear more adult; carry suggestive slogans; exploit their vulnerabilities and insecurities; that encourage unhealthy habits and and reduce active 'learning' play and imagination; that will make them unhealthy and will accustom them to food loaded with sugar, salt and dubious additives.

While only a fool would ever be happy with their parenting, I'm no more than necessarily distressed with mine. There are lots of kids out there, however, who don't enjoy even the rudimentary level of parenting I strive for, whose parents actually feed them at MacDonalds 5 times a week, dress their six year olds up in tee shirts proclaiming them to be 'Junior Porn Stars' and so on. As I pointed out in my first post in this thread, I'm worried either way, because legislating against shite parenting is about as doubtful a prospect as standing about and doing nothing while big business converts childhood into one massive consumerist trip.

1 - "Cameron-backed report to protect children from commercialisation," by Patrick Wintour. Published in The Guardian, 3rd of June, 2011. (http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2011/jun/03/cameron-backed-report-commercialisation-childhood)

The end of the world

2011-05-24T20:42:00.002+12:00

I am not at all surprised the world did not end the other day, as had been predicted (1). I am not at all surprised, either, that those who didn't think it would (though I wonder how many of them had their fingers crossed behind their backs?) have made a lot of fun of those who did (a bit too much fun, perhaps; maybe as if they were secretly relieved?)

But the joke's on us, really. The faithful will continue to hold onto their faith. if you're demented enough to have believed in the last End Of World, you'll almost certainly believe in the next one, which should be being predicted anytime now. The joke's really on us, for wasting so much time on this very silly story.

1 - "'Rapture': Believers perplexed after prediction fails," unattributed story. Published by the BBC, 22nd of May, 2011. (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-13489641)

Super injuctions

2011-05-24T17:48:00.003+12:00

It's sad that misuse of super injunctions by multi-national corporation Trafigura, implicated in poisoning fishing grounds and people in Ivory Coast(1), passes almost unnoticed, but a footballer shagging around brings the whole concept crashing down(2). It's a victory for worthless freedom of speech.

The likes of Trafigura won't need to worry too much, people obviously won't be interested in their wrong doing even when it can be reported.

1 - "How UK oil company Trafigura tried to cover up African pollution disaster," by David Leigh. Published in The Guardian, 16th of September, 2009. (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/sep/16/trafigura-african-pollution-disaster)
2 - "Ryan Giggs named by MP over injunction," by Patrick Wintour and Dan Sabbagh. Published in The guardian, 23rd of May, 2011. (http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/may/23/ryan-giggs-mp-injunction)

Explosion at Foxconn plant

2011-05-21T08:59:00.003+12:00

From the Guardian:

A spokesman for the company said people had been injured in a fire at the plant but that it had no details. The company is best-known for producing iPhones and iPads for Apple, but other clients include Nokia, Motorola, Hewlett-Packard and Dell. Employing up to 900,000 people in all, Foxconn has repeatedly been the subject of controversy over working conditions at its vast plants. The affected one is believed to employ up to 100,000 people.

A report on Chinese news portal Sina said the area had been sealed off after a blast ripped through the plant at around the time workers changed shifts. Police in Gaoxin district said they were called to the scene at 7.18pm and that the explosion seemed to have been caused by materials within the factory. A report on the China National Radio website said two were killed and 16 injured, three seriously. (1)

This is just another tragedy resulting from our hypocritical exploitation of the PRC's laissez faire attitude towards worker's rights, wages, representation and safety.

Foreign companies setting up in China should be required - or, better yet, insist on - basic standards of decency, in terms of wages, worker conditions and union recognition. We insist on these things for ourselves, it's absurd that we're happy to ignore them when it comes to the Chinese labour that makes the stuff that lets us enjoy a preposterous standard of living.

Of course, the whole thing's a shoddy trick to get us thinking we've still got it good based on cheap imports and never mind we've got no jobs, so perhaps I'm the one who is absurd for even making the point.

Liberty, equality and fraternity, or cheap vanity-baubles made by Morlock labour in China, who occasionally get blown up? Workers of all lands unite? Or workers of the developed world live like kings on the backs of the third world? It wasn't much of a contest.

1 - "Workers killed in blast at China plant of iPad maker Foxconn," by Tania Brannigan. Published in The guardian, 20th of May, 2011. (http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2011/may/20/foxconn-apple-blast-china)

This Ken Clarke / Rape nonsense ...

2011-05-21T07:48:00.003+12:00

I wasn't going to say anything about Ken Clarke's blundering comments about 'degrees of rape' but the brouhaha doesn;t seem to be going away, so I might as well join the hysterical throng shrieking and gibbering.

First of all, the Labour Leader, Ed Miliband, was undountedly being opportunistic in focusing on this issue and calling for Clarke to resign. On the other it's been effective. Clarke has being forced from patrician bluster to sniveling apology, and Cameron has been exposed as a spineless PR obsessed vacuity who won't back his man. Clarke - one of the more sane members of the cabinet - is looking even more isolated than before. Good result for the boys, you might say, for all that it wasn't very sportingly done.

I'm much more perturbed that Ken Clarke, the Justice minister and an ex-lawyer, doesn't seem to know the rudiments of law:

Clarke, who is already under fire from the Tory right over his plans to reduce the number of prison places, sparked fury among victims' and women's groups when he tried to distinguish between more and less serious forms of rape.

In response to the comment "rape is rape" during a BBC interview, he replied: "No it's not – if an 18-year-old has sex with a 15-year-old and she's perfectly willing, that is rape. Because she is under age, she can't consent. What you and I are talking about is … about a man forcibly having sex with a woman and she doesn't want to – a serious crime." (1)

A 18 year old having consensual sex with a 15 year old isn't rape. It would count as some other form of sexual offending, but isn't rape. The sexual offenses Act 2003 defines rape as:

A person (A) commits an offence if—

(a) he intentionally penetrates the vagina, anus or mouth of another person (B) with his penis,
(b) B does not consent to the penetration, and
(c) A does not reasonably believe that B consents. (2)

There IS an age limit below which the clause about consent is removed (meaning it is rape whether or not he/she agreed to it). But it is THIRTEEN:

A person commits an offence if—

(a) he intentionally penetrates the vagina, anus or mouth of another person with his penis, and
(b) the other person is under 13. (3)

To count as rape-inspite-of-consent, Clarke would have had to cite a 14 year old having sex with his 11 year old girlfriend. That's a bit more quease inducing than the 18/15 scenario he described.

As I said, I'm more perturbed by Clarke's blundering with this than with the silly brouhaha surrounding his remarks. Pretty poor for the Justice minister and a former lawyer.

As far as I'm concerned, the only fuss is that Ken Clarke either doesn't have the foggiest about Stuff Relating To Things He's Responsible For, or is so sozzled by 7am he can't speak without rambling off into Stuff That's Just Not True. Neither is a good look for a cabinet minister, ex-lawyer, and one of the supposedly more excellent chaps in government.

The frightening thing is, other people seem to be blundering into the same error. Craig Murry - who I used to have some respect for , before he went all hysterical and ssilly over the Julian ASsange rape charges - also falls into the same trap:

Anybody who stabs someone or rapes someone deserves real punishment. But are all cases of rape or stabbing identical in quality? The notion is absurd. And the fact that a girl aged 16 years and one day is guilty of rape if she sleeps with her boyfriend age 15 years and 364 days is irrefutable proof of that (a point Clarke appeared to get slightly tongue muddled as he made it, talking of two 17 year olds). (4)

Murray is the one getting muddled, as he's continuing to repeat the error that an 18 year old having sex with a 15 year old is rape, under English law. Clarke, at least, had the vague excuse that he was talking ex tempore (though as the minister for Justice and a former lawyer, he should have known what he was talking about). Murray has blundered in cold blood, as it were.

As for the wider fuss, it's mostly beside the point. Clarke's proposals are actually quite sensible, and only extending an idea already presently recognized in law.

Calling for Clarke's resignation was shameless behaviour by Ed Miliband. But it's worked out well for him, hasn't it? Clarke chastened, Cameron exposed as a craven toady to the headlines. Clarke will probably be stood down after a decent interval, allowing some rightwing dolt to take over the portfolio, alienating the wittering limp wristed vote (who are the only one's who upset about Miliband's opportunism) and infuriating the Lib Dems, further 'tensioning' the coalition. Even rightwing tubes such as yourself must be slightly disappointed with cameron's failure to stand by his man, in the face of such a weak attack. But he caved in at the first whiff of SCANDAL and DISAPPROVAL in the headlines, demonstrating a lack of backbone that would make Tony Blair look like Horatio on the bridge.

1 - "Clarke forced to apologise for rape comments," by Alan Travis and Nicholas Watt. Published in The Guardian, 18th of May, 2011. (http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2011/may/18/kenneth-clarke-apologises-rape-comments)
2 - "Sexual Offences Act 2003," Section 1. (http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/42/section/1)
3 - "Sexual Offences Act 2003," Section 1. (http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/42/section/5)
4 - At the time of composing, Craig's blog appears to be down. I C&Ped the comment from another cite, but can't link back to the original.

Coalition scorecard - 50% cuts in GHG emissions

2011-05-18T18:47:00.003+12:00

+2 ... Ambitious targets for carbon cuts, especially given general inertia and cowardice among developed economies.

OVERALL: 1/10. Brave and far sighted commitment to actually doing something about climate change brings the coalition back into positive territory. A particularly effective 'fuck you' to Labour, and especially Ed Miliband, who achieved nothing comparable as Secretary of State for the Energy and Climate Change.

1 - "Chris Huhne pledges to halve UK carbon emissions by 2025," by Fiona Harvey and Allegra Stratton. Published in The Guardian, 17th of May, 2011. (http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/may/17/uk-halve-carbon-emissions?intcmp=122)

Old crap rehashed

2011-05-17T16:47:00.002+12:00

It seems old bullshit never dies. Here's some I trod in the other day:

Former “alarmist” scientist says Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) based in false science

David Evans is a scientist. He has also worked in the heart of the AGW machine. He consulted full-time for the Australian Greenhouse Office (now the Department of Climate Change) from 1999 to 2005, and part-time 2008 to 2010, modeling Australia’s carbon in plants, debris, mulch, soils, and forestry and agricultural products. He has six university degrees, including a PhD in Electrical Engineering from Stanford University. (1)

David Evans has been regularly wheeled out as a 'credible scientist' who has 'changed sides' for years. I remember investigating a list of 13 scientists who had originally supported AGW and now opposed it, back in May 2007 (2).

THAT'S ALMOST EXACTLY FOUR YEARS AGO.

You'll note that David Evans is on the list, in with a bullet at number 4. So it's with some bemusement that he's still being presented as if he was a sinner who has just seen the light.

Which is all by-the-by if Evans was actually presenting new or interesting criticism of AGW. He indicates that he has some remarkable evidence that shows global warming isn't driven by greenhouse gases at all, and that this evidence has been deliberately ignored by the 'alarmists.'

But what is the 'empirical evidence' that he thinks disproves AGW theory? The lack of a tropospherical 'hotspot.':

What did they find when they tried to prove this theory?

Weather balloons had been measuring the atmosphere since the 1960s, many thousands of them every year. The climate models all predict that as the planet warms, a hot spot of moist air will develop over the tropics about 10 kilometres up, as the layer of moist air expands upwards into the cool dry air above. During the warming of the late 1970s, ’80s and ’90s, the weather balloons found no hot spot. None at all. Not even a small one. This evidence proves that the climate models are fundamentally flawed, that they greatly overestimate the temperature increases due to carbon dioxide. (3)

That's it. The hotspot issue has been gone over, many times. It's a bollocks argument.

The 'hotspot' isn't a unique 'fingerprint' of global warming. It's something that happens as a result of warming, regardless of cause. And that, undoubtedly has been going on. It doesn't matter if it is driven by greenhouse gases, solar activity or the Will of Cthulhu. It will lead to the creation of a tropical, tropospherical hotspot - because its fundamental physics that moist, warm air contains more energy, so the lapse rate (how quickly it cools) is lower.

The real 'fingerprint' of greenhouse gas forced warming is a warming troposphere (tick) and a cooling stratosphere (tick). That means the current warming can't be peredominantly driven by the sun, as that would cause both tropospherical and stratospherical warming.

Why this crap is still getting spewed over the interweb is almost as puzzling as Evans' continued status as anew convert to 'scepticism.' Clearly, recruitment must be a bit slow if they still have to hype his dubious credentials as an ex 'alarmist.'

Nothing to see here, move right along.

1 - "Former “alarmist” scientist says Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) based in false science," by Bruce McQuain. Posted on Hot Air, 15th of May, 2011. (http://hotair.com/archives/2011/05/15/former-alarmist-scientist-says-anthropogenic-global-warming-agw-based-on-false-science/)
2 - As described previously on lefthandpalm: http://lefthandpalm.blogspot.com/2007/05/more-crap-about-climate-change.html
3 - "Climate models go cold," by David Evans. Published in The Financial Post, 8th of April, 2011. (http://www.financialpost.com/news/Climate+models+cold/4579652/story.html)

Telegraph timeout

2011-05-16T12:46:00.003+12:00

Well, the Telegraph has had over 48 hours to mention the comments of Steve Field, which is more time than they allowed the allegedly leftwing press to mention a letter submitted to the telegraph - a failure the telegraph's chief leader writer described as "a complete and rather shameful silence." (1)

The result? Not a peep about Mr Field from the telegraph - in spite of the paper publishing two stories on the NHS in the meantime (here and here (2)).

Ooops.

1 - "The BBC reports the news – just as long as it suits its agenda," by David Hughes. Published in the Telegraph Blog, 11th of May, 2011. (http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/davidhughes/100087445/the-bbc-reports-the-news-%E2%80%93-just-as-long-as-it-suits-its-agenda/)
2 - "David Cameron to come out fighting over NHS reform," by Patrick Hennessey. Published in the Telegraph, 13th of May, 2011. (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/8514236/David-Cameron-to-come-out-fighting-over-NHS-reform.html). "David Cameron: 'We save the NHS by changing it'," by By Christopher Hope, and Robert Winnett. Published in The Telegraph, 16th of May, 2011. (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/8515280/David-Cameron-We-save-the-NHS-by-changing-it.html)

Them cats they are a-bouncing

2011-05-16T09:25:00.002+12:00

The latest Horizon poll shows a remarkable triple dead cat bounce, with ACT, Labour and Mana all recording gains:

The latest Horizon poll shows ACT party support up to 5.3 per cent after Don Brash's leadership takeover. The results are also good for Hone Harawira, whose Mana Party was at 2.3 per cent, ahead of the Maori Party's 2.1. A third of the Mana Party supporters had voted for the Maori Party in the 2008 election. Labour also made gains, up from 23.9 to 26.9 per cent. (1)

Still, the fundamental problems facing the three parties hasn't gone away, and there is no reason to think the poll boost is more than an anomaly.

In all three cases, the problem is the same - the party leader is an idiot, and idiocy is a slender base to build party support on. Especially when there is clearly a lot of competition for the imbecile votes.

I predict ACT will soon subside back to the level of support enjoyed before the brohaha surrounding the leadership change. It isn't like they've done much to change the brand identity by subbing Brash for Hide. They're still a party of rightwing small state nutters with a penchant for tub thumping to disguise the fact their policies are contrary to the interests of about 98% of the population. Under hide, the tub of choice was crime and punishment; now, since David Garrett's blown that tub up with his own petard, they've moved on to Brash's old favourite. Expect lots of quasi-racist dog whistling huffing about one standard of citizenship, attacks on 'privilege' and so on, from some of the most privileged and least socially connected persons in the country.

Mana have one blessing and one curse, and they are both embodied in Hone Harawira. If he holds Te Tai Toekerau - and I'm pretty sure he will - then the party will survive, but it will only every be a vehicle for Harawira's idiosyncratic brand of personality politics. Since, like ACT's, that isn't actually of much use to the vast majority of us, I think we can safely say the Mana tide has peaked, or the cat has bounced as high as it is likely to.

Labour are the worst off of the three bouncers, as the idea there is anything to celebrate in breaking above the 25% threshold illustrates how low they have fallen. I'm at a loss as to what they can do. There is no vision and no sense of leadership. Phil Goff can't compete with John Key in the likable bloke stakes. They can't come out all leftie, because Goff would just look silly trying to do it. Everyone would know his heart isn't in it. There might be a few votes to be clawed back with a modest "Protecting you / your / our" campaign, particularly with National not quite ruling some voter frightening possibilities altogether out, but even this modest program seems to be beyond the enervated Labour Party.

And, of course, there's the leadership issue. The job is there for the taking. But no-one wants to step forwards and risk being steamrollered in November, when the job is bound to come up in anyway.

1 - "Politics briefs - Monday, May 16: Good news on Horizon for ACT," unattributed article. Published by Stuff, 16th of May, 2011. (http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/5006789/Politics-briefs-Monday-May-16)

Bin Laden murder wah wah wah

2011-05-15T08:36:00.003+12:00

I had this steaming pile brought to my attention yesterday, and while I'm aware there is absolutely no point in trying to convince the conspiratorially inclined to reconsider, using such weak weapons as reason and evidence, I succumbed to the temptation to give it a more-than-cursory-dismissal (1). I suppose it can stand for all the other crap out there, as it is much of a muchness.

Well, I got as far as "Obama murdered Osama bin Laden," before I started to entertain doubts as to the piece's credibility. Unfortunately, that's the very first line. To advance such a claim, the author must have some remarkable evidence to back it up, showing that Bin laden was killed without provocation and the SEALS had no goal other than his death. Astute legal argument as to the legality or otherwise of his death could be expected. Yet, I note, not a single footnote citing a source for this.

In the second paragraph, we're assured, "there's no attempt to arrest him or bring him to justice," another remarkable claim given no substantiation. Yes, I know. He was shot. He wasn't carrying a gun. But he had after being challenged. He was the head of a terrorist network which glorifies martyrdom. He could easily have been wearing a suicide vest, or grabbing a grenade, or seeking some means to take a few of the infidels with him. The SEALS were justified in killing him. It's an unfortunate reality of military operations that people sometimes die. Just as people perceived as dangerous may be shot if they the resist police.

After that it turns into a standard whine about how everything would have been different under Bush - the left would have "protested Bush's violations of international law and basic human rights. They would have complained about killing the Al Qaeda leader before questioning him about possible terrorist plots. They would have demanded investigations."

Really? Plenty of things were done by Bush that the (sane) left accepted. It was only his egregious offenses that provoked protests. Of course, the insane left protested everything - just like they are doing now over the killing of Bin Laden. To justify the claim of hypocritical silence by the left, Rall would have to demonstrate that killing a legitimate target resisting capture was on a par with, oh, I dunno, illegally invading a country based on blatantly trumped up evidence. But Rall, as pointed out earlier, completely fails to make that case. It must be, because he says so, is what his argument amounts to.

Then we get more wailing about Manning's "torture" - though again, unsubstantiated. Not one authoritative source is identified as describing Manning's treatment as torture. PJ Crowley didn't, for example, didn't describe it in those terms, even though he saw fit to resign over it (2).

Then, towards the end, there's a logical howler. Rall states Bin Laden never claimed responsibility for 9-11, and even denied responsibility in the immediate aftermath of the atrocity. Rall dismisses various alleged admissions as CIA framing, or "trying to keep himself relevant for his Islamist audience." Sorry, but that sort of special pleading can be deployed to account for later admissions, it can also be used to account for earlier denials. Perhaps Bin Laden denied (direct) responsibility to avoid being handed over by the Taliban, or to buy time, or who knows?

But Rall isn't playing fair, or even playing unfairly but with-in the rules. He's just writing shit.

1 - "What If Right Made Might: Reimagining the Assassination of Bin Laden," by Ted Rall. Posted on Information Clearing House, 11th of May, 2011. (http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article28073.htm)
2 - "PJ Crowley: 'No regrets' over Bradley Manning remarks," unattributed BBC article. Published by the BBC, 28th of March, 2011. (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-12886702)

More about the Telegraph balance/bias bollocks

2011-05-14T19:24:00.002+12:00

Meanwhile, the Guardian has interviewed Steve Field, who is in charge of the coalition's NHS "Listening exercise." He's described the idea of a 'free market' in patient care as unworkable:

"If you had a free market, that would destroy essential services in very big hospitals but also might destroy the services that need to be provided in small hospitals," says Field.

"The risk in going forward [with the bill] as it is, is [of] destabilising the NHS at a local level. It would lead to some hospitals not being able to continue as they are. If you were to say 'we're going to go out to competition for vascular surgery services', University Hospital Birmingham wouldn't be able to run their own trauma centre, for example, because you wouldn't have the staff and the skills on site to do things and the volume of procedures needed to ensure clinical standards remain high." (1)

Now, given that the Telegraph got all OUTRAGED about the Guardian's and the BBC's 'failure' to report, within 24 hours, on a letter submitted to the Telegraph, it will be interesting to see how the Telegraph addresses the comments of Mr Field.

Will we get "a complete and rather shameful silence," or will the Telegraph feel compelled to make some mealy-mouthed acknowledgement of his comments in the rival paper? I can hardly wait to find out!

1 - "Andrew Lansley's NHS reforms are unworkable, says review chief," by Denis Campbell. Published in the Guardian, 13th of May, 2011. (http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2011/may/13/andrew-lansley-nhs-reforms-unworkable)

Readin' and writin'

2011-05-14T19:11:00.004+12:00

This might seem a bit a propos of nothing, but it originated in a discussion I had about the presence of scribes and readers to assist students, with limited reading or writing, in exams. The context was a discussion about their use in Britain, where they seem to be quite a new thing - or more likely, they're becoming more common now, and people are starting to notice them.

It seemed a fairly alien idea to my British counterparts, but scribers and readers aren't uncommon in New Zealand. The reasoning behind it is that if someone has crippling dsylexia / very poor handwriting or whatever, it may impact on their ability to perform to the best of their ability. Also, there's the question around what are we trying to assess? If we leave students who are struggling to read or write to do it themselves, every assessment becomes a de facto test of that - which isn't much use if the subject is geography and you're actually trying to assess their knowledge of African demographics, immigration push-pull factors and whatever.

That's why, in English for example, teachers and examiners are allowing 'non standard' English to be used in CERTAIN SITUATIONS. For example, if a student writes a brilliant elucidation on MacBeth's character, but does it in txtspeak, that would be permitted, because what is being assessed is the student's grasp of Shakespeare, not their ability to write formal English. In a formal writing assessment, of course, txtspeak would be right (or write) out.

Of course, in an ideal world, students would all be able to read and right adequately. But we don't live in that sort of world. Instead, we live in a world where handwriting is becoming rare. How are we communicating just now? How many of you write with a pen and paper as a predominant part of your job? How many kids grow up without using pens and pencils at home, because drawing and colouring in is just not something they're encouraged to do any more? That's where the problem originates.

The problem's a lot bigger than just pandering thick kids. There's a whole move away from handwriting, which will soon be a practice limited to the middle classes and above, as a status symbol. The filthy proles will go back to making their marks on important documents, just as they did a hundred years ago, or leaving thumb prints or DNA samples or something.

The idea that everyone should be able to read and write is actually very modern and anomalous. Historically, the majority have generally been illiterate. We're just returning to business as usual, after a brief, entirely laudable, experiment with egalitarianism.

I suppose the Daily Mail's next step will be a campaign questioning why we waste money educating these scum at all.

Telegraph vs balance and integrity

2011-05-14T12:49:00.002+12:00

The Telegraph selected a strange story to give pride of place on its website, the other day, reserving that privileged spot for a report describing a letter the paper had received, signed by several doctors, expressing their support for the government's NHS reforms (1).

These reforms are controversial and have generated a lot of debate; but are we really to believe it deserved the prime spot at the very top of the website? I mean, was the fact that some Doctors had written a letter REALLY the most important news in the world that day?

While the Telegraph piece did acknowledge that the doctors who signed the letter were "all heads of recently-formed GPs' consortia" - that is to say, they're the ones who are going to benefit from the policy and thus would be expected to support it - the article neglected to mention that the person leading the campaign is a Dr Jonathan Munday. Dr Munday has extensive and long term connections with the Conservative party. He's posted on the Conservative Home website (2) and even lists 'conservative politics' (along with 'Freemasonry') among is interests on his website (3). He's also the former Conservative councillor and mayor of Kensington.

The Telegraph 'story' boils down to this: dyed in the wool Tories supports Tory policy that will benefit them SHOCKAH!

There is, of course, nothing wrong with any of this, not even the Freemasonry. But you would think a newspaper purporting to report fairly and objectively, without bias or favour, would have taken the few minutes necessary to check if the signatories of the letter were disinterested, or were acting as shills for the unpopular Conservative policy. The Telegraph didn't bother to do that, just regurgitated the propaganda.

Still, at least they didn't have the rank hypocritical self righteousness to accuse others of doing precisely what they were doing. that is, passing off politically biased propaganda as objective journalism.

Oh, wait a minute ...

David Hughes, the Telegraph's chief leader writer even wrote an incensed post on the Telegraph's blog, about how the supposedly leftwing media was ignoring the story:

There was not a word on this story in the news bulletins of our public service broadcaster. Just imagine what would have happened if the 42 had written a letter saying the reforms were all a terrible mistake and simply would not work. The BBC would have trumpeted it from the rooftops; talking heads would have been wheeled into the Today studio; we would have been in full Coalition in Crisis mode. Instead, we’ve had a complete and rather shameful silence. There is something unsettling about the national broadcaster choosing to ignore a major political story because it does not suit its own agenda. (4)

There was, of course, "not a word" in the Telegraph about Dr Munday's links to the Conservative Party. Once could almost describe this silence as "rather shameful." There is, indeed, "something unsettling" about a national newspaper "choosing to ignore" pertinent truths because "it does not suit its own agenda" to inform its readers. The Telegraph chose to let its ideology and factional support to betray its duty to report inconvenient truth along with the convenient.

1 - "Health reforms 'will benefit most vulnerable in society'," by Stephen Adams. Published in The Telegraph, 10th of May, 2011. (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/8505943/Health-reforms-will-benefit-most-vulnerable-in-society.html)
2 - "A Federal Parliament," by Dr Jonathan Munday. Posted on Conservative Home, 15th of December, 2006. (http://conservativehome.blogs.com/100policies/2006/12/dr_jonathan_mun.html). The good Dr has contributed other pieces to Conservative Home.
3 - Dr Munday's batty website is - coincidentally, I'm sure - unavailable. However, a cached version can still be viewed. (http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:R93RwSMjKP0J:mundays.net/+Dr+Jonathan+Munday&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&client=ubuntu&source=www.google.com)
4 - "The BBC reports the news – just as long as it suits its agenda," by David Hughes. Published in the Telegraph Blog, 11th of May, 2011. (http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/davidhughes/100087445/the-bbc-reports-the-news-%E2%80%93-just-as-long-as-it-suits-its-agenda/)

OUCH

2011-05-07T09:45:00.003+12:00

Well, that hurt. I figured the AV referendum was lost when Peter Mandelson endorsed change, but I didn't think it would be rejected quite as savagely. Still, one benefit of being a leftwinger is you're used to defeat and deal with it. So the referendum is dead, long live reform!

One good thing to come out of this; we know how the anti-reform camp are going to fight attempts to chan...ge things. We can refine our tactics to take this into account. Remember, the goal isn't to introduce one system or another, but to achieve overall fairness. I'm an STV fanatic myself; but if AV can be defeated by Tories arguing it's too complex, then there isn't any point even thinking about trying to introduce STV any time soon.

The main problem for the AV referendum was a) it was tied to other elections, so it became largely a party political issue, and b) it was cobbled together in an ad hoc deal and then rushed through at short notice. A lot of people obviously have very little idea what the system actually entails, not really assisted by a shockingly disingenuous campaign from the 'No' camp.

The take home lesson is, probably, it probably doesn't need to be a referendum issue. the resounding message isn't so much that the public don't want electoral reform, but that they don't care how its done, as long as it isn't going to be a headache for them. A cross party electoral convention, looking at the system of election, the make up of the Commons and the Lords, all those things, might be in order. The system is Augean and needs a thorough clean out; unfortunately, I think the Tories will use this result as an opportunity to put it all to rest for a generation.

The good news is we've seen how the anti-reform camp are going to fight; we can now modify our tactics to take this into account. If they're going to attack AV as being 'too complicated,' we can anticipate that. Scrap AV (no-one really likes it anyway, apart from the Fijians and PNGians) and offer a FPTP-list hybrid, such as is used in New Zealand, though perhaps even a constituency vote and a party vote might be a bit too much for the British electorate. Keep it simple. One vote, with top ups to ensure substantial minorities are represented. Throw in the plans for real Lords reform, and you've got something that offers real change without fuss. And the British hate fuss.

I think a problem was how it became a choice over electoral systems: FPTP v. AV. The real issue should have been fairness - do you want a fairer system? I think that would have been a resounding victory. AV was rejected, and I'm not too sad about that. But the door seems to be open for the Additional Member system, which has three major advantages. One, it's simple, two, it is just a modification of the current system, and three, I hate it more than AV, so it must have some appeal to the demographic which rejected AV.

It's simple, like FPTP. One vote, like FPTP. The candidate with most votes wins, like FPTP. But less wasted vote, unlike FPTP. Thus: fairer, better.

And so far, New Zealand hasn't descended into Bat sh*t Anarchy, nor has it become a pissoir of political correctly correct identity politics parties.

(Note, that after years of searching, I've finally found the perfect collective noun for lots of political correctness.)

It would be nice to see Labour and the Lib Dems go into the next election with a pre-agreed 'renewal' platform, but I suspect the tribalists in Labour will move to squash any moves in this direction for a few years to come, clinging to the hope that FPTP will deliver them a turn at the wheel in due course.

Righties, stop pissing your pants

2011-05-04T18:40:00.002+12:00

There's been an interesting response from some of the further reaches of rightwing lunacy about a statement by the Al Azhar Academy of Islamic Research, criticising the disposal of Osama Bin Laden's remains at sea (1).

I'm not talking about the predictable conspiracy crap, but another line of 'reasoning,' to whit, "Because the University of Al Azhar are proclaiming Osama Bin Laden to be a Muslim, they must be tacitly endorsing the atrocities of Al Queada. Muslims would have disowned him if they truly disapproved of his actions. Ergo, they are all terrorists or terrorist sympathizers!"

(That's just my distillation of various ravings I've seen on the web)

Well, no. Not really.

One does not get booted out of one's religion of choice for sinning. Bin Laden was repsonsible for mass murder, but that - even if he acknowledged as such - wouldn't 'cancel' his status as a Muslim.

Bin Laden could commit whatever barbarities he likes, and remain a Muslim, as long as he doesn't question Islamic doctrine. His personal wickedness is between him and God.

The same idea is common in other faiths; you can commit heinous acts and still remain within the faith, just not in 'good standing.'

Only formal excommunication or voluntarily renunciation put you out. The former doesn't usually happen as a result of individual wickedness. The offender may, after all, repent of their sins, and seek absolution. Hence confession, absolution, indulgences and so on.

If committing a sin lead to automatic expulsion, organised religion would never have taken off. As long as an adherent is just not very good at sticking to doctrine, but isn't questioning its legitimacy, he can remain in the club.

Just like a Christian can commit murder, and yet still be a Christian - they simply need to atone for their sin. Denying that there was any God given prohibition on murder would be unChristian.

Bin Laden would not denying the sinfulness of murder; he would argue the deaths he was responsible for did not count as murder, but 'fair play' in war, and part of jihad. By waging jihad inappropriately, he would deemed to be misguided, not heretical. If he denied that jihad was an essential aspect of Islam, then he'd be deemed an apostate.

Al Azher's endorsement doesn't signal approval of his actions, merely that he hasn't questioned doctrine, regardless of whether or not he's followed it. Words speak louder than actions as far as religion is concerned.

1 - "Bin Laden: Al Azhar, sea burial is a sin," unattributed article, published on Ansamed, 2nd of May, 2011. (http://www.ansamed.info/en/news/ME.XEF33040.html)

Lefties, stop pissing your pants

2011-05-04T18:01:00.002+12:00

So, Osama Bin laden wasn't holding a gun when he was shot (1). This doesn't make it a 'revenge killing' as Idiot/Savant makes out (2). Not on currently available information.

Think about it reasonably, for a minute, chaps. Bin Laden was a fanatical terrorist. The SEALS may have been anticipating him triggering a suicide vest, intending on taking a few of the infidels with him.

That was a very real possibility, and in that case, any movement other than putting his hands up might have been enough to justify shooting him.

1 - "Osama bin Laden's final moments: America changes its story," by Ewan MacAskill. Published in The Guardian, 3rd of May, 2011. (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/may/03/osama-bin-laden-final-moments)
2 - "A Revenge Killing," posted by Idiot/Savant on No Right Turn, 4th of May, 2011. (http://norightturn.blogspot.com/2011/05/revenge-killing.html)

Come and see the vileness inherent in the system!

2011-04-29T20:39:00.004+12:00

Look I wasn't going to say anything about the royal wedding, because a) I don't really care much about it, and b) I don't want to be seen as a horrible grinch. It's nice that William Windsor and Kate Middleton are getting married. They seem like nice people and I hope they're happy. There's enough miserable marriages in the world without wishing for more of them, just because the persons involved happen to be ridiculously privileged and fortunate.

But, this isn't directly about the wedding, so I'll do it anyway.

Much has been made about the fact that Tony Blair and Gordon Brown haven't been invited to the wedding. Many have claimed this is a deliberate snub to them; and others (including the palace) have tried to explain it away, as they aren't 'Knights of the Garter,' unlike John Major and Margaret Thatcher, who have been invited (1).

I don't know why people are trying to argue it isn't a snub. As Martin Kettle - hardly a squealing leftie - points out, it most certainly is. And it shows what a petulant bunch of point scoring, reactionary Tory lovers the royals are:

Of course it is a snub. Of course it is deliberate. Not inviting Tony Blair and Gordon Brown to the royal wedding, while inviting Lady Thatcher and Sir John Major, is a cold, calculated act of high establishment spite against Labour. The failure to correct it – especially when the invitation to the official representative of the Syrian tyranny was so speedily withdrawn – only confirms the miserable, petty, ill-advised disdainful nastiness of the original deed. And I blame Prince Charles. His reactionary fingerprints are all over the wedding's programme of events. This wasn't William's wish, they say.

What's more, it all matters. But not because a royal wedding invitation is itself important. It matters because the snub is a symptom of renewed establishment confidence. British royalty's enduring historic hostility to Labour – a hostility that has very rarely been reciprocated, it should be pointed out – is unsurprising, even today. But the snub might not have been so confidently and publicly delivered without the more general sense, which stretches far beyond the snobbish ghastliness of Clarence House, that it is now absolutely fine and dandy for a public person to parade outright contempt for the Blair and Brown Labour governments. (2)

Basically, it's a massive snub - more a "Fuck off you peasants" - not just to Blair and Brown, but to us plebs who voted for Labour, whose representatives they were to the Crown. Indeed, it's a snub to democracy itself!

A vile, patrician attitude, in otherwards, which has demeaned what should have been a lovely day for the youngish couple.

And we're supposed to tug our forelocks and make obeisance to people who still entertain such deluded ideas of their own innate superiority. Maybe five hundred years ago. But in the 21st century, if we're going to have to put up with a silly anachronism like a royal family, then respect has to be mutual. Respect us, or we'll bloody well overthrow you.

That said, have a nice day, Mr and Mrs Windsor-to-be. And a very happy life together. I mean it.

1 - "Royal wedding snub for Blair and Brown criticised by ministers," by Nicholas Watt. Published in The Guardian, 27th of April, 2011. (http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/apr/27/royal-wedding-snub-blair-brown)
2 - "Vote yes to AV if you want to see Tories feel the fear again," by Martin Kettle. Published by The Guardian, 28th of April, 2011. (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/apr/28/vote-yes-to-av-conservatives-fear)

I was, of course, completely wrong

2011-04-28T14:03:00.003+12:00

... When I predicted Roger Douglas would be the next - and final - leader of ACT (1).

Incredibly, they managed to find someone even more repulsive to mainstream New Zealand (remember that shibboleth, Don?). Someone who - in spite of running the most cynical and dishonest campaign in living memory, in spite of having patently ridiculously of funding from various eminence gris of the New Zealand right, and in spite of being up against a tired administration waiting to be put out of its misery - was rejected by the voters (2).

Yes, I can really see Don Brash luring 1 in 20 voters to cast their party vote for ACT. Rodney Hide (I'm almost remembering him with affection already) might have been corrupt and hypocritical in a venal way, but no-one would bother to write a book about him talking his girlfriend on holiday at the tax payers expense. Don Brash's electioneering antics merited a tome of their own, you may recall.

(Oddly, about a week ago I was looking for something light and frothy to read in the bath, and I picked out The Hollow Men. Clearly, something was in the air, even before Brash decided to lurch back onto the political stage)

(I'll leave it to you to decide what my choice of the Hollow Men as "something light and frothy" says about me, dear reader.)

Talk about baggage. In the dictionary, under "Damaged goods" it says, "See Don Brash." And in the thesaurus, Don Brash is a synonym for "Unelectable."

1 - As described previously on lefthandpalm: http://lefthandpalm.blogspot.com/2010/09/arise-sir-roger.html
2 - "ACT leadership stoush: Rodney Hide resigns ," by Tracey Watkins, Imogen Neale and Vernon Small. Published by Stuff, 28th of April, 2011. (http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/4934835/ACT-leadership-stoush-Rodney-Hide-resigns)

British Christians unmartyred

2011-04-25T08:45:00.003+12:00

it would appear that British Christians aren't quite as martyred and oppressed as some like to make out.

A recent case, where a Christian electrician was facing disciplinary action for refusing to remove a palm cross from his company vehicle, has been resolved, with his employer backing down (1).

There's been much fulmination in the Daily Mail about this, most of it profoundly (and probably deliberately) missing the point (2).

Mr Atkinson claims he is not being allowed to practise his Christian faith, but in what way? He's being told he can't display a cross in a company vehicle. Being a Christian isn't about making ostentatious displays of virtue and faithfulness.
He should, perhaps consider the words of Jesus:

Be careful not to practice your righteousness in front of others to be seen by them. If you do, you will have no reward from your Father in heaven. (3)

They aren't forcing him to pray to Mecca or worship Cthulhu. Just obey the same rules as everyone else who works for them - no personal paraphernalia in company vehicles.

Telling him to remove the cross from his care doesn't stop him 'practising' his faith. Just stops him making an ostentatious display of his piety. Which both Jesus Christ and Wakefield and District Housing disapprove of.

The decision by his employer to let him keep his cross is pragmatic enough resolution, and I'm always in favour of employers addressing the concerns of their employees. But kow-towing to religious special pleading sets a bad precedent. Wonder how many of the people supporting him would offer similar support to a Muslim refusing to handle alcohol?

1 - "Christian electrician wins cross battle," by Nick Collins. Published in the Telegraph, 22nd of April, 2011. (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/8468073/Christian-electrician-wins-cross-battle.html)
2 - Persecuted for his cross: Electrician told he faces the sack for Christian symbol on his van dashboard, "by Jonathan Petre. Published in The Daily Mail, 17th April 2011. (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1377684/Electrician-Colin-Atkinson-faces-sack-Christian-cross-van-dashboard.html#ixzz1JlgOhBLg)
3 - The Gospel According to Saint Matthew, Chapter 6, verse 1. New international Version. (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+6&version=NIV)

Hardly news - Telegraph dog whistling about Islam

2011-04-25T08:03:00.004+12:00

I note a bit of a fracas about an alleged claim from the Muslim Council of Britain, about the vexed issue of Islamic women wearing veils.

From Eye-on-Islam, as representative:

As Andrew Gilligan has noted today at the Telegraph, a document on the website of the Muslim Council of Britain (which you can read in full here - I have saved it for re-upload in case an embarassed MCB tries to bury it) declares that the obligation for Muslim women to wear the veil is "not open to debate" (1)

Only, of course, It Isn't That Simple.

Now, in fairness to the Telegraph, it doesn't actually say what Eye-on-Islam claims it says (2). Nor does the MCB.

If you actually read the statement from the latter, it acknowledges in its very first point that there are "differences and opinions about the veil" in the Muslim community (3).

The document is actually reminding Muslims of the status of the veil as an Islamic artefact, not whether it should be worn or not. It is reminding Muslims that it has been identified as a part of Islamic practice (within which there are graduations, from compulsory through to the merely praiseworthy) and - IMPORTANT BIT - it is warning people wanting to take part in the debate not to deny that it is an Islamic practice. It's denying this, not the not wearing of a veil, that is identified as a potentially serious lapse.

So what the statement is actually saying is that Muslims must acknowledge the veil is an Islamic symbol - I'd tend to disagree with them there - not that wearing a veil is compulsory. In fact, they call on Muslims not to cause strife about it when it becomes an issue:

We would like to advise the sisters who observe the veil/niqab in the work-place or in educational premises to avoid making it a matter of dispute between them and their employers or school authority. Such disputes will attract more unnecessary media attention, and thus may cause various negative consequences including the imposition of certain dress codes in work places, and in turn, used as justification to legislate further restrictions on wearing it in other areas.

In other words, don't make an issue of it - certain Christian electricians should take heed of this (4) - and ditch it if your boss asks you.

It is interesting to speculate why the Telegraph decided to run this stoyy now - the MCB exhortation is actually quite old, originally published in 2006.

One can't help but wonder if it is something to do with recent burblings by David Cameron about immigration and integration (5).

It's classic dog whistling stuff. The Telegraph presents some very old news, made topical by events in France and the ruminations of David Cameron - who has a bit of form for this sort of thing himself (6) - which is diligently repeated, and exaggerated, by the interweb squealers and water cooler crusaders.

1 - "MCB: Women Who Don't Veil Are Disbelievers" posted by Ben on the Eye On Islam blog, 17th of April, 2011. (http://eye-on-islam.blogspot.com/2011/04/mcb-women-who-dont-veil-are.html)
2 - "Muslim Council: women cannot debate wearing veil," by Andrew Gilligan. Published in The Telegraph, 16th of April, 2011. (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/8455955/Muslim-Council-women-cannot-debate-wearing-veil.html)
3 - "Joint statement about the veil from Muslim groups, scholars and leaders," by Dr Daud Abdullah
et al. Published on the Muslim Council of Britain website, 25th of October, 2006. (http://www.mcb.org.uk/features/features.php?ann_id=1543)
4 - As described elsewhere on lefthandpalm: http://lefthandpalm.blogspot.com/2011/04/british-christians-unmartyred.html
5 - "Immigrants must learn English, says David Cameron – while cutting funding for lessons," by Samira Shackle. Published in The New Statesman blog, 14th of April 2011(http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/the-staggers/2011/04/speech-integration-core)
6 - As described previously on lefthandpalm: http://lefthandpalm.blogspot.com/2008/02/tory-dog-whistling-on-holocaust.html

UK sales and borrowing figures

2011-04-21T21:45:00.002+12:00

Says everything you need to know about the evil Tory lies and spin:

The UK's chancellor, George Osborne, was forced to deny he had resorted to cheating, threats and violence to bring about the surprise recovery in the country's sales and borrowing figures.

Excluding the impact of bank bailouts, the government borrowed £18.6bn in March, bringing the total for the financial year to £141.1bn, according to figures from the Office for National Statistics. This was less than the £145.9bn forecast by the Office for Budget Responsibility, the tax and spending watchdog.

Britain's shoppers staged a surprise revival in March, with retail sales increasing by 0.2%, after dropping by 0.9% in February.

Ed Balls, the shadow Chancellor, immediately accused the chancellor and the Office of Budget Responsibility (OBR) of, "Basically cheating, threatening and bullying people into doing what he wants them to do, because the economy won't."

'I've seen it myself," said Mr Balls. "Down the shopping mall the other day, dlack clad, baton weilding 'specials' were driving people into shops, and forcing them to buy stuff. Pensioners and beneficiries were being herded into high class jewellers and forced to buy tiaras on credit. One woman in my constituency was forced to buy 500 tonnes of dog food. She's only got one cat.

"I was wrong about George Osborne," said Mr Balls. "I said he didn't have a 'Plan B' for when his economic strategy failed to work. Turns out he did."

Mr Osborne remarked this was not the only thing Ed Balls has been wrong about. (1)

Are there no depths to which these evil, evil people will not stoop?

1 - Obviously, this is a piss take. It saddens me that I have to say that, but after someone said Boris Johnson should sue me for 'Liable' following one of my pieces on his antics, you never can be too careful. Some bits are borrowed from the actual Guardian article linked, "Government borrowing falls and retail sales rise to boost George Osborne," by Julia Kollewe and Heather Stewart, published on the 21st of April, 2011. (http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2011/apr/21/government-borrowing-fall-retail-sales-rise)

Dream on, Ed

2011-04-18T18:53:00.003+12:00

A bit of wistful thinking from Ed Miliband:

In the end, my sincere hope is that this referendum does not revolve around any particular individual – Nick Clegg, David Cameron or me. (1)

Right now, Ed, the likelihood of you influencing anyone's voting intention is minimal. You're about as close to the centre of the political solar system as Pluto.

Fanciful flights of egoism aside, the rest of what he says is fine.

1 - "" by Ed Miliband. Published in The Independent, 18th of April, 2011. (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/av/ed-miliband-this-is-a-referendum-on-the-voting-system-not-on-nick-clegg-2269219.html)

U.K. A.V. - P.A. Vs G.O.

2011-04-18T15:51:00.003+12:00

Paddy Ashdown, former leader of the Liberal Democrats, and perennial campaigner for electoral reform, is in full flight in the Guardian, fulminating furiously (though with perhaps more respect to metophors than I am showing) over Chancellor George Osborne's intervention in the campaign against the Alternative Vote.

As Ashdown points out, the 'No' campaign is almost entirely negative. Rather than making a case for retaining First Past The Post, the No Camp prefer to spread scare stories and disinformation about AV.

Perhaps there is a reason for that:

In the 1950s more than 90% of us voted either Labour or Tory. The vast majority of MPs were elected with more than 50% of the vote in their constituencies.

Now that total is down to just 65%. Even when you add in my party, the three big UK parties combined achieved their lowest share of the vote ever in the last general election. One in 10 of us now vote for parties outside the big three.

But the system doesn't reflect the change in people's voting preferences. Now fewer than a third of MPs are elected with a majority of the votes in their constituencies. Some get in on fewer than three out of 10 votes cast.

Most of us are now represented by an MP that most of us voted against. (1)

Great man, Paddy. Though he must feel like he's swallowing rats every time he has to support AV.

Contrast his forthright argument with the mealy mouthed dishonesty of the strange bedfellows involved in the No campaign:

Cameron has not shared an anti-AV platform with a Labour politician before and he will insist that he and Reid "don't agree on much". Reid is expected to reciprocate the sentiment, but will say "some issues are so important that they transcend party politics" and that he and Cameron are opposed to AV because they are "united in believing that politicians are the servants of the people". (2)

Reid's statement is bizarre. A voting system is more important than the fundamental economic principles guiding the country? it shows, pretty clearly, that this is really about Labour and the Conservatives maintaining their my turn/your turn hegemony.

Elsewhere in the article, Cameron mumbles something about how FPTP allows the electorate to "kick the rascals out." Only, it doesn't. You get suspiciously similar rascals wearing different coloured rosettes, but equally dishonest, self serving and confident in their unalienable right to be in charge. It's false to claim you're clearing out the rascals when all you get is more rascals in their place.

1 - "The AV vote matters – the no campaign's scaremongering shows it," by Paddy Ashdown. Published in The Guardian, 16th of April, 2011. (http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2011/apr/16/paddy-ashdown-av-vote-matters)
2 - "Cameron and Miliband to lock horns over AV as debate divides coalition," by Andrew Sparrow. Published in The Guardian, 18th of April, 2011. (http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2011/apr/18/av-david-cameron-ed-miliband)

I know not "seems"

2011-04-18T15:42:00.005+12:00

The BNP are getting all teary about the cancellation of a 'traditional' London Easter parade:

Council officials have claimed that they banned the procession because they were contacted too late to carry out a “consultation” to close the roads! Of course, in reality, it would seem that this is just an excuse by the council as they seek to further downgrade Christian beliefs, in the hope that they do not offend Muslims. (1)

Never mind that this 'tradition' dates back to all of ten years, what is this dickering about with reality? The report says 'in reality, it would seem ...". Call me old fashioned - maybe even traditional - but can something that is "in reality' also "seem"? If it's in reality, surely it will be so, not "seem" so.

Or, to borrow from peerless Will, '"Seems," madam? Nay, it is; I know not "seems."'(2)

Oh, fuck it, why am I expecting coherence from the BNP news apes?

1 - "Easter Humbug – Christian Parade Banned," by Jennifer Matthys. Published on the BNP website, 16th of April, 2011. (http://bnp.org.uk/news/easter-humbug-%E2%80%93-christian-parade-banned)
2 - Hamlet, by William Shakespeare. Act I, scene ii, line 78.

Come and exploit our Morlock labour

2011-04-10T20:53:00.003+12:00

A certain J. Key of Helensville once rather placed his foot within his mouth by opining that he'd love to see wages fall. At the time, I gave him the benefit of the doubt, but now Bill English has boldly inserted both of his mud encrusted farmer's feet into his maw by loudly hailing low wages as a crucial part of New Zealand's competitive 'advantage' (1).

Of course, he wasn't talking to the punters out in punterland when he said this. We get a different message.

Still, it's good that he's revealed his arrogant image of us as worthless Morlocks to be exploited by international capital, or as stunted lackeys who should fawn gratefully on the bronzed beautiful bodies of those rare creatures from overseas who deign to honour us with their presence and some. But not very many of those dollars, because we're cheap.

1 - "Low wages 'advantage' for NZ - English ," unattributed NZPA story. Published by stuff.co.nz, 10th of April, 2011. (http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/4869938/Low-wages-advantage-for-NZ-English)

US government unshutdown

2011-04-10T18:58:00.003+12:00

Some last minute rat swallowing has meant the US government will remain operational.

I must say, I think the idea of parliament shutting down the whole government in a fit of pique strikes me as a fine constitutional absurdity, and one that should be imported to all democracies.

Anyway, it is all sorted out:

Boehner, an hour before midnight, told journalists in Congress: "I am pleased that Senator Reid and the White House have come to an agreement that will cut spending and keep government open."

It would have been the first federal government shutdown since 1995-96 when there was a stand-off between the Republicans and the Clinton White House.

Barack Obama tore up his schedule for Friday, including the start of a family weekend break in Virginia, to concentrate on negotiations with Republicans. He had hoped to reach a compromise Friday morning but discussions dragged out throughout the day.

Obama portrayed the compromise as a tribute to US democracy as he said: "Tomorrow ... the entire federal government will be open for business." (1)

Sounds like the Republicans got the slightly better deal in the sort term - a bigger chunk of spending exchange for preserving the Planned Parenthood funding. But in the longer term, Obama gets to look like the pragmatic compromiser, not the SOCIALIST DEMON the Tea Party need him to be.

Clinto faced a similar crisis, and brazened it out. But the situation now is very different. Obama's actually delivered some sort of SOCIALIST HEALTHCARE, complete with DEATH PANELS. Where as Clinton had already folded on that by the time the republicans shut him down. They couldn't brand him FERVENT PINKO SCUM because he'd manifestly demonstrated his spinelessness.

Obama will probably profit from the last minute resolution of the crisis, as the extremist labels become harder to apply. If he can make deals with the saner Republicans, the Tea Whackjobs will begin to look more isolated and mad.

1 - "US government shutdown averted by late night deal in Congress," by Ewen MacAskill. Published in the Guardian, 9th of April, 2011. (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/apr/09/government-shutdown-obama-boehner-deal)

Coalition scorecard: Libya

2011-04-06T10:07:00.002+12:00

I've been neglecting my scorecard for the British coalition government, largely because they had hit negative territory, and once you're mired in that sort of level of awfulness, it's hard to sink further or pull yourself free of the filth.

However, I'm willing to give them a bit of a nudge up, because I'm fairly impressed by the response to the Libyan crisis. Okay, that can't really be attributed to the coalition, it was driven by the French and the USA, but I'll give them the benefit of the doubt ...

+1 ... Bold and morally justifiable intervention in Libya.

OVERALL: -1/10. It might not sound very impressive, but it's a rare move in the right direction for this dreadful government. Perhaps pursuing a genuinely ethical foreign policy abroad will compensate for their unutterable awfulness at home.

George Osborne is a reckless, incompetent fool II

2011-04-03T18:45:00.002+12:00

The other day brought to light the not-unforeseen revelation that the British chancellor, George Osborne, is making up economic policy as he goes along, and pissing off his colleagues and major investors at the same time.

Now we learn he's actually expecting the British public to make up for the failure of his voodoo economics by driving themselves ever further into debt:

The Office for Budget Responsibility has raised its prediction of total household debt in 2015 by a staggering £303bn since late last year, in the belief that families and individuals will respond to straitened times by extra borrowing. Average household debt based on the OBR figures is forecast to rise to £77,309 by 2015, rather than the £66,291 under previous projections.

Economists say the figures show that George Osborne's drive to slash the public deficit and his predictions on growth are based on assumptions that debt will switch from the government's books to private households – undermining his claims to be a debt-slashing chancellor. (1)

Genius. Public spending down. Unemployment up. The only way demand can stay up is by people taking on more personal debt. Obviously, the people doing it are going to be the sort of people who cant afford to and really shouldn't. So the government's problem becomes a personal, family problem. Nice one, George. And if they don't decide to shore up demand by taking on more debt - and given how fragile consumer confidence is, there's no reason to believe people will decide to play Gideon's Game - then we're hit by the triple whammy of high unemployment, low demand and a stubbornly high deficit.

And people thought New Labour was irresponsible for taking on sovereign debt. This is shoddy beyond words, a cynical attempt to move debt off the government's books into the wallets of British workers and taxpayers.

If all goes according to plan, four years from now, Osborne will be able to stand up and announce he's delivered on his promise of eradicating the deficit to the mass ranks of the unemployed, impoverished and bankrupt.

Rather more likely, he'll me belated announcing that the 'crisis' is continuing and further austerity is needed to revive the economy - to the mass ranks of the unemployed, impoverished and bankrupt.

1 - "Ministers admit family debt burden is set to soar," by Toby Helm and Daniel Boffey. Published in the Gaurdian, 2nd of April, 2011. (http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2011/apr/02/family-debt-burden-government-figures)

Tough on crime II

2011-04-01T18:58:00.002+13:00

Remember that brilliant crime fighting initiative I mentioned the other day (1)? The one where cuts are leading to able bodied coppers are being taken off the street and put behind desks to replace 'redundant' bureaucrats?

Well, it gets worse:

More than 2,000 of the most experienced police officers will be made to retire by 2015 as forces across England and Wales try to find 20% budget cuts, a Labour survey has claimed.

A series of Freedom of Information Act requests by the shadow home secretary, Yvette Cooper, has disclosed that over the next four years 13 of the 43 forces intend to use an obscure regulation to compulsorily retire 1,138 officers who have more than 30 years of service.

Labour estimates that a further 986 officers could be affected if some of the remaining 30 forces also decide to use the same regulation to find budget savings. (2)

So we're putting able officers behind desks, because we've sacked the pen-pushers, and we're getting rid of long service officers as soon as we can. And on top of that:

Police forces froze their recruitment last year, which saw 2,500 jobs go through natural wastage. (3)

No new bobbies, no old bobbies, and most of the ones in between filling out forms. Genius. Pure f**k**g genius.

So next time you're being viciously murdered by some drug addled maniac, reflect on just where those too soon, too far, and in all the wrong places cuts got you.

1 - As described previously on lefthandpalm: http://lefthandpalm.blogspot.com/2011/03/tough-on-crime.html
2 - "Budget cuts hit police with more than 2,000 officers forced to retire," by Alan Travis. Published in The Guardian, 29th of March, 2011. (http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/mar/29/police-job-losses-budget-cuts)
3 - ibid.

George Osborne is a reckless, incompetent fool

2011-04-01T18:54:00.001+13:00

So, what else is new?

He blindsides the oil industry and on his cabinet colleagues by springing a massive new tax on them, jeopardising 40,000 jobs and £6.2bn of investment. And backtracking on his own promises.

Ed Balls begged him to switch to Plan B. that's based on the assumption he had a Plan A in the first place. One can't escape the feeling the man is making it up as he goes along.

1 - "George Osborne urged to drop North Sea windfall tax," by Patrick Wintour. Published in The Guardian, 31st of March, 2011. (http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2011/mar/31/george-osborne-north-sea-tax)