RANDOM THOUGHTS AND A NEW FRIEND

Earlier today, on the previous post, Anon suggested this blog post, and a response to it. I read the link and felt moved to offer a comment of my own. But as I started writing and the comment got longer and longer, I though it would make a reasonable post on Munguin's Republic. It drifted away from the topic a little perhaps, but, hey, that's how my mind works. For what it's worth, here it is. You might find it a little less disjointed if you read what inspired it first.

Gordon Brown apparently fails to see that if you have a finally balanced referendum result in the offing; and if you then conspire with a Tory prime minister, with only 1/59^th of the representation of the country, to deliver a 'vow', a package of measures previously specifically ruled out by that very Tory prime minister, if that ‘vow’ changes enough people's minds that they vote for the new "most devolved powers in the entire world" otherwise described as "as near federalism as you can get when one country in the state holds 85% of the population", and if, on the day after the referendum, people find out that they have been duped by that poorly represented Tory prime minister,  and the most trusted Scottish ex prime minister (EVEL, with which I totally agree, but the Labour party doesn't, indeed electorally CANNOT), and if in the following months a rfarce of a consultation takes place and delivers almost none of what was promised… and that even those powers which looked like coming,  are watered down to the point that they are all but  invisible, it is hardly surprising that there will be a distrust and dislike of the party which guaranteed all of the above.

I realise that the British public is a deal less volatile than some other, but at some point a desire for some sort of new politics, something promised over and again at each general election and never delivered, is bound to take a hold.

There comes a time when there is a desire for a cessation of rule by a never changing  elite, shown over and over to be corrupt to the core in almost all aspects of its daily doings from the relatively trivial attempts to line their pockets, and in doing so work against democracy (Straw, when touting for future employment, as one recent example, admitted influencing EU discussions on behalf of a client, when he was being paid by us to work for the UK) , to the infinitely more serious matters of murder of children.

In Scotland, the somewhat distant London-based parties and their "elder statesmen" should try to remember that it is not the SNP (nor the Greens, the Scottish Socialists or Radical Independence) who are behind this movement.

It is, in reality, the ordinary people of Scotland. It is, as Jim Murphy called them, "Glasgow Man".

A demographic which was previous attached at the hip to Labour, has seen, at long last, that Labour has no real interest in them, save for using them to ensure the ongoing income and rise to the top of people like Maggie Curran, Dougie Alexander, Jim Murphy, Iain Davidson and their likes.

Glasgow man has latterly come to the conclusion that for all he has voted Labour for all these years, because as one guy said to me "It's the party of the working man", he, Glasgow man, seems to have become comparatively poorer, and conditions in which he lives, still produce areas where life expectancy is well under 60 years, poorer than many parts of the developing world, or war zones like Gaza.

Labour deserted Glasgow man because he was expendable. (Where else was he to go? The Tartan Tories, a reputation they liked to foster, but based on something from the dim and distant past?) 

For power, as Mandelson said, you had to get the vote of the Home Counties and the South East, and you weren't going to get that spending their taxes on poor people in social housing in inner-city Glasgow or Dundee.

What actually has happened is that Labour has moved farther and farther to the right. Would Keir Hardie recognise Labour now?

Possibly the final insult (and one predicted  as a disaster by many on the left of Labour) was the election for some weird reason, of a right wing, Blairite, Henry Jacksonite, war enthusiast, Scottish branch leader. Loathed by the left, almost as much as Blair himself is, his election marked the real end of Labour in Scotland. We told you we wanted to move to the left, and you elected a right winger for the leader... What?

It happened more or less at the same time as the most left leaning, anti war, pro equality, leader of the SNP ever, came to power. In Scotland the Tories being nowhere; the Liberals now a part of history; UKIP having managed a brief success in the EU elections, only to have themselves represented by an ignorant racist who doesn't even live in Scotland, and has a particularly virulent strain of foot in mouth disease, the new real politic, as Curran would call it, is Labour on the right,  SNP on the left.

The grandees of the Labour party need to look to themselves for their failures, rather than blame the SNP for their success. Labour ceased to be the party of the working man a long time ago. If you don’t represent your constituency, there comes a time when they will go vote for people who will...people whose agenda is not dictated by the need to win Tory seats in the South East of England.

And frankly it doesn't help if your top people from both the main English parties having begged us to stay with them, are now saying pretty much the same things about Scotland not having the right to send SNP members to London. Exercise your right to vote for whom you want, under our FPTP system, and you will cause a crisis.

Seriously, if they haven’t worked out how damaging that is to their cause, no wonder they are in the tanks. 

++++++++++

Yesterday Munguin and I made a new friend. We had a great afternoon talking politics with one of our family of readers. AH, Abu Haimi, came all the way from Malaysia to see Scotland and, obviously, Munguin. Thanks for coming to Dundee and spending the afternoon in what I know was a really hectic schedule. It was a great afternoon, and I hope we'll have more time together next time you're here. Safe journey home for you and your lovely family, AH.

++++++++++

I'm not much of an historian, but I seem to recall reading that the Daily Mail was relatively supportive, at least for a time, of Adolf Hitler and the Nazi regime. 

Neither am I much of a royalist, but I also seem to recall reading that one very spoilt and unpleasant prince they had in the 1930s, a man who appeared to be incapable of keeping his clothes on for any length of time if there were married women available to bed, when he found he couldn't have his own way about marrying his bit on the side, who had a history of "trading up" her partners for something better, a certain Mrs Simpson, decided to reject the crown of England and his destiny as king, in favour of aforesaid woman.

It seems that they too as were pleased to be received as a royal duke (and ex-King) and his not so royal wife, to meet with Adolf Hitler. 

It might well then, have suited the Daily Mail for Edward VIII, an apparent Nazi sympathiser, and his pushy wife, to stay on the throne. So for them the abdication was, indeed, a real crisis. They lost their man and got George VI and his formidable wife instead.

Whilst we are on the subject, don't you think some people should probably take more water with it:

Now Kezia, you really can't say you weren't warned, when the First Minister herself told you. So presumably, like a good manager, you have been monitoring his tweets. What do you think if this doozie?

++++++++++

Finally, let's spare a thought, and maybe some money, for the terrible disaster of the Nepalese Earthquake.

LET'S LOOK AT BRITISH VALUES

We should know what they are. Otherwise we might be infringing them, and making ourselves terrorists.

The expression says: Ughh Ordinary people!

I just read this comment on Wings from “Heedtracker” (to whom my thanks):

‘The Home Office defines extremism as “vocal or active opposition to fundamental British values including democracy, the rule of law, individual liberty and mutual respect and tolerance of different faiths and beliefs.” '

I always get a bit annoyed when I read about “British Values”. We often hear about how “fair play” and “decency”, “cricket” and all that sort of stuff, forms the very backbone of our society, and somehow is exclusive to people from these islands. 

I get even more cross when I hear British values defined as “democracy”, “the rule of law”, “individual liberty”, etc. What rubbish. Britain is a chancer nation. A SPIV.

We've talked about this alleged "democracy" so many times on Munguin’s Republic.  What democracy, we've asked!

We have no constitution. I know that they say we do, and that it’s simply unwritten. But in reality they make it up as they go along, citing tradition or discarding it, as and when it suits their purposes.

We have an unelected head of state whom we were brought up to believe had no real powers (the real powers having been ceded by custom and practice by Victoria when she took VERY extended bereavement leave after the death of her husband). But we've found out recently that she actually has authority to interfere with law making and that she uses it.

We are not amused!

A person above the law because she IS the law.

Additionally she has an heir who has powers to alter laws, in particular over the Duchy of Cornwall. 

Furthermore the entire royal family has vast privilege and huge influence over affairs of state with the authority, or influence, to summon ministers and to be listened to. These powers are frequently accompanied by an astounding lack of skills.

We have a chamber of parliament populated by: 

two hereditary aristocrats; 

90+ aristocrats self selected from within their own class of a thousand or so dukes, viscounts, earls and marquises; 

26 senior churchmen from only one religion, and at that, only one sect of that religion (where is the tolerance of different faiths there?), 

and hundreds and hundreds of placemen of political parties. 

These placemen are appointed by political leaders to sit in the upper house, for life, with aristocratic titles (with their children being granted junior titles). Some are ex politicians, in certain cases high ranking, but in other cases, dead-weights who have been bought with aristocratic titles because their seat has been needed for someone better connected, and sometimes people who were rejected at the ballot box and rewarded with a job in politics anyway. "To hell with what the public thought of you... have a Barony!" Sometimes of course the seat os bought by enormous donations.

Then there’s a Privy Council, a convenient way for a few selected faithful (it has a quorum of 3), in the presence of the queen, to pass laws as ‘Orders in Council’ without any discussion in parliament.

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ...£300 and bubbly ZZZZZZZZZ

There is a House of Commons elected on a first past the post system, capable of producing massive majorities, or elected dictatorships, on as little as 35% of the vote. Seventy-five percent of seats never change hands and many members have a seat for life. (Some even pass it down to their offspring, eh Anas?).

There is a whipping system within the chamber which guarantees party loyalty on pain of career collapse, or personal embarrassment (we'll tell your wife!), and there are a variety “lost in the mists of time” procedures which can stop a bill in its tracks.  

The “I spy Strangers” ploy!

As Jim and John pointed out below, there's the Remembrancer. Now there's something from the middle ages!

As for the “rule of law”. Oh please, this cracks me up!!

Would that be the rule of law that allowed the Hillsborough disaster to be relayed to the public in the way that it was, with backing from the very top, so as not to damage the incompetent police management, but happily destroy the reputations of football fans… because they could?

Would that be the rule of law that, time after time, saw child abuse investigations being closed down by the secret police, by senior police officers or by MPs themselves?

Would that be the rule of law that saw the BBC cover up Savile’s (and others) behaviour for decades; that saw the Civil Service lie and cheat for the UK government during the Scottish referendum (and how many other times)  and have the Queen voice an opinion against all her supposed constitutional responsibilities?

Would it be the rule of law that saw police colluding with the press in return for pay-offs to get red tops sensational stories and make HSBC quantities of money? 

Now, here's the plan LOL

Or the rule of law that found the senior management of these papers to be blameless, utterly unaware of where the sensational stories came from, or where all the money was going?

Is it the rule of law that saw Blair and his ministers lie to parliament and to the people so that he could go to war in Iraq, against the United nations advice, to support his friend, George Bush? (How did that work out Tony?)

There’s the rule of law for some, and a very different rule of law for others. 

The much vaunted respect for people of other faiths, of course, as well as favouring bishops and archbishops of the English church by giving them titles and a seat in parliament, excludes anyone who is not a member of the Church of England, from being in line to the throne.  Not that that affects many of us, but it remains incredibly disrespectful to other Christian sects, and and other faiths not considered good enough.

What about the rule that in state schools (depending on the country) an act of Christian worship is obligatory on a regular basis (once a day in England).

So what democracy? What rule of Law? What respect?

British values…?

Stop and ask yourself:  Who do you trust in the British establishment?

You're the most wonderful man in
the world Sir Jimmy

The members of the House of Commons who as recently as 2009 were shown by the Telegraph to have an inordinate number of cheats in their midst? And who, despite being shown up for what they were, continue to be found out by sting operations from Channel Four’s “Despatches” on a weekly basis?

The members of the House of Lords who were similarly shown up by the Times? The Noble Lord Hanningfield who, having gone to prison for fiddling, and managing to get out within days by having a nervous breakdown, went straight back to his old ploy of signing in for his £300 and buggering off home?

The police who took bribes from the newspapers or who demonised Liverpool fans, or who were described as “institutionally racist” by the Lawrence inquiry?

The newspapers themselves who would sell their granny into slavery for a story?

The BBC which, when it wasn't paying executives massive salaries to travel around the world in first class, like royalty, was turning a blind eye to depravity in its dressing rooms?

The City of London and the hallowed banking and insurance industry??

Do you… could you, actually trust anyone at all?

I sometimes wonder if people in the Home Office, and indeed other government departments, have ever stopped and listened to themselves, or if, living in cloud cuckoo land, they really actually believe the rubbish they spout.

IS THE ESTABLISHMENT AND CLARENCE HOUSE OUT OF TOUCH?

Bruce Anderson, The Daily Telegraph, the paper of the establishment:

“....... Most of the students still do not understand the damage that Thursday’s riot did to their reputation and the extent to which they have alienated every decent person in this country....... The public is beginning to draw the obvious conclusion: if the police cannot even protect the Duchess of Cornwall, why should we believe that they will catch a burglar?....”

Of course being Scottish and having no need of any more qualifications may affect my views, but should this make my views so different from Anderson’s “decent people”? Will the Telegraph’s establishment move forward on this, based on what they fondly imagine “decent people” feel.

The riot was unfortunate, no doubt about that. There are people in hospital, one having had brain surgery. There are broken windows in the Supreme Court and some other government departments, and there is graffiti on some statues. Someone tore down the union flag.

Apart from the first one, none of these things really matter. I suspect that there are people working in Whitehall who will be relieved to know that their bombproof windows have been tested and found wanting, and hoping that the authorities will replace them with something that works. As for damaged statues and flags? Insulting to people’s memories, yes, maybe, but in the end they are stones and cloth. “Clarke’s Criminals” or “Smith’s Slackers” can repair the damage.

So am I out of line with “decent” people; am I an “indecent” person; or just a Scot? Or is Anderson’s, establishment coming at this from the wrong angle?

If they cannot protect Mrs Parker-Bowles how can they protect the masses from burglary?

Simples.

Clarence House sent the prince and his ‘wife’ out in a large-windowed Bentley or Rolls, her replete with jewels and clothes worth a fortune; him looking like a tailor’s dummy, and straight into the riots? I suppose they knew that there were such things as riots, and students, parents, lecturers, ordinary people? Yes?

Did it not occur to them that to rub this outrageous display of publicly funded wealth in the faces of people who were facing a struggle for the rest of their lives with the fees repayment, was a tad on the insensitive side? Do they not care, or are they just too stupid to understand? Or was there something more sinister?

Recent polls have shown an overwhelming majority of people don’t want Charles as king, or Mrs PB as queen. If Anderson and his like think that the days of “decent” people being repulsed by people standing up for their rights against a shower of lying, self serving MPs and an imperious, self important, relic of a prince, they are bang out of line.

It would be incredibly stupid of them to plan for future events, of which I’m sure there will be many, based on these suppositions. ‘Off with their heads’ was probably not really what the students, parents, lecturers and other people on Thursday’s protests had in mind. But it could easily come.

And Cameron-Clegg may wish to reflect that what happened to Charles the other day might spread to people who will promise anything to the public to gain power.... and once they have it discard their promises and pledges like Tesco carrier bags.

* I abridged Mr Anderson’s comments. He does question Stephenson’s management of the riots. Click on the quote or here for his piece.


Pics: Mr Anderson, who writes for David Cameron, wrote for Mrs Thatcher and who, according to Wikipedia, approves of torture, even of children in supposed ‘ticking bomb’ situations. (Wonder if he would do it himself, or who exactly he’d find who would.) together with scenes from the London protests