SOMETHINGS TO LOOK FORWARD TO AND OTHERS NOT SO

Events in the United States once again occupy the mind at the end of the first month of 2022. The Los Angeles Rams have come through the season not only as champions of the NFC West Division, but as champions of the NFC. They will face the Cincinnati Bengals in the Super Bowl on Sunday the 13th February at the So-Fi Stadium in Inglewood Los Angeles. 

 

The Rams have only been to the Superbowl on 4 occasions. As the Saint Louis Rams they won it once (2000) and lost in (2002). As the Los Angeles Rams, they have played in two; the first time in January1980 against the Pittsburgh Steelers, losing 31-19 and the second time in February 2019 against the New England Patriots losing 13-3. As a team they are W1, L3. The Cincinnati Bengals have been to the Superbowl twice against the San Francisco 49ers, losing the first time 26-21 in January of 1982 and 20-16 in January 1989. The Patriots have 6 wins and 5 loses, the Steelers have 6 wins and 2 loses and the 49ers 5 wins and 2 loses. It would be fair to say that the Bengals and the Rams go into the game with similar credentials. The Bengals, one might say, given the history, are probably hungrier than the Rams. This might give them an edge; however, the Rams are playing on their home ground, which most assuredly would give them the edge. 

 

Given the current history, the game will either be a low scoring slug fest or a free for all high scoring game. It is unlikely that one team will run away with it, but it could happen. In any event it would appear that the betting odds favour the Rams to win, so to win any serious money on a small bet it would have to be placed on the Bengals. 

 

Meanwhile Donald Trump continues to rant and seems to be offering to produce pardons for the insurrectionists who have already pleaded guilty or are on trial, and still he persists with his obsession over the 2020 election. His rhetoric is still off the spectrum of normal behaviour. I have been told I must not use clinical terminology when referring to his mental state or self-perception. His legal difficulties also continue, and I wonder if someone will ever issue some writs or actually produce a long overdue indictment and get him in front of a court. Just get on with it. The evidence is there for all to see and hear, on video, on line and he continues to add to it with every appearance he makes. He is continually inciting his followers to violence. He does not let up. Do we need to wait for it to actually erupt again before taking action? What is law enforcement in the United States but a complete shamble. Officers indiscriminately firing off weapons, armed idiots who deliberately parade the streets allowed to claim self-defence, the usual multiple school shootouts or would be assassins, gun carrying waitresses, deranged congressmen and women, and the catalogue of folly seems to go on and on. 

 

I was recently sent, by an old High School friend. now living in New York, an on line pamphlet or manifesto entitled The Blueprint to End Gun Violence. It can be found here:

 

https://www1.nyc.gov/assets/home/downloads/pdf/press-releases/2022/the-blueprint-to-end-gun-violence.pdf 

 

 

It is an initiative by the Mayor of New York City, Eric Adams, a one time serving Police Officer with the NYPD. 

Eric Adams

 

It is certainly worth a read. Nonetheless, until the mindset of the American people can be turned away from the worship of the second amendment of the Constitution, the initiatives to control guns, not just illegal guns (whatever that actually means) has little chance of success. There are other initiatives in the blueprint concerning mental health and issues of bail for offenders, which deserve equal consideration. 

 

 

Back in the United Kingdom, Sue Gray has made limited comment in reference to her ‘investigation’. She has stated that she has found failures of leadership. There was a serious failure of officials to observe what has been asked of the public. What leader can she be referring to? There is no longer any justification for anyone to support Boris Johnson or keep on finding excuses for his lack of leadership or responsibility. He fails on every level and should do the decent thing and give way, but the Tory Party no longer has any idea of the meaning of decent. A misleading prime minister who cannot be trusted to be straight with his own government and persistently breaches or assist in the breach of ministerial codes, can hardly be trusted to negotiate or deal with any other government who will see him for the charlatan that he is. He no longer has any international standing and consequently should stand down. There is no hiding behind “failures of leadership and judgment” or trying to pass the blame on to others. It does not work. Well I say that, but with this ridiculous parliament full of MP’s too frightened of losing their jobs and shuffling to find excuses and keen to move on, I would not be surprised if they do in fact carry on with Boris Johnson. 

 

There is no United Kingdom in effect, it has completely lost its way and flounders under the stupidity of a majority elected by a tiny minority. There used to be a system of honour, which may at onetime have made up for the deficiencies of the system, but now, how democracy works in the UK is clearly a sham. The various polls seem to indicate that Mr Johnson and his party has some 30% support. What about the rest of us, the 70% who do not support him? Where does one go for redress? The system is in serious need of overhaul if this is the best that can be. A group of MP’s shouting resign, representing the majority of the population of this country, yet considered to be a minority in Parliament, so can be ignored. Send in the clowns? Of course they’re here.

WAIT AND SEE AROUND THE WORLD

In keeping with similar views expressed in newspaper columns, I find, again, expressions of discontent which run along similar lines. Jonathan Freedland’s piece in the Guardian of Friday 28^th January 2022 is an instance in point. It is well worth a read:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/jan/28/sue-gray-report-britain-liar-met-police-partygate-report

 

Freedland also references Trump and Putin in his piece.

 

Clearly there is a strange prevalence around the world of a peculiar type of would be autocrat, quite separate from actual dictators and juntas. This is someone who feels him or herself constrained by having to submit to an essentially democratic election to obtain and maintain office, but, in reality would like to dispense with them altogether. Their objective is to hold the office and swan around delegating tasks to underlings, who willingly take on the job, while at the same time, protecting and propping up the image and stature of the ‘great leader’.  In order to maintain their role as ‘great leader’ they will deploy any expedient ploy, such as obfuscation and deception in the most brazen manner. They would seek to remain in the office for as long as possible, and will resort to even harsher methods if they were allowed to do so. It is more difficult to achieve in countries whose institutions have a firm civilian grasp of the rule of law, but it is not impossible. We have seen this in the past, and we see it now in Russia (I was about to type Soviet Union), Belarus, Hungary and the latest attempts by Trump in the United States.

 

For some obscure reason, Trump has managed to bamboozle a number of Congressional, and Senatorial representatives, to his way of thinking as well as a large number of the general electorate, who seem to worship him. They would have him as dictator in a heartbeat.

 

Observing and listening to him makes it impossible for me to understand what it is that causes the likes of Kevin McCarthy, Lindsey Graham and Ted Cruz to initially deny him, indeed vilify him, and end up worshiping him. I just don’t get it. The man is clearly a psychotic narcissist. What is it these millions of people admire? One can only hope that the strength of the existing democratic institutions is up to the challenge of thwarting his march towards imperium.   

 

In the meantime, there is a much closer general election to keep a keen eye on. The French are soon to go to the polls to decide on which two, out of the myriad of candidates, will run for the Presidency. There is much to worry about. The left and the liberals are not getting the same coverage as the outrageous right and far right politicians. As with Mr Trump in 2016, their discourse is so disturbing that it attracts greater media coverage and therefore free publicity for the candidate. It would seem that a continuous public presence has its advantages regardless of the rhetoric, so far as the general public is concerned.

 

Be that as it may, the French elections are a two round system, unless during the first round one candidate achieves more than 50% of the total vote., in which case they are elected President outright. With around seven candidates putting themselves forward in the first round, it is unlikely that any one would achieve 50%. So far as the first round is concerned, of the declared candidates, the polls indicate that 46% support the right and far right, 24% centrists, 13% on the left, and 5% green.

 

In previous elections the centrists and the right wing candidates have emerged as the two front runners and, the French, still not totally devoted to the right, rallied round to finally elect a centrist or left of centre president.  On this occasion, given the figures, it could well be that the right of centre candidate has an even money chance of election. Not so much Le Pen or Zemmour, but Pécresse, a possibility. 

 

French National Assembly

However it plays out, the fact of such a crucial election during this particular time of crisis, what with the pandemic and Putin’s forces massing on the Ukrainian border, is cause for concern. The clownishness of Boris Johnson is an added bonus for Mr Putin who can see that any solidarity of NATO Nations, or European Union is a bit fragile. Likewise, the continuing spectre of Trump in the background, so far as the United States is concerned, coupled with the inability of Tucker Carlson to comprehend why the United States might take an opposing view to Mr Putin, enables Mr Putin to strut round the room in full Napoleonic guise, or perhaps he sees himself as General Kutuzov seeing off La Grande Armée. The geography is more of less the same and certainly the weather.

Which brings one back to the French presidential election. The outcome could well have a dramatic impact on the state of Europe and the world. We can only wait and see, rather like Boris Johnson for Sue Gray’s report and the American public for the results of the midterm elections in November. If ever the Democratic Party needed to seriously get the voters out to the polls, this is it. Goodluck all round.

FOLLOW THE MONEY

The Guardian newspaper expresses views in its opinion section and on its editorial pages. The view of Boris Johnson is quite clear – he should go. There is a short piece on How to get rid of Boris Johnson. It mentions ministerial codes and skirts around issues of impeachment and written constitutions or perhaps specific legislation to remove a bad prime minister. Whatever the thinking, it is clear that the matter of representation of the people is in need of serious overhaul. The very fact that a political party, effectively elected by only 25 or so percent of the population, with an even smaller percentage involved in choosing its leader, who then acts as the entire country’s prime minister, can claim to have a mandate to govern is ludicrous in the extreme and totally at variance with the concept of responsible democratic government.

 

This country has an electoral system that is completely at odds with its philosophy of human rights which has been developing since the 13^th century and is now consolidated to some extent in the Human Rights Act of 1998, which incorporates principles adopted by the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights adopted in 1948 and subsequent declarations, all of which have the stamp of ideas essentially crafted and proposed by citizens of the United Kingdom including John Locke, David Hume, Adam Smith, Thomas Paine and others.

 

In order to preserve and protect human rights a government must reflect the whole of the society it purports to represent, and given the spectrum of views and diverse make-up of the citizens within a modern society, that representation, to be truly democratic, should be proportional. This does not mean a country would be ungovernable or bogged down in argument, stalemate and inaction. Many Countries round the world manage to form coalitions. Indeed the coalitions of the National Government of the UK from 1931 through to 1939 and the Coalition Government from 1939 to 1945, proved to be very successful in leading the country out of depression and preserving liberty throughout the second world war. A cooperative venture of 14 years.

 

I do not know whether the elected representatives and leaders of that era were more selfless, had more integrity, objectivity, openness and honesty or were held more accountable, but a multi-party government is more likely to avoid corruption from being scrutinised by opposition cooperative party representatives, than would be the case with a single party in power. The current government is an instance in point. It has no respect for any ministerial code, it prevaricates continually and its cronyism is seemingly without parallel. There is a so called opposition but they have no actual or effective say whatever in governing. They can bleat and bray but it’s just that, noise which can be ignored.

 

But on consideration, perhaps this government is indeed a reflection of its population. The very fact that £5 billion of emergency covid loan claims has been fraudulently obtained is symptomatic of a corrupt society that appears to be out of control. I repeat, £5 billion. At a time when the entire country, and entire world, should be coming together to deal with a serious pandemic, the scammers and fraudsters are out in force. They are roaming the streets and cyber ways mugging the entire population, under the noses of a government incapable of scrutinising its own actions. The very fact that government departments can be scammed on such a colossal scale is part and parcel of a government whose leaders flout their own rules and regulations, and prefer photo-opportunities to actual serious governance.

 

One of the government slogans during various press conferences was “Stay Alert” – Hello!!?? They do not know the meaning.

 

It took the press, the Daily Telegraph, to expose a list of MP’s expenses that created a serious stir and even resulted in some criminal prosecutions. There has now been some exposure of unlawful activity, and certainly the misleading of Parliament, but it has led to nothing but bluster and ‘let us move on.’ A cabinet of elected representatives defending the indefensible with no thought or worry that their hypocrisy could lead to them losing their seat at the next election. What does that say about the electorate? Do they not read? Can they not see? Can they not hear? Is it any wonder therefore that £5 billion has gone missing?  Is the population really going to accept the rise in national insurance contributions and not hold this government to account?  

 

As a sometime tax payer I can ask, WHAT HAVE YOU DONE WITH OUR MONEY? As a voter? I don’t know if my vote makes any difference whatsoever. I live in a strong labour constituency. My MP is new to Parliament and is just finding her feet. My local authority is a one party dictatorship, my complaints and comments are ignored.

 

In a column in the Guardian, Simon Jenkins begins:

I have no position to resign from. I am just resigned.

WHAT IS IT ABOUT OBSESSIVE BEHAVIOUR?

It has been suggested to me that I do not take in other matters of interest to the general public.

It has also been suggested that my views are full of gloom and doom. I am seen as a crabby critic obsessed with Boris Johnson and Donal Trump, with passing references to the Mandalay Colonels, Vladimir Putin, Alexander Lukashenko and Victor Orbán. This may well be the case.

 

The Johnson thing is because I live here. I have spent the majority of my life in the United Kingdom, most of it in London. Despite these 57 years of domicile in the UK, 47 of which have been as a British Subject and Citizen, I am still viewed as a foreigner. I will always be foreign. As to Trump, I spent some very formative years in the country of my birth, and attended a variety of educational institutions, where it was normal ritual to ‘pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all’. I was exposed, at an early age to the American myths, the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, the Gettysburg address, Thanksgiving, Delores’s Drive In, Hamburger Hamlet, Marvel and Del Comics, Pizza, Sees Candies, Wil Wright’s Ice cream parlor, BLT’s, PB&J, Billy Wilder, Humphry Bogart, Peter Lorre, Mickey Rooney and Judy Garland and many other facets that made the 1950’s and early 60’s in Southern California a pretty great and, on the whole, safe place to grow up. The Truman, Eisenhower and Kennedy years.

You will note the Banana Split at $1 is only available one per customer.

 

Clearly, history reveals, there were a number of underlying features, inter alia, growing poisonous tumours of racism, white supremacy, fundamentalist religions, McCarthyism, Un-American Activities Committees, the Cuban Missile Crisis, a festering Vietnam War, and much more; however, none of the above interfered very much with fun in the sun. If only one could erase those underlying features and the nostalgia would be so much better. The assassination of John F Kennedy was an end of innocence. Lyndon Johnson meant well, but it all blew up in his face. I got out in 1965, but not, as you can tell, without the deeply imbedded influence of those California years. America was great. So it cannot be any surprise that I have an obsession about Trump and his psychotic obsession with bringing it all down, and laying waste what was once a wonderful place to be.

 

As to my escape, I fell into 1960’s London, a time when everything seemed possible, with a flower in my hair, beads, bells, Afghani sheepskin coats, and ‘I was Lord Kitchener’s valet’. The weather was not the same, but there was lots of fun to be had. Dope was relatively cheap and most people could actually afford to take taxis and buy a round of drinks in a pub. Life was mostly ‘Head Productions’ or some such, and one drifted around in a glorious sort of narcotic fog. It was all very different but a learning experience nonetheless. One longed for a decent pizza, a root beer float or a Sara Lee Lemon meringue pie, an egg cream, and something better than a Wimpy. All that was to come in due course and one grew to love London and its eccentricities. The American influence was making itself felt, yet the United Kingdom remained very much itself. But here too there were many poisons polluting the general atmosphere of goodwill, culture and understanding.

 

In effect I grew up in London, the UK and the European Union, after an adolescence in the United States. So is it any wonder that I am obsessed with how I believe the United Kingdom appears to be losing its way in the world?  

 

Never mind ‘J’ai deux amours’, Moi, J’ai trois amours, California, the UK and France. I had also spent some wonderful years in France, and these are the places that matter to me. I will continue to want them to be the best places they can be, so I will probably continue to be crabby and make a fuss. 

 

As regards other matters, why the hell didn’t Novak Djokovic just get a vaccine?  He’s probably one of the most fit people on the planet, and a vaccine would hardly be likely to cause him any problems at all. Or is it that his brain can only take in what goes on, on a tennis court? Whatever the problem it was one of the most easily solvable on earth. So sad for Novak, but I’m afraid, I believe, all of his own making, just as Boris’ problem too, are all of his own making. His are just as easily solvable. Resign.

WHAT ARE WE WAITING TO SEE AND HEAR?

Once again I have to confess ignorance. I was not aware that the UK Governments own Committee on Standards in Public Life had published on the 31^st May 1995, during John Majors Prime Ministership, the Seven Principles of Public Life. I believe they are similar to the qualities I have referred to in previous blogs:

 

1. The Seven Principles of Public Life: The Seven Principles of Public Life (also known as the Nolan Principles) apply to anyone who works as a public office-holder. This includes all those who are elected or appointed to public office, nationally and locally, and all people appointed to work in the Civil Service, local government, the police, courts and probation services, non-departmental public bodies (NDPBs), and in the health, education, social and care services. All public office-holders are both servants of the public and stewards of public resources. The principles also apply to all those in other sectors delivering public services.

 

1.1 Selflessness: Holders of public office should act solely in terms of the public interest.

 

1.2 Integrity: Holders of public office must avoid placing themselves under any obligation to people or organisations that might try inappropriately to influence them in their work. They should not act or take decisions in order to gain financial or other material benefits for themselves, their family, or their friends. They must declare and resolve any interests and relationships

 

1.3 Objectivity: Holders of public office must act and take decisions impartially, fairly and on merit, using the best evidence and without discrimination or bias.

 

1.4 Accountability: Holders of public office are accountable to the public for their decisions and actions and must submit themselves to the scrutiny necessary to ensure this.

 

1.5 Openness: Holders of public office should act and take decisions in an open and transparent manner. Information should not be withheld from the public unless there are clear and lawful reasons for so doing.

 

1.6 Honesty: Holders of public office should be truthful.

 

1.7 Leadership: Holders of public office should exhibit these principles in their own behaviour and treat others with respect. They should actively promote and robustly support the principles and challenge poor behaviour wherever it occurs.

 

On closer examination of these principles, and on matching them against the observable behaviour of the current Prime Minister, it is difficult to see how, on any objective view, Boris Johnson can allow himself to remain in office. His actions, in relation to Priti Patel, Dominic Cummings, Owen Patterson and various others in his cabinet, fall woefully short of these principles, and the fiasco of the gatherings at Number 10 during the period of Nationwide Lockdown are but additional instances of failure. If Ms Gray can find any excuse which would allow him to remain in office, then I believe her vaunted unimpeachable integrity and objectivity is seriously in question. What is already public knowledge and already in the public eye seems to me to be pretty conclusive. What is it she can say that will excuse what is already known?

 

What we might have is her specifying that, under the narrow terms of reference she was allowed to ‘investigate’, she can find no cause to hold the Prime Minister to account, and that the excuses or explanations he has given, may be given the benefit of the doubt. In other words a wishy washy conclusion that will permit Boris & Co to once again ‘get away with it.’ There will be the usual mantra ‘That’s done and over with, so let’s move on’. There may be a day a speculation in the press, but people will move on. 

 

If that happens, and. I’m fairly sure it will, then the idea that democratic government in this country is subject to scrutiny, checks and balances is a complete myth, and the rule of law is in grave danger of catastrophic failure. This tarnished government will continue on its headlong march to the right, with an exhausted population unable or unwilling to do anything about it. 

 

On the other hand if we are to have a genuine adherence to those aforementioned seven principles, then perhaps there will be a way forward. The story is not over yet, we wait to see.  

ANOTHER POINT OF VIEW IS ESSENTIAL UNLESS IT'S WRONG

I find, as I surf around, a number of articles written by individuals with perspectives broadly similar to, and at the same time, different from my own. In like manner, there are video commentators on you tube and various presenters on digital radio stations, such as KPFK in Los Angeles, who also express observations, views, and sometimes insights, with which I can concur. This is as it should be. One cannot be in a complete agreement all the time. It would not be human.

 

Friendships are essentially based around shared experiences of life. People with whom we share some of the more intimate details of our lives, our loves and aspirations. Political views between friends tend to be similar, but do not have to be concurrent. If individuals care about each other as friends their political points of view can, and sometimes do, differ a great deal. What holds it together are the approaches to living. Generally a shared view on manners, culture, civility and respect. One may not be as close to some friends as others, but on the whole there are exchanges of ideas and in some instances one is asked to be best man, maid of honour, godparent, sponsor or employer. Evenings spent together exchanging stories over food or going on holidays and participating together in events and observations are very much part of friendships between people.  These associations mostly begin in infancy, on the playground or at some educational establishment. Friends’ lives intertwine, coming together, growing apart and coming together again over time. They can be formed at work, in a pub or at some other friend’s house. Birthdays, graduations, engagements, weddings, illnesses and funerals are as staging posts of our shared journeys through life. One’s general outlook on life will usually be reflected by one’s associations. None of this prevents friends having politically opposing views, unless of course they are extreme. I do not think I could, knowingly, be friends with a member of the Ku Klux Klan.

 

In a democratic government, political parties are made up of individuals who broadly agree on policy. They compromise and come together on matters which become the substance of their programme for government. Members of a political party, although they may subscribe to a party line, are not necessarily friends. Indeed members of the same party can dislike one another intensely and there can be genuine difficult disagreements between members of the same party. In the United Kingdom, those conservatives or labour supporters who voted for Brexit and those who wished for Britain to remain in the common market, are an instance in point; but, so long as the central and essential party line is adhered to, the party can hold together. Where these disagreements within a party fester, they can be terminal, and. in any event, weaken the party’s overall influence, and it becomes unpalatable to the electorate.

 

On the other hand, it is not unusual for representatives of one party to be friends with representatives of the opposing party. There are a number of politicians who get along very well with members of an opposing party. Such sentiments are frequently expressed by some members in the UK Parliament, as well as members in the United State Congress. I am sure the same would apply in the Assemblée Nationale and Sénat in Paris as well as the Bundestag in Berlin. It is as it should be and is a very healthy condition for democratic government.

 

However, so far as general governance is concerned, I believe there must be a standard which is applicable across the democratic political spectrum. That is, respect for the decisions of the electorate, acceptance of the democratic system by which representatives are chosen to govern, and the reputability, honesty and sense of public service of the elected representatives must be of the highest unimpeachable integrity. Such codes of conduct as are maintained by governmental institutions, must be adhered to. Any variance on that is unacceptable. Which brings us back to what seems to be happening in the United Kingdom with regard to the matter of a Prime Minister misleading Parliament with prevarications, and the uncompromising shameless hypocrisy and perfidy of certain members of the United States Congress. I believe even those parliamentarians who would forgive a Boris Johnson, would raise their hands in horror at the likes of Ted Cruise, Lindsey Graham, Marjorie Taylor Greene, Kevin McCarthy and other congressional representatives who are blind supporters of Donal Trump.

 

Forgive me if I seem to harp on about the particular individuals mentioned above, but they are of major concern to the well-being and survival of the United States and consequently to the rest of the world. It is an unfortunate situation that we are in, when one country is seen as the main bulwark against dictatorship and tyranny, particularly when that country is on the verge of collapse and descent into the very right wing agenda it previously abhorred but currently seems to be striving for. The United States is a very flawed nation with some magnificent foundations in the form of its declaration of independence, and most of its constitutional aspirations. Despite its shortcomings it has seen fit to elect some quite remarkable individuals as leaders of its government. It is not alone in that endeavour. Many democracies have had exceptional men elected to govern. What is particular to the United States since the latter half of the 18^th Century is its rise to such great power and influence round the globe, despite its very mixed quality of leadership; however, it is in decline.

 

I recently came across an article written by Journalist Nick Bryant publish by BBC, News, New York, on 3^rd November 2017, entitled The Time when America stopped being great which can be read at https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-41826022.

 

This is one of those articles I spoke of in the first paragraph of this blog. It does not make for pleasant reading. Nonetheless it is a considered piece of writing by a foreign observer who, from an early age, became fascinated by the United States through its myth making of Hollywood westerns, TV shows and Marvel Comics. An extraordinary propaganda industry that not only spread the dream, but made a fortune on the back of it. It continues to this day.

 

What is sad is that the indigenous population have lost sight of the myth, and the man on the white horse has been replaced by the man in the blood red cap. Rather than exclaim “Get thee behind me Satan” they willingly and blindly shout out in support “Lock ‘em up” and “Hang ‘em up”. America has indeed stopped being great.

WHAT PRICE FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION

(I wrote the following a few days ago before the House of Lords made various amendments to the proposed Crime Bill; which does not mean that the government won’t keep putting them back in. In addition it would seem that Boris Johnson is most likely going to slip through again as once more the Conservative Party distracts from the issue, arguing it is old news, happened over a year ago and look at what Boris has achieved over the pandemic. Boris in fact has achieved nothing but is riding on the success of the National Health Service which, had it not been in place, only chaos would have ensued. It is his habit to claim applause for work accomplished by other people, e.g. Boris bikes which were first proposed by Ken Livingston and the 2012 Olympics, which again were in the works well before Johnson became mayor.)

 

Whilst the Conservative Party scrabble round for justifying Boris Johnson’s continued presence as Prime Minister, or not, as the case may be, they are clearly in disarray; however, that has not stopped them from continuing with a raft of repressive legislation this country has not seen for centuries. It is being implemented to preserve their continued power in government, which is why they are in two minds about ditching Boris too quickly. This legislation, populist in origin, is attractive to those who see it as a proactive solution to current problems they feel need managing, such as immigration and determined protest by, what they see as, fringe groups, such as extinction rebellion. What they do not see, is that by creating more authoritarian legislation to ‘deal with the problem’, they are providing the tools for oppression and dictatorship.

 

Their program of government provides them with a certain popularity amongst the people whose fear and prejudice of the ‘foreign’ is deeply ingrained (which is sadly the case in much of this country’s population) but also those who are upset by strikes and demonstration that obstruct their movement to and from work, a night out on the town, or indeed some emergency services, which can prove difficult. They wish to appear tough on immigration, crime and what they call public nuisance. It is their idea of ‘taking back control’ and many of the electorate have bought into that point of view. What they do not realise is that a progressively repressive regime, giving more cause for arrest and incarceration, will become exactly that, a thoroughly repressive regime along the lines of Belarus, Myanmar, Russia etc. This Government equates the maintenance of good order with the maintenance of their continued ability to control. That is the control they are taking for themselves, let alone taking back.

This Government has so little vision they are either blind or unable to think beyond their own personal point of view, which they believe to be in the public interest. Priti Patel, the chief promoter of The Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill is an instance in point. Because she is so deeply rooted against immigration (despite her family history) and upset by Extinction Rebellion’s form of protest, she believes it is in the public interest to stop it, so she seeks to empower the State, through law enforcement, to arrest and incarcerate any dissenters of any kind. She does not see that by striking back at extinction rebellion, which is her focus, that she is striking out the right to protest entirely. The right of assembly and protest has been part of the British way of life and a long fought for civil right by the people of Britain. To impose the restrictions she contemplates is one of the most egregious attacks on the very democracy that supports that public interest.

So whilst we contemplate the pressing problems of the pandemic and the ridiculous callous behaviour of Boris Johnson, his cabinet is quietly going about the business of dismantling the very democracy they claim to serve and uphold.  What is worrying for them is that losing control as a result of Boris’s behaviour will prevent them from continuing to impose their dangerous agenda. This is why there is such hesitancy about Boris’s future. It is their own future that troubles them. An election now could wreck it all, so clearly that would be out of the question. A leadership election could lead to an early general election, so that too will have to wait. So the question of what to do about Boris is causing great consternation in cabinet and in the party.

This Government has not been acting in the public’s interest since David Cameron agreed to that disastrous referendum. It has reacted to populist and narrow nationalistic interest, which is not at all the same thing as the public interest. Boris Johnson’s very cry of “Get Brexit Done” was the mantra of popular separatists across the country and we now see the true result of that election.

A few more thoughts:

What saddens me most is the perception of the United Kingdom around the world.  Bear with me. Over the years, and particularly since the middle of the 19^th Century, large groups of people have emigrated from countries where they felt oppressed, disenfranchised, persecuted and generally lacking freedom.  That is still the case today, and many groups of people, ‘yearning to breathe free’ will do whatever they can to find a place of peace and freedom.  The propaganda of western nations and the continued proposition that they are the land of the free is still very much a part of a world view. The writing of Thomas Paine, born in Norfolk, and others who have promoted the rights of man have long been part of the education spread round the world through the British Commonwealth.  The idea that the United Kingdom or the United States could be anything other than a heaven is therefore not at all surprising. That, together with the continuing expansion of the English language as the lingua franca of the world, provides the seeds for current refugees, from Syria, Afghanistan, Somalia, Yemen, Belarus, Myanmar and any number of areas of conflict and repression, to employ whatever mean necessary to gain access to those countries professing freedom as the cornerstone of the rule of law and their democracy. That is the image of Britain throughout the world and it is not too difficult to understand that people feel that risking their lives to get here is a better proposition than forfeiting their lives to stay where they are.

The current government is changing that view. Priti Patel, Liz Truss et al, seek to make of this country such a repressive regime that would resonate round the world so as to turn off any desire for tragic and desperate displace persons to seek refuge in the United Kingdom. That is ultimately the plan. What else could it be? By sending out the army and the gun boats to mow down the rubber dinghies, they will surely be turned off the idea of coming. By incarcerating protesters and the like, the word will get round, this is not the place to be, find solace elsewhere. That is the gist of their thinking, if actual thought could be ascribed to them. One wonders what they do think, indeed, Liz Truss was once a Liberal Democrat just twenty five years ago.

So far as the current migrants are concerned, it is difficult to know on what basis they still seek to come to Britain. Is it the former rhetoric concerning freedom, security, employment and a better life? Or is it ‘anywhere is better than where I am’? Do they really believe that the racism some have encountered will be absent in the United Kingdom? Or is it just that the languages they speak are limited to their own and English, supposedly making it easier for communication with authorities on arrival or in due course? I do not know, but I still suspect they believe the former propaganda which one still hears today. We are the country of freedom and the mother of parliaments. One wonders.

I recently commented of what I would imagine political public service was about. It is not an easy calling as it demands a great deal of one’s time and energy. It is not the sort of endeavour that can be done on the fly, as some would have it, enjoying the title and the kudos it can bring, whist not actually putting in the effort to find solutions to some constituent’s personal problems as well as general societal problems within one’s constituency and the entire country.

It seems clear that Boris Johnson is a title and kudos type. He enjoys a good photo opportunity, an elbow bump, a short burst of speech and a few answers, or not, to questions from the press. All the rest is delegated. He does not read documents or proposed legislation as was clearly demonstrated during some sessions in parliament. He leaves it to others to do the work and ‘advise him’, which advice can backfire as when in November 2021, Andrea Leadsom advised him to sponsor her amendment to scrap the suspension of Owen Patterson for breach of parliamentary rules. He promoted it in the house and ordered a three line whip from which he had to retreat the following day. This was just another example of his incompetence.

He has thus manufactured a cabinet of ministers who have demonstrated time and again their inability to serve the state with a progressive and forward looking international agenda, and rather seek to maintain a nostalgic fantasy status quo by quelling dissent, reducing aid and assistance to those in need, promoting out of date economics and business practices, and privatising public services directly or by stealth. The rail services are in crisis and the health service is slowly sourcing out work that should be retained within the NHS, are just examples of their lack of focus.

As against all that, maybe I misjudge them. Perhaps they are all genuinely concerned about the state of the country, what with continuing chicanery, violent crime, prejudice and racist behaviour. How to stop it. How to safeguard the NHS and other institutions that preserve the health and safety of the nation. How to promote continuing viable commerce to replenish the coffers of the nation to cover the cost of welfare and pensions. Perhaps they are sincerely dedicated to solving these problems of democracy and are deeply grateful that the electorate have seen fit to give them the opportunity to serve. We have had over twelve years of conservative Government. Are we still of a mind to give them the benefit of the doubt?

The longest lasting government in the last 100 years were the National and Coalition Governments which saw the country through the depression and the second world war. Between them, the various political parties dealt and coped with some rather extraordinary events. Nothing like a pandemic? Certainly far more lethal and destructive; yet that National Government fought to maintain the very freedoms this government seeks to curtail.

This government is in turmoil. It is not the freedom to remain unvaccinated or the requirements of a covid free passport to go to a nightclub or travel abroad that is the curb on freedom, it is the criminalising of the freedom to protest that is of import. If that goes through it might be the anti-vaxxer who ends up with a ten year gaol sentence.

WHAT MEMORIES ARE THESE?

 

We are all, all of us, students of history. We grow up and cannot help but see and/or hear what goes on around us. From the moment we are born the hippocampi in our brain begins to store those observations. Just like your computers hard drive, located betwixt a myriad of chips and circuits, the hippocampus is located in the medial temporal lobes, under the cerebral cortex. It plays a critical role in learning, emotional responses and memory functions and storage. There are two, one on each side of the brain, a few inches above each ear. It helps us navigate the world we live in, wherever and whatever that world might be.

 

Based on a number of personal observations, I believe it should be, indeed must be, apparent that some individuals are more accomplished at making use of, and organising, the information contained in our brains to better navigate that world.

 

Since human beings have evolved, modes of survival have developed and a variety of systems for living have expanded across the globe. Tribes and groups grew larger and formed into nations with the result that the globe has been parcelled off into 195 nations. Each of those nations has a history that has culminated in their present system for living, which, for the most part, consists of a head of state and a governing body whose function is to provide for the wellbeing of its population. In some instances however, the heads of state function merely to maintain power as heads of state, regardless of the welfare of the population, but these states are continually in flux as populations begin to assert themselves over time.

 

This growing assertiveness is fuelled by the coming together of 193 of those countries as member states of the United Nations, and as such are pledged to uphold certain universal human rights. These rights have been codified into law by a number of nations.

 

These human rights, or freedoms, have been instrumental in creating nations that survive via a system of rules and regulations referred to as “the rule of law”.  In order to maintain the system and allow the population to flourish and survive, heads of state, and representatives of the people, are elected by that population to oversee the repair and continuing maintenance of the system. So while individuals go about their business, their representatives ensure their continuing health and safety by overseeing the day to day necessities – security, rubbish collection and disposal, housing, education, health, communication networks (roads, rail, telephone, etc..), commercial responsibility and all those parts of everyone’s life that come under the heading of health, safety, security and freedom. It is in effect a pretty responsible job.

 

Some individuals, the ones who make better use of their brains, are sometimes asked to step forward and be such a representative, or pubic servant. Some individuals see it as a calling and volunteer willingly to enter into public service. Some feel a strong urge to ‘improve things’ and strenuously take up causes to ameliorate the lives of others, and unfortunately some seek only to obtain some form of power or glory. Whatever the reason for an individual putting themselves forward as a public servant, they engage in a social contract to maintain integrity, honesty and humility in their function as such a servant. They are in office to maintain the equality and individual integrity of their electors. It is not to be undertaken through the arrogance of “I know best”, by those who conduct their affairs with strategic condescension, or pretentions of higher social class, education or riches. Those representatives who do that are deceiving themselves as well as the public. They have no place in the governance of a nation.

 

So when I put my hippocampi to work, and reflect upon the current situation in the United Kingdom and elsewhere in the western democratic states, I find a number of disturbing matters requiring comment.

 

When I see and hear the likes of Jacob Rees-Mogg refer to the political leader of the Scottish branch of the Conservative party as a lightweight, and go on in a superior fashion to talk about evidence before judgements are made and, wait for Sue Gray’s report on her investigation, I am overwhelmed with incredulity.  The cat is long out of the bag. Boris Johnson has admitted he acted wrongly. He has admitted various illegal gatherings have taken place under his watch. He has apologised openly to Parliament that they had taken place. He admitted to being at one of the gatherings. He is in a photograph at one of the gatherings. What is Rees-Mogg waiting for.  Does he expect Ms Gray to magically fall in line and excuse the behaviour? How is it this Cabinet can support this Prime Minister? He has behaved like a clown since he came into politics. This is just another example of his jolly, one of the guys, hail fellow well met, personas. He looks contrite but definitely expects to get away with it because everyone has always let him get away with it. The 1922 committee should be flooded with letters demanding a vote of confidence, yet the current conservative party public servants recently elected have little or no honesty, integrity or gumption and seek merely to cling on to what little power they have.

  

The arrogance of Boris Johnson is only exceeded by that of Jacob Rees-Mogg, who is less than a lightweight individual, a puny narrow minded prissy pedantic bigoted man who has no empathy whatsoever for human beings.  He sees himself as a pinnacle of sophistication and common sense. How he was ever elected is beyond belief. The citizens of North East Somerset are ill-served by this minnow of a man and don’t even know it. The removal of Boris Johnson would also see the removal of most of his cabinet, especially Rees-Mogg.

 

If they are so keen to keep Boris and he is not to resign, let the electors decide the matter in a democratic fashion by his calling for a general election. That is not likely to happen, but it should. Even Rees-Mugg (deliberate spelling) would object to a general election now, as his inbuilt sense of hypocrisy tells him it’s not the right time; but, if Boris and Co. can bamboozle the public to elect again a majority of conservative MPs to parliament, then the country deserves no better than what it has at present.

 

Turning the mind towards the United States and one fares no better. One asks oneself how the likes of Lauren Boebert, Marjorie Taylor Greene, Ted Cruz, Lindsey Graham and many others managed to get elected to public office. Have the American public been lobotomised? Does anyone actually possess a hippocampus in their brain at all? Or are they just so dumbfounded and prone to believe outrageous scatological conspiracy theories that they smother what sense of truth they have? The ‘big lie’ has been haunting America for over a year now and there seems to be no end in sight. The sophistry, speciousness and mendacity of these so called public servants is online for the world to see and hear and be astounded by. The repetition of their lies and the psychotic behaviour of their saviour Trump is on show across all three major networks in the United States, who all refer to the ‘big lie’ as factual news, not just opinion, and still the show rolls on. That the justice department has refrained from indicting Mr Trump and his co-conspirators of incitement to commit crimes against the state is stupefying.

 

And so we go on feeding the limbic system, compiling and consolidating information. But perhaps it is my fault. Perhaps the memories, emotions and other stored behaviours in my hippocampi are in error and I live in an alternate universe. Just what is public service about and what should we, as electors, expect?  What have we a right to expect? Someone, please show me the error of my ways.

PRESIDENT JOE BIDEN SPEAKS

Listen again:

 

       

 

WORK FOR FRATERNITY BETWEEN NATIONS

One year on and the and the prospects of a more unified world are even further from any kind of actualisation. In the face of a pandemic, when one would have thought nations would come together to resolve the problem, with a view to ensuring that every person around the globe would receive medical assistance and be vaccinated, that is unfortunately far from happening.

Underneath the grand talk of coming together on vaccinations and the 26^th United Nations Climate Change Conference (COP26) the world is splintering and drifting towards ultra nationalist policies. The promotion of nation first around the globe is an unfortunate retrograde step in the progress towards the more civilised world, formerly proclaimed by every nation as being in its best interests; hence, the formation of the League of Nations (Founded 10^th January 1920), United Nations (26^th June 1945), European Economic Community (25^th March 1957) and various other attempts at international and global cooperation.

There have been many other so called Peace Events over the last 122 years. The first Nobel Peace Prize, awarded on the 10th December 1901, to those who have "done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses", was shared by two people, Jean Henri Dunant and Frederic Passy. Dunant was a Swiss philanthropist and co-founder pf the International Committee of the Red Cross, and Passy a French economist and founding member of several peace societies and the International Parliamentary Union.

 

 

On the 25^th November 1910, the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace was established by Andrew Carnegie to “hasten the abolition of international war, the foulest blot upon our civilisation”. It continues to this day stating as its goal:

“In an increasingly crowded, chaotic, and contested world and marketplace of ideas, the Carnegie Endowment offers decisionmakers global, independent, and strategic insight and innovative ideas that advance international peace.”

I do not know how effective an organisation it is, as it certainly has a great number of people working for it, including a number of very wealthy and allegedly powerful people, but given the nature of current events in a variety of countries, there is little evidence of strategic insight or innovative ideas to advance international peace.

We have Putin amassing troops along the Ukrainian border, Somalia is virtually in a permanent state of civil unrest and absent of any rule of law, Yemen is apparently a hotbed of modern piracy reverting to Islamic dark ages, Honduras has a capital city now named the murder capital of the world, El Salvador hosts the notorious MS-13 an international criminal gang founded in Los Angeles, California, Myanmar is a Military State seemingly under constant marshal law, the European community is veering towards extremism and at risk of splintering again, the Chinese Government is reenforcing its subtle and overt oppressions, Afghanistan is a complete mess and practically lawless, Haiti is in turmoil and a number of other trouble spots around the world which give us pause.

These problems do create difficulty for any attempt at vaccinating every citizen on the planet against covid19, nevertheless it is the only way to deal with eliminating or at least properly controlling the virus.  In which case the above list of problems has to be tackled by world organisations.

The League of Nations primary goals, as stated in its Covenant, included preventing wars through collective security and disarmament and settling international disputes through negotiation and arbitration. Its other concerns included labour conditions, just treatment of native inhabitants, human and drug trafficking, the arms trade, global health, prisoners of war, and protection of minorities in Europe. Member states were expected to "respect and preserve as against external aggression" the territorial integrity of other members, and to disarm "to the lowest point consistent with domestic safety". All states were required to submit complaints for arbitration or judicial inquiry before going to war. The Executive Council would create a Permanent Court of International Justice to make judgements on the disputes. The league did not last.

The United Nations (UN) is an intergovernmental organisation aiming to maintain international peace and security, develop friendly relations among nations, achieve international cooperation, and be a centre for harmonizing the actions of nations. Currently made up of 193 Member States, the UN and its work are guided by the purposes and principles contained in its founding Charter. The UN has evolved over the years to keep pace with a rapidly changing world. But one thing has stayed the same: it remains the one place on Earth where all the world’s nations can gather together, discuss common problems, and find shared solutions that benefit all of humanity. That is the stated intention. Whether it actually achieves its purpose is dependent on the will of each member state.

The EEC was established to “preserve peace and liberty and to lay the foundations of an ever closer union among the peoples of Europe".

There are other treaties and agreements between countries that are in force, in respect of trade and cooperation between nations; but, any agreement is only as good as the parties’ willingness to abide by the agreement. Agreements are only as good as the parties to it. It bears repetition. You cannot enforce agreement between persons who have no intention of committing to it, but rather see it as a means of gaining power for themselves.

In brief let us hope the new year will bring new resolution among the people’s representatives and leaders of nations to actually take heed of the covenant the 193 countries have signed up to.

Let us hope the new year will bring resolution to the United States and to the true meaning of its Constitution and Declaration of Independence, and that the voices of discord, sedition and secession are silenced with a view towards bringing real solutions and assistance to its people.

Let us hope that the United Kingdom will finally recoil from the disastrous course towards separatism it has adopted and return to common sense and the unification of nations.

Let us hope the European Community resolves its differences, with a view to creating a closer and stronger commitment to the democratic ideals it has so long been advocating. Let us hope that the populations of those countries leaning once again towards the extreme nationalists of the 1930’s and ‘40’s, reverse course and see sense in more liberal democracy and cooperation with other nations.

Let us hope.