WAKE UP BRITAIN

 

The above short video is making the rounds this easter, about paying the bill for the last supper. Whilst it is amusing, the discussion of the menu and, ‘who had what?’ is a bit feeble. I would have thought gefilte fish and chopped liver might have been mentioned. In any event some acknowledgment of a traditional Passover meal. Also, as wine is part of the ritual, the waiter might have said something about corkage for bringing their own wine, as he had only served them water; or  "We only had the one cup and shared it round". There is a feeble water and wine joke, but I quibble. 

 

As to the events of the past few days, listening to the fatuous excuses to which conservative MP’s have resorted, in defence of criminality and venality on the part of their leader, is final confirmation that public service in this country has reached the lowest depth anyone could possibly imagine. The fact that they are given media time to voice their feeble grasp of what integrity and responsibility towards the citizens actually means, without challenge of any kind, is unforgiveable. Foreign leaders and officials can easily be criticised by journalists and presenters, but to openly call for the resignation of Boris Johnson for telling lies (it’s on video for goodness’ sake- we’ve all seen and heard the prevarications – it is a fact, not opinion) is not possible. They treat the situation as a difficult decision and allow any number of charlatans to speak complete nonsense, as if there was a matter for debate. They know full well that the political and administrative mechanism to make Boris Johnson resign, is completely flawed, or rather, virtually non-existent.

 

To now have another enquiry as to whether the Prime minister deliberately lied, or was he just misinformed and believed what he was saying and therefore unintentionally misled the house, is taking the piss.  He misled the house. He is responsible for checking his facts before he speaks. He didn’t care what he said. He was grossly negligent if nothing else. If that is not an abuse of his office, what is? He is responsible for deliberately misleading the house. How many more times does one have to see the compilation of videos of him doing so? Misspeak once, maybe, but over and over again? What kind of nonsense is this committee charade?

 

This is a serious failure of democracy. If free speech is to be allowed to continue in this country, it is incumbent upon the media to call out anyone who is willing to support this outrage and pressure them. Journalists should be asking every conservative member of parliament who comes before them “When are you going to ask him to resign, he’s lied, do you support a liar?” Do not let them waffle on. It’s a simple question. It is based on fact. The evidence is there. We do not need to be fair to Boris any more. He has broken the trust. He has bamboozled the public. What has happened to journalistic integrity? Has it gone the way of political integrity? When will they get a grip?

 

Every person that I have encountered has nothing good to say about Boris Johnson’s behaviour or anything about him. He seems to live in this cocoon of sycophants who prop him up and collude with his shamefaced excuses. Only a very few conservative MPs are so embarrassed by his performance, that they dare to speak out and call upon him to go. He has disgraced the honourable office he currently holds, according to one back bencher. Indeed he should move on; move on and out.

 

There are those who not only support Mr Johnson and believe that he could lead the party into the next general election and win, even if he receives more fixed penalty notices. It would seem there are a number of political pundits who think the same. If that is the case, either they are completely out of touch with reality or I am. If I am, then I believe the United Kingdom will descend further into a mire of duplicity, fraud and anti-social behaviour, the likes of which will take centuries to correct.

 

Newspaper readership has gone down by over 5.5 million readers, over half what it was in 2000. It has dropped from 10.8 million plus to 5.2 million. Nearly a 52% drop. In 2000 the Guardian circulation was 401,560 and in 2021 it is 108,687. It has lost 73% of its circulation in 11 years.  Do most people now get their news from Radio and Television, assuming they even watch the news? It is difficult to ascertain actual viewing figure of the various newscasts on television, but it would seem that Channel 4 news is favourite followed by BBC and ITV. Not sure where Sky news comes in, but Facebook and social media is also a means for gathering news information.

 

But that is just the problem, social media is more about social and media than it is about actual facts. Fewer and fewer people are reading or listening to real news. News channels now seem to compete with each other with analysis of events, rather than straight reporting. The political slant of each outlet is clear to see. Newspapers have an editorial page and an opinion section which makes it clear to the reader where their sympathies lie. The Guardian is outspoken and the latest columns from the likes of Andrew Rawnsley, Jonathan Freedland, Simon Jenkins, Polly Toynbee, John Crace and others, are all very clear where they stand, The Daily Express is equally as outspoken about its complete support of the Prime Minister, treating any criticism of his person or his agenda as not worthy of mention and a complete waste of time and space. This is equally the view of the Daily Mail, Evening Standard and the Daily Star - if it has any view at all about anything except celebrity gossip. The Times reports and tries to rise above and stays aloof, but is essentially conservative in its support for Johnson.

 

Be that as it may, most of the news media is clearly in support of the current government, and are prepared to ride out the prime minister’s difficulties and let the situation run its course. What readership there is left, unfortunately feeds on indecisive garbage under the impression that what happened a couple of years ago is really of little importance and are bored by the whole “party gate” thing.

 

The masses who do not read or effectively listen, are equally prepared to turn away and not bother. They show little interest in even voting, either because they don’t care, are bored to tears, or so disillusioned with politics that they do not see that their one little vote can actually matter. So the turnout is low, and the likes of Boris Johnson are put in office by a small minority of the population. The popular acquiescence towards this state of affairs gives the opportunity for those thus elected to claim a mandate from the public to do whatever they like.

 

To fail to understand how serious and damaging Boris Johnson’s behaviour and modus operandi is, is a sad reflection of the current situation around the country. His choice of cabinet has put forward legislation that defies description in its attempt to reverse the accomplishments of many who have gone before them, to create a free and open society, struggling to deal with its failures over prejudice in all its forms and accompanying phobias. There has been, in the past, concerted effort to deal with racism, homophobia, religious hatreds, fear of immigrants and any number of human problems; but, this government plays on those fears and attempts to step back from that progress and fortify the cruel opinions of fear and ignorance. They seek to enforce discrimination and glorify wrongdoing.

 

The very notion of imprisoning protestors for 15 years and removing asylum seekers to internment camps (for that is what they will be) 5000 miles away, under the claim of saving lives is an insult to human intelligence. The fact that the Home Secretary has the gall to arrogantly accuse opposition legislators with “You’re not listening. Listen and you might learn something” at the despatch box, is outrageous. All we learn from listening to the Home Secretary is how lacking she is in thought, imagination and competence. The rest of the Cabinet are of the same stamp. Puny and narrow minds who are leading this country to despair.

 

There is a clip in the film “The First of the Few” which depicts Dame Lady Houston’s yacht  in a harbour sporting an illuminated sign.  It is no less appropriate now as it was in 1929 as depicted in the film from 1942.

I should mention that although the depiction of Lady Houston (played by Toni Edgar-Bruce) in the film as an early opponent of Hitler and Fascism, she was in fact quite the opposite, and was a great admirer of strong leaders such as Hitler and Mussolini. She was also a fervent supporter of Edward VIII. Her third husband Sir Robert Houston, 1^st Baronet, died in 1926 aboard their yacht named Liberty, and left her roughly £5.5million which would be, in 2022, the equivalent of £358,205,950.04, which made her the second richest woman in England. When she was 16, she had taken up with Frederick Gretton (co-owner of Bass Brewery) who, on his death in 1882, left her (she was 25) an income of £6000 per annum, or todays equivalent of £769,068.87 per annum. She was apparently extremely distressed by the abdication of Edward VIII on the 10^th December 1936, and she died of a heart attack aged 79 on the 29^th December 1936, leaving no will. She had no children. Whatever happened to all that money?

 

Although, not liable to pay death duties on Houston’s estate, she negotiated personally with Winston Churchill, then Chancellor of the Exchequer, to pay £1.6 million (over £104 million today) without admitting liability. I wonder what deal Mrs Sunak came to with Mr. Sunak.

 

PRITI COME FLY WITH ME PATEL

Ms Patel is not happy with the criticism she is getting over the Rwandan program and claims that no critics have a solution for stopping illegal immigration across the channel, nor can they offer one. She is supported in her ‘solution’ by the Prime Minster and Ress-Mogg. If that is an endorsement to boast about, heaven help us.

 

They claim her solution is to deter people from attempting to cross the channel risking their lives and the best way of curbing that is to ship any fit young asylum seekers straight off to Rwanda. This is her way of getting at the people traffickers. She assumes that by telling the refugees they will be sent even further away, they will no longer use the services of the traffickers and this will put them out of business. At first instance it might deter them from getting in a boat altogether. It’s her version of deterrent.

 

The present government is big on deterrent. Most of their current legislation is to deter people from doing anything the present government does not like, and that they assume is best for the country, because most people in the country think as they do. I rather think not.

 

The Archbishop of Canterbury, in commemoration of Easter, pointed out, inter alia, that Ms Patel’s solution is clearly anti-Christian, immoral and inherently cruel towards refugees. A view that more closely reflects the attitude of the British public than she or the government realises. It may also be illegal in itself, an issue that the Prime Minister addresses by warnings of ‘left wing lawyers’ coming out of the woodwork, and ‘they offer no solution.’ Current government ministers appear to have little regard for the rule of law.

 

This solution to the problem of boats across the Channel, it is part of a big package. Part one: The British Navy and Border Force are meant to stop all small craft.  Part 2: The French authorities are meant to help stop them from leaving the French shore, and help find the traffickers.  Part 3: As it seems expensive and too difficult for the Navy and Border Forces to catch all boats, and as it seems equally too onerous to find and shut down the traffickers, Ms Patel is convinced that deterring the victims of the traffickers from getting into the boats in the first place, is the easiest method.

 

In addition, Ms Patel claims that the transfer to Rwanda will assist refugees in finding better prospects and make it easier to apply for asylum from abroad. So it is both a deterrent and a help.  It is a bit confusing in its aims and the reclassification of Rwanda as a safe haven for refugees is a new twist of government propaganda. Does that mean she expects people to make a rush for the boats in order reach out for her assistance in finding better prospects in Rwanda? Or is it a matter of being cruel to be kind?

 

The thoughtless incompetence of this Home Secretary is beyond comprehension. In the history of the world, ‘deterrent’ solutions to criminal activity have never worked. If they had, over the last 5000 years, there would no longer be any crime. Deterrent solutions to stupidity do not work either. Some people just do not learn. Ms Patel’s behaviour is an instance in point. So far as we know, she has twice avoided being taken before a tribunal, for her behaviour in the work place, by paying off the complainant with public funds. Her behaviour, so far as we are aware, has not changed one bit; yet she continues in her job. If ministerial codes and sanctions have no effect on her, why does she assume it will be any different for desperate refugees seeking to find a better life, a problem far more pressing and important than her being able to control her temper.

 

So her solution is no solution. Perhaps she should join the refugees in Rwanda and take an anger management course, until such time as she receives a certificate of compliance, which she can show on an application to return to the United Kingdom and a low level public service job of some kind. Wouldn’t that be nice?

MIRROR MIRROR ON THE WALL

In response to some comments of mine, my friend Charles Nabet sent me the following response:

 

"En fait, nous avons tous de part le monde des interrogations sur nos élus, ce qui, à mon avis, est une erreur: nos interrogations devraient porter sur nous-mêmes. En effet, nous constatons, dans tous les pays de culture occidentale, une lente descente du niveau global de l'éducation, de la réflexion, de l'analyse, du respect, de l'écoute de l'autre, de la générosité (etc.) au profit d'une acculturation, d'un égoïsme, d'un individualisme et d'une irresponsabilité collective.
Dans ces conditions, nous avons des politiques à notre image. En d'autres termes, nos politiques sont notre miroir, nous retrouvons chez eux tous nos défauts et nos sociétés telles qu'elles sont devenues."

 

Google Translation:

In fact, we all around the world have questions about our elected officials, which, in my opinion, is a mistake: our questions should be about ourselves. Indeed, we observe, in all countries of Western culture, a slow decline in the overall level of education, reflection, analysis, respect, listening to others, generosity (etc.) to the benefit of acculturation, selfishness, individualism and collective irresponsibility. Under these conditions, we have policies in our image. In other words, our politicians are our mirror, we find in them all our faults and our societies as they have become.

 

I agree entirely with his comments about the decline of “civilisation” in the western world, and yes, it is most likely our own fault, and perhaps we do have the politicians that reflect the current decline, but it is only by railing against those politicians who thrive on that decline that there is any glimmer of hope to restore some kind of intelligence and integrity in political life.

 

There are many voices in this world who are crying in the wilderness “make straight the way of the just”. The trouble is there are just as many voices who claim they are the just. There are those who speak the truth and mean it, and there are those who purloin the truth with an agenda. That is to say, the words are the same, but there is an ulterior motive.

 

On the whole, western democracies operate under the premiss of respect for the rule of law. Each democracy has a system which is in place as a result of the adherence to that concept. In order to preserve that system, certain individuals put themselves forward to act together to help maintain the system as a service to the public, the citizens living within the system. They help organise the basic, and often hard fought for, requirements of the population, that is to say, security, health, education, employment and, above all, the freedom of movement and thought to enable the population to benefit and prosper from what have now become basic human rights.

 

The public service these people perform is a very heavy and serious responsibility. In order for these public servants to achieve the desired and required outcome of their office, each office is given certain powers over the general population, who trust the holders of that office not to abuse those powers, which are incumbent with whatever office they hold. It is important for the office holder to understand that the position of trust they hold is a very great privilege even though the office they hold is extremely demanding and arduous.  

 

Despite the difficulties of the office, many citizens put themselves forward as the person to occupy that office, and as a result the population decide which person is best suited and worthy of the trust being conferred upon them.  Different countries have different system of electing its public servants, but it all amounts to the same thing, the office holder must perform and deliver the desired and required human rights to each and every elector.

 

The difficulties arise in particular when the office holder confuses the powers conferred upon the office as being powers conferred upon them personally. It is a very difficult distinction to make when one is elected, or appointed, to  the office. It is not easy to keep the distinction in mind when one is performing the duties required of the office. Abusing the privilege can be just a simple slip, and often the public servant in question is not really capable of fulfilling the obligations of the office. This is something the public servant may find difficult to grasp and react accordingly.

 

To emphasise “The individual is not the office”, but too often the individual concerned believes him/herself to be the office. They do not recognise their inabilities and lack of competence. They are also, far too often, supported in their delusion by acolytes and other people who seek advantage from the pubic servant’s continued occupation of the office. This provides the public servant with an inflated view of their own abilities. They can become entrenched and appear arrogant and narcissistic. Indeed, personalities who are predisposed to arrogance and narcissism, often put themselves forward as public servants. It is that quality of blind ambition which can lead to serious psychotic and disturbed behaviour. They believe they have a mission.

 

It is therefore incumbent upon the citizen to be watchful of the derailing of the politician from public servant to entrenched arrogance of office. It is incumbent upon the citizen to observe and look closely at any person who puts themselves forward as a public servant in any office. Too frequently the wrong person is in the wrong job.

 

The added difficulty for the citizen is that, now, so many people are willing to put themselves forward as public servants. They compete with each other to obtain the endorsement of the citizen at the ballot box. They campaign to obtain the vote of the electorate by appealing to what they believe the electorate want or need to hear. They decry those who compete with them for the attention of the electorate. Various sections of the electorate come together to chose a spokesperson they would seek to have in the office. Differing groups claiming support for a specific political agenda thus try to push forward their candidate for a position.  Some of the electorate will align themselves with a particular political agenda, and so it goes on.

 

But not all the electorate will participate. So long as things seem to trundle along, they show little interest in who is, in fact, running their affairs and providing them with the opportunity to fully partake of their human rights, to health, education, employment, security and freedom. They are a very large part of the electorate and because of their apparent disinterest, they are prey to any group, false prophet, prospective public servant, or actual public servant who claims to know best how to solve their problems.

 

The turnout for local elections is generally low. In France at the last it was 44% although in the midst of Covid.  In the UK the turnout for local elections in 2018 was 34.6%. I Germany the local election turnout hovered between 60% and 74%. There is of course a form of proportional representation in the elections on the continent, so many more different groups are represented in the various forums, but no matter the form of election, participation is key. In the UK, with national general elections, a candidate is elected by the highest number of votes regardless of percentage. It is an undemocratic system, which accounts for low turnout at elections, and an obsessive clinging to 3 parties, although in effect only 2, as the liberal democrats seem destined to remain in the wilderness.  

 

Turnout is one thing, but what matters is the numbers of people that are actually listening and trying to pay attention to what is going on. The competence and integrity of public servants, as a result of this lack of attention, has diminished to a large degree. Populism seems to be on the rise, even if contrary to the rule of law, the very framework that keeps it all together.

 

For instance – don’t much like foreigners coming into the country, taking your benefits and jobs? No problem, we’ll ship them off to Rwanda. Breaking the law? Don’t worry, it’s OK, as long as you apologise and don’t do it for long. So what’s the time limit on burglary? I would guess 4 min inside the house is fine. How about a fixed penalty notice for that? I could go on but it’s too enervating.

 

The casual manner in which current public servants treat their responsibility towards the rule of law is deplorable.  Given the casual manner in which fraud and deception over the internet and phone lines is perpetrated, and on the increase, such behaviour, as Charles pointed out, is accurately reflected in the quality of our current crop of civil servants.  Why on earth did we elect them or allow them to be candidates in the first place? Individual vigilance is therefore essential, and calling it out a necessary act of the citizen, however they choose to do it.

 

I suppose, in effect, we are questioning ourselves when we ask “What on earth is that person doing in that job? Can we not get them out?” There has to be a better, quicker and more efficient way to remove an incompetent clown, and his entourage, other than waiting 5 years, or for 54 people to send a letter to a made up conservative club, with no real public scrutiny of any kind.

 

What sort of democracy is that? He will not behave with any kind of integrity so why should anyone else? He should be shouted down every time he walks into the houses of parliament. It should be the Speakers duty to call him out for having lied to the house and make him resign or be banned from attending the house at all. Why are our representatives not screaming at him to go? Why are journalists allowing interviews of people spouting ludicrous banalities to protect him? Why are they not just saying, do shut up and tell him to resign? HE LIES TO PARLIAMENT; HE HAS COMMITTED A CRIME SEVERAL TIMES OVER. Why is there a problem getting rid of him?

 

Do we really live in a democracy that is a mirror of ourselves? In which case “Mirror Mirror on the wall, who’s the biggest schmuck of all?” Surely not the British public?

GETTING THE VOTE OUT IN A ROUNDABOUT WAY

The Wasted Land

 

I.               The Burial of the Dread

 

April is the cruellest month, breeding
Liars out of Parliament, mixing
Mendacity and guile, stirring
Dull ministers with spring pain.

Winter kept us locked down, covering

Earth in mournful woe, yielding

Little life to ease our humours.

 

 

A short parody inspired by the current April 2022 happenings in respect of Boris Johnson and the members of his cabinet. It is too long a poem to carry on with it, but I thought the opening line was appropriate. Those who know the original may be amused.

 

Thomas Stearns Eliot, Boris Johnson and I all came to the United Kingdom from the United States. Eliot was born in Saint Louis, Missouri in September of 1888. I was born in New York, New York in September of 1942 at Hunts Point in the Bronx, and Boris in New York, New York in June of 1964 in the Upper East Side of Manhattan. Hunts Point and the Upper East Side have very little in common.

 

As to Eliot, both he and I settled in the United Kingdom in our 20’s. Indeed at one point we both studied philosophy at the Sorbonne in Paris. Eliot from 1910 to 1911 and me from 2016-2017. I should say that Eliot’s endeavours were probably more academic, whilst I was just an “auditeur”.  Eliot attended lectures with Henri Bergson who, according to Wikipedia, was influential in the tradition of analytic and continental philosophy, and influenced, not only Eliot, but Giles Deleuze, Henry Miller, Guy Debord, Robert Frost, Vladimir Nabokov, Jean Paul Sartre and many others. My other link with Eliot is Henry Miller, who I met in the early 1960’s. We had a few chats and also lunched together at the Village Delicatessen in Westwood Village, sadly no longer in existence. At the time he was living in the Pacific Palisades area and suffered from a slight limp, the result of a sprained ankle from a fall around a swimming pool. It was Henry’s last address where he died on June 7^th 1980.  I digress.

Rwanda? Who would have thought Ms Patel would dream up such a scheme, and in April as well. There was a civil war in Rwanda in the 1990’s, which led to a ceasefire in 1993, The ceasefire ended on the 6^th April 1994 when the then President Juvenal Habyarimana’s plane was shot down, and he was killed. The incident led directly to what was termed the Rwandan Genocide. Over the course of about 100 days, between 500,000 and 1,000,000 Tutsi and Hutu were killed on the orders of the Interim Government. That was 28 years ago. Now another threat of genocide is hovering in the month of April in the Ukraine. Perhaps that is what prompted Ms Patel (whose family came from, Rwanda neighbour, Uganda to the United Kingdom in the 1960’s) to think of Rwanda as an appropriate country to send unwanted refugees and asylum seekers. It’s only just over 4000 miles away and about 8 and a quarter hours by plane. The perfect spot for dealing with refugees attempting to enter the UK from the French Coast around Calais. It looks an interesting drive on Google Map, should she choose to send them by bus, in light of climate change and reducing air pollution

It would be about the same journey many took getting to Calais in the first place.

She is such a thoughtful Home Secretary.

 

 

This month of April 2022 has clearly seen the most ludicrous and nonsensical behaviour from a United Kingdom government that I have witnessed in my 57 years in residence. Integrity and decency have virtually no place in the current political governance of this country. To mislead the electorate on such a scale has never quite been part of the agenda as it is now. The bare faced unscrupulous tenacity with which people hold on to office, coupled with monumental incompetence is not, I believe, an exaggerated point of view.   There are many who hold similar opinions, most of whom write for the Guardian, and write very well I might add; however, it is a biased view. A few other journalists and commentators express disquiet about the current state of affairs, but to little consequence. 

 

The BBC, in its supposed guise of remaining impartial, will always leave the final word to the likes of Grant Shapps et all, who spout the most cockamamie excuses for their boss’ behaviour. Reporters do interview others who disagree, but feel they have to press them by putting the party line, so as to show equal treatment. Stuff they learned from college debating teams. They never push back in quite the same way with a government spokesperson. They will disagree strongly I know. They will claim they are completely even handed. I know they like to think that, but in the face of outright prevarication and openly ludicrous statements excusing criminal conduct, they remain silent. 

 

Very few journalists, during an interview with the Prime Minister, for example, would say “Mr Johnson, you told a lie to the commons, why?” It’s OK if opposing politicians say it, but that’s party politics and that politician will, accordingly, be challenged by the interviewer in the interests of what they believe is fair play. To report a demonstrable lie is reporting a fact. There is no need to try to indulge in fair play. Our political lives are not a game. It’s all very well to show the image, but it needs to be said as well. So to all those journalists who think they are impartial observers (except when it comes to reporting on the war in Ukraine -that is another matter) you should use the same strength you exhibit in Ukraine when reporting on the current domestic insanity.

 

Too many times one has seen an interview of an opposition politician criticising a government minister’s actions, being asked by the reporter “What would you do, instead?”. What the question seems to imply is “Can you do any better?” giving the impression that what the government minister is doing, is in fact better.

 

It gives the impression that the reporter is asking tough questions, which the reporter likes to be seen doing; but, as I said before, it also gives the impression that the reporter is supporting the government view. That is not being impartial, whether they like it or not. There are times when challenging the interviewee is just for the sake of showing off how clever one’s research is, or team of researchers, in what is believed to be fair play. It is not fair play; it is just showing off. I suppose television journalists are entertainers as well, so one must accept the show, but it does get tiresome some times. Journalists can become personalities and perhaps tend to lose perspective. There are a number who have become too full of themselves as a result. They may not like to think so, but you know who they are.

 

I digress again. Please tell Boris Johnson to resign,  choosing whatever means available to you. When you go to the polls to elect your councillors do not support a single conservative. The fewer are elected, one hopes the message will get through to him and his party, and the party may well help him on his way. At least it will be a start. Vote anything but conservative or the like. Vote, Liberal, Labour, Green or Independent. It may not be direct action, but it’s all one can do till a general election comes along; but for god’s sake get out and vote.

 

THE NEW EDUCATION - FROM THE TOP

Most Newspaper headlines and columnists have suggested that both Boris Johnson and Rishi Sunak should resign, for 1- breaking the ministerial code by misleading (lying) to parliament and 2 - for breaking the law. Some Newspapers and Conservative Members of Parliament have supported the Prime Minister, despite his deceit, claiming that his past and current achievements, coupled with his apology, put his ‘misdemeanour’ fine on the back burner as being of no consequence.

 

Lies and deceit are of no consequence in a Prime Minister. It is clearly what is expected. A minor breach of rule of law can be disregarded. The very fabric of what holds this nation together is therefore malleable and not very important in any event.

 

The next civics class in the school curriculum is thus expanded to include how the rule of law can be ignored. There are classes of offences which can be disregarded as unimportant. Lying and cheating on exams, for instance, a minor matter so long as one apologises if found out. Using a fake ID to buy alcohol and cigarettes? Not a problem, just a simple sorry. And of course the seller is equally absolved as it is really of no consequence. A small fine will do. It is clearly vital to expand our children’s education to include the new realism:

Current curriculum at Westminster High School – (academy or comprehensive education)

Civics classes:

What Price Integrity 101? Assemble in rooms 10 and 11 (£50 for the short course) (Professors Johnson or Sunak on alternate days)

Effective deception: Mendacity for all occasions -in the main chamber (Professor Johnson)

Defending the indefensible: A cavalcade of nonsense – (Unspecified Professors from front and back bench staff room)

Ignorance of the Law CAN be an excuse: How to manipulate context and circumvent logic and reason – Various venues (Multiple professors from the front and back bench Staff Room – in addition to Professors Sunak and Johnson)

Bending the Rule of Law: Circumvention for beginners (Staff room)

Advanced ESPAW: Equivocation, sophistry, prevarication and waffle – an expert’s guide (Cabinet room)

Photo Opportunity as deflection: How to minimise scrutiny with appropriate costume/ machinery (Hard Hat or Overalls, fork lift or mini digger) (Professor Johnson) This is an outdoor or away day class and requires parental permission.

Advanced Photo Op: In addition to parental permission some elements may also include foreign travel. Additional insurance may be required in danger areas. Interpreter may be required. (Professor Johnson) {It should be noted that Professor V Zelenskyy may assist in these lectures)

There are extramural classes as well:

Understanding Design and home maintenance: How to cover up extravagant expenses by email and text messaging. (This class requires you to check with your financial advisor before enrolling) (Professor Carrie may sub for Professors Lord Brownlow and Johnson) (Professor Lulu Lytle assisting)

 

These classes will be extended to cover the entire United Kingdom Educational system and will be taught in schools across the country. In the absence of any comment to the contrary, we have the Rt Hon Nadhim Zahawi MP Secretary of State for Education to thank for it all.

 

NEED I SAY MORE

© Edward Klein

 

WHAT HAS COMPETENCE GOT TO DO WITH IT?

The Passport Office is in disarray. Immigration is in disarray. All this under the direction of Ms Priti Patel. She has got to be one of the most incompetent ministers ever to have the job Of Home Secretary. That is of course not surprising, given the quality of the Prime Minister who appointed her. Her’s is not a shining political career, yet somehow she remains in office despite a, now apparent, colossal level of incompetence.

 

Her interview with Mark Easton on the BBC showed off the disconnect she has with her office. She claimed to be frustrated by the Ukrainian applications for visas scheme as well as stating that the reason the UK appears to be taken on fewer refugees is because the UK is no longer part of the EU. What? How is that an excuse? Is she suggesting that if the UK were part of the EU then more war refugees would be allowed to enter the UK?

 

Here is just a few seconds of that interview and her confused response to questions:

There is a piece in the Guardian at:

https://www.theguardian.com/money/2022/apr/09/meltdown-at-uk-passport-renewals-forces-travellers-to-cancel-easter-breaks

 

which describes the staggering level of chaos at the Passport Office which is costing applicants considerable loss due to the inability to process applications for passport with anything close to efficiency. Despite the exorbitant fees for fast track applications, they are equally at risk, and what was once a matter of a day has gone into weeks. Such is the disintegration of the Home Office under her leadership.

 

Why, why is she still there? Is it possibly because Boris Johnson needs anybody he can get on his side, to support his own incompetence and perfidy? Or is it a matter of allowing the attention to focus on other matters in order to distract attention from his own lawlessness? I suspect it’s a bit of both. In the meantime the country tumbles into insignificance, which is not necessarily a bad thing; however, if unchecked, it could lead to a very bad end. With a perceived loss and failure of national identity the wrong people come out of the woodwork to revitalise nationalism and pride in country. To wit, Hitler’s National Socialism rise to power, Donald Trump’s “Make America Great Again”, Viktor Orbán in Hungary playing on national fears. There is also the concern of Marine Le Pen and Eric Zemmour in France. The current and most dangerous example is, of course, Vladimir Putin in Russia. The people who would restore super patriotism as a cure for all your problems. So who might be the next pretender for Oswald Mosley?

 

There is an informative piece written by Gideon Rachman in the Sat 9 April, Guardian entitled: Understanding Vladimir Putin, the man who fooled the world – with a sub heading: The Russian President has always shown us exactly who he is. So why did it take the invasion of Ukraine for us to believe him? (Link below)

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/apr/09/understanding-vladimir-putin-the-man-who-fooled-the-world

 

Substitute the name of any dictator or would be Caesar, and you might find the same rhetoric, prompted by economic failings, flagging of political influence, territorial changes and historical demands for reparations giving rise to a new leadership who will restore your income and prosperity as well as your homeland’s ancient borders, build up your armies and regain your power and influence in the world. There is always some sort of “Sudetenland” problem to resolve, e.g. the Donbas in South-Eastern Ukraine.

 

The repetitive nature of dictatorships and how they come into being is sadly an unending saga. The deaths and destruction that inevitably follow to right the wrong is lamented over and over with cries of never again, but it keeps on happening. Mr Rachman’s analysis can be, and has been, written many times over, only the dates and names are different.

 

On the lighter side, but again applicable to many a nation, my old French school friend Charles sent me the following cartoon:

The question is addressed to Macron:

“And if you are not re-elected?”

“I’ll open up a consultancy firm. There’s a lot of crazy money to be made out of incompetent governments”

FEEL SORRY FOR RISHI SUNAK

We must all feel sorry for Rishi Sunak and his partner Akshata Murthy. I believe they claim to be married. Ms Murthy comes from a very wealthy Indian family and has a small shareholding in her father’s company which provides her with dividend income of, according to some sources, £11,500,000 per annum.  This is a reasonably substantial yearly income.  

 

 

 

She is registered in the UK as a non-domiciled person for tax purposes, which allows her to only pay tax on her Indian Income in India. and exempts her from paying tax in the UK, even though she lives in a government provided accommodation with her husband in the UK.

 

If she brings money from abroad into the UK then she pays the appropriate tax on that income. In order to maintain non-domiciled status, given the level of her income, she pays around £30,000 per annum flat fee for the privilege, and confirms that at some point it is her intention to return to her domicile of India. In other words she has no intention of making the UK her permanent home.

 

If she pays tax on that dividend income in India she’d be left with approximately £9.2 million. If she paid UK tax on the remaining dividend income, she’d be left with approximately £5.6 million, which mean that she would have paid just under £6 million in tax on that £11.5million. That is quite a lot of money, but with a remaining income of over £5 and a half million a year, I believe she can get by, particularly as he pays no rent. I’m not sure if she even has to pay council tax.

 

Of course I can see the advantage of paying £30,000 per annum plus a few additional amounts on the money she brings into the UK from abroad, but she will certainly be keeping a large part of the £9.2 million or so she has left after Indian taxes, assuming she actually pays a full 20% tax on dividend income in India.

 

Since she does not actually toil for the dividend income, so far as I know, it seems fairly easy income to receive. In which case, I would think, the actual amount of the dividend does not have an emotional attachment, or connection with earnings related to actual work performed. So the amount itself can hardly matter, considering its size. Therefore whether it be £9 million per annum or £5 million per annum, cannot really mean that much to her, and she would have the added bonus of realising that she was making a substantial contribution to her domicile as well as her husband’s domicile, where she chooses to actually reside. After 10 years she might even have saved enough out of £50 million to retire to a nice bungalow near the seaside.

 

I wonder though, if it is in fact her stated intention to return to India at some point, does that mean that Rishi is of the same mind? Should we not be told if the Chancellor of the Exchequer actually intends to remain in the UK, or is this just a hobby temp job before returning home. If she really has no intention of returning to India, then clearly the non-domicile status is a sham and she should be ashamed. 

 

We are talking about a yearly income of a substantial amount of money, which if properly taxed, could alleviate the additional tax burden on a number of families whose net income in a lifetime would not amount to what she could pay in taxes for one year, without feeling a pinch. She will never have to go near a food bank, she will never even have to save as the money rolls in year on year.

 

I suppose the company could go bust, but if she hasn’t salted away a substantial contingency fund by now, why is he Chancellor of the Exchequer. Also one wonders how she and Rishi spend £10 million a year. That’s over £27,000 a day. If they had five servants – cook, cleaner, chauffeur, secretary, personal maid - at a salary of £100,000 per annum each, that would still leave them with £25,000 a day for expenses.

 

The point is, allowing her to have this sham tax status of non-domicile, is an insult to the ordinary British taxpayer, and the height of hypocrisy for Rishi Sunak to complain about comments over his and his wife’s taxes. Or perhaps they are not married at all and lead completely separate lives, in which case we should all feel sorry for poor Rishi Sunak.

 

Of course I may be wildly out of line with the figures, in which case I will feel wildly sorry for Rishi Sunak.

WHAT HAPPENED TO 'NEVER AGAIN'

Why, in a world with an instructive history of countless horrific destructive conflicts, on a planet so full of riches, with serious higher educational institutions of every description established across the globe, are countries still incapable of resolving argument without recourse to violence, thus continuing the seemingly never ending slaughter and devastation?

 

One would have thought that the human and economic consequences of such actions would, by now, have become so significant, in the human brain, as to dissuade any individual from grievous quarrel; yet, it appears, it is of no matter. Despite the fact, that there is not a country or nation in the world that has not benefited from some form of cooperative social interaction, there are still those who resort to violence.

 

The concepts of strong leadership and self-defence seem to run in conflict with strength of mind and common purpose. What is it in the human psyche that prompts otherwise normal average citizens to vote for and/or support political leadership that leans towards dictatorship, gangsterism and narcissism of the worst kind?  There are of course varying degrees, but in all its variations it amounts to the same in the end. The symptoms are often missed in the strong leader who veers towards dictatorship and so we get the likes of Vladimir Putin, Robert Mugabe, Viktor Orbán and the like. Or we have the alleged strong leader who turns out to be a clown or dangerous buffoon, as in Boris Johnson and Donald Trump. What they all have in common is the willingness to tell lies and the temerity to impress the lies as truth to their gullible supporters, whether civilian, political or military.

 

Why, in the face of what has been going on, on their own doorstep, have so many Hungarian citizens chosen Vitor Orbán as their president? What has happened to that Hungarian dissident resistance against the Soviets of 1956, that leads them back to supporting greater ties with the current Russian Dictator Oligarch Putin? Have they no sense of their own history? Have they forgotten what happened in 1968 to their neighbours, in what was then Czechoslovakia, when Alexander Dubček reforms were overrun by the intervention of Soviet backed Warsaw Pact forces?   Ther is no history of great success with Russian leadership, of any kind, as ally.

 

One also has to question the current soviet citizenry, now living in an Orwellian fantasy which has become their real world.  In a century that is able to transmit actual information through extraordinary multimedia networks, how is it the majority of the Russian people are subdued by Putin’s Thought Police and Ministry of Truth?  How has he been allowed to create this fiction into reality? There are over 146 million souls in Russia. There are some 309 Universities in Russia and well over 8 million students. Surely some of them have read the book?

 

What is going on is an atrocity to the human race. It is not for the first time. I do not have solutions, save that the solution resides within the minds of any individual who has access to Vladimir Putin and his entourage. He deliberately started this conflict and he can just as simply end it. He seems to revel in what is going on. His country apparently sees him as defending the Russian State. Exactly what he is defending the state from is problematic and therefore hard to understand. A variety of conspiracies against the Russian State are available and the proximity of NATO armaments are compared to missiles in Cuba in 1962. This is one of the problematic conspiracies. Reaction to the Cuban Missile Crisis was instantaneous.  There have been armaments of all sorts adjacent to the Soviet Union and Russia for over half a century, and so far as the current Russian state is concerned, for at least 30 years and on the doorstep for 18 years. No direct threat has been made in that entire time to the Russian State. It is unclear as to what his objective is. Putin believes his pronouncements and intentions have been made clear, yet so many people are still asking why. Indeed I believe that several of his very entourage are asking themselves that same question, but are too cowed to actually ask.

 

It seems to me that Mr Putin is suffering from the ingestion of too many steroids and his current hysterical and psychotic behaviour is as a result of that medication. His puffy facial features are indicative of that diagnosis. Changes of mood and behaviour and mental health problems can result. Is it safe to assume this prognosis?

The Ukrainian lawyer and politician Lesia Vasylenko, currently serving as People’s Deputy of Ukraine in the 9^th Ukrainian Verkhovna Rada (Ukraine’s unicameral parliament), has very clear views on the current situation in middle Europe. One should at least try to listen to what she has to say. She is very clear in her views. The United Nations should stand up. All those Nations who signed up to the United Nations Charter have a duty to do so. It is difficult to find fault with her argument.

I come back to elections and the current trend to put in office an individual whose politics are not about change or movement to improve the condition of the citizen, but are solely about reversing progress, of returning to a status quo, a time when people understood the order of things, the order provided by the state. 

So stamping out crime, means repression, additional police powers and increased detention of offenders to prevent what is termed anti-social behaviour including any form of demonstration objecting to that very repression. It means closing off borders to prevent any additional burden on the state and satisfying the anti-immigrant and racist elements in the population. “We have enough foreigners to be getting on with, we don’t need more, well maybe some to help clean up the mess”. The politics of the right is about reducing the responsibilities of government and just letting the “market” dictate the agenda, after all freedom is all about letting people do whatever they like, getting on with it without interference and things will sort themselves out. That’s what charities and philanthropic organisations are for, people are always generous. The individual has the freedom to be whatever they want to be, through their own effort. All they have to do is work hard and they can achieve anything. The government is only to provide the framework, however flimsy that might be.

 

So certain leaders put themselves forward on the agenda that they will provide the citizen with the ability to take full advantage of freedom to do what they like, by removing any and all obstacles in their way. “I will lock up those people who annoy you, I will prevent any further influx on the employment market, I will remove any legislation that causes you difficulties to trade, I will make government spending more efficient and reduce your taxes so you can be expand your business, I will make you richer and that will benefit us all, I will let you live your life, I will let you take back control and I will become invisible”.  That will be the object of their public service.

 

In reality they will use their power to make the citizen believe that they are doing just what they claim. They will maintain power by implementing the appropriate legislation to enable them to do so. No need for people to demonstrate, we’ve got it under control. No need for people to worry on the streets, we’ve got it under control. No need for people to bother about immigrants, we’ve got it under control. No need for people to worry about anything, we’ve got it under control. And so on.. They will create a state apparatus that renders them invisible behind the scenes with total control.

 

That is what dictatorships do. They have secret police. They have larger prisons and detention centres. They have specialist squads for law enforcement. It happened in Russia some time ago and continues to this day. It is beginning to happen in Hungary. Victor Orbán has legislated himself into almost permanent power, and the Hungarians seem to love it. Donald Trump has tried to do it in the United States and part of his rhetoric has caused some States in the Union to affect voting rights and procedures to enable him or his likeness to succeed. Why is it 70 million Americans feel they have to return to the good old days of the wild west. That is conservative America, grab a gun and stay out of my way.

 

Boris Johnson’s cabinet is attempting to do that in the United Kingdom., gratefully without the gun. One only has to look at the current shambles of Priti Patel’s nationality and borders bill which she has attempted to push through Parliament, and which has been “ripped apart for a second time by the House of Lords” (The Guardian). One can only be thankful that the Government is so inept, and led by an idiot, that they are having difficulties in succeeding in their agenda; but there appears to be no stopping them, they will continue to push and may yet succeed. There is other still worrying legislation on the books, and it is all intended to repress.

 

The French elections are this month. Will Marine Le Pen succeed? There is a clamour for a return to order in France, although, with the French, it is difficult to know just what state of order they would prefer. The longest Republic, the Third lasted 76 years or 71 if one discounts the 2^nd World War Occupation and Vichy. We are now in the 64^th year of the Fifth Republic and perhaps a return to the Gaullist reformation of 1958, is what they are after.

 

Personally I would prefer the Fourth Republic, what with its ever changing Governments, and a seemingly endless refrain of “Le cabinet est tombé!” (Some people tended to look out into their back yard to see if the loo was still standing). I was at school then and it was an idyllic time to be growing up in France. There was something about the early fifties in France that still resonates.

 

There is much happening around the world that causes disquiet, but the ease with which the politics of the right seems to flourish gives greater cause for concern. It is all very well for the western European states to bemoan and partially assist the Ukrainian Government with supplies and weapons to defend itself against outside aggressive dictatorship, all the while there are blossoming rightest political movements within their own borders. Why must real democracy be continually under threat? Why must would be Napoleons, Stalins, Trumps, Mussolinis, Francos, Pol Pots, Sese Sekos, al-Assads, Putins, etc, constantly have to be addressed with the force of arms? Why do so many feel the need to be controlled and kept in order? Why do so many people vote for what is manifestly a short sighted, repressive and dangerous political policy, the outcome of which invariably leads to survivors crying out “Never again”?