IT'S ONLY TWO BILLION POUNDS

A couple of items were pointed out to me by Ernie Eban. The first is from the Register of MP’s financial interests:

The Register of Members' Financial Interests: Part 1
As at 28th March 2011

KWARTENG, Kwasi (Spelthorne)…

2. Remunerated employment, office, profession etc

Author. Address of publisher: Bloomsbury Publishing plc, 36 Soho Square, London W1D 3Q7.

Consultant to Odey Asset Management, 12 Upper Grosvenor Street, London W1K 2 N D; giving political advice to asset managers in relation to international and domestic affairs. I shall be paid £10,000 on a half-yearly basis. 

 

The second is an article from Reuters:

 

            Odey's hedge fund soars 145% on bets against UK bonds - 

            By Nell Mackenzie

LONDON, Sept 22 (Reuters) - Crispin Odey, one of Britain's best-known hedge fund managers, has made a killing this year by wagering against British government bonds, with his firm's main fund up 145% in 2022 after shorting long-dated UK debt, sources said on Thursday.

Betting against the price of, or shorting, government bonds has been one of the trades of the year as soaring inflation forces central banks to hike interest rates more aggressively than was predicted even a few months ago, and investors dump bonds...

 

The entry on the Register quoted is eleven years old, and I do not know if and when Mr Kwarteng ceased his association with Odey Asset Management, but he was clearly benefitting form the company by £20,000 per annum, and may well have had investments with the company, which he might still maintain to this day.  If that is the case, what share of the 145% increase in funds does he have? One could legitimately ask the question, was he profiting largely from his own proposed fiscal event?  It would seem that what he outlined in the House was not a mini-budget, but a fiscal event, prior to any actual budget he may propose in November; but, perhaps that too will be classified as a fiscal event. 

 

Whatever the circumstances, either Mr Odey was made fully aware of the terms of the event and consequently made his move on government bonds, or, knowing the ‘value’ of his former consultant’s advice and (in)competence in financial matters, took the gamble which was clearly an odds on favourite. 

 

I am not suggesting that any corrupt practice is involved, or any conspiracy between Mr Odey and Mr Kwarteng to obtain pecuniary advantage, but the association between them does make one pause. I leave it with the reader to ponder.

 

I have also been looking at some of the 'benefits' of the fiscal event. The current budget absolves first time buyers from Stamp Duty on properties costing up to £425,000.00. Where are the young people who can afford these properties? One would need a deposit of £42,500.oo, a loan of £382,500.oo, and, in order to qualify for a mortgage of that amount, one's salary would have to be in the region of £127,500.oo per annum, or £2,451.92 per week,which is nearly 4 times the alleged average wage. That would put that person in the upper 5% of earners in the UK. So the benefits for young, already well off people, are great; except, for the most part, those potential first time buyers in that bracket are almost nonexistent. The other 95% cannot afford to buy property at all and are barely able to scrape together any rent for housing, as well as being wholly or partially dependent of Universal Credit. There is clearly a grand canyon between the supposed average earner and that 5% who can affod to live that much better life.

The highest mortgage the average earner would qualify for would be between £90,000 and £100,000. With the average price of housing in the UK being around £285,496.00 that first time buyer would still have to find an additional £185,000 plus, in order to make the purchase. The average savings in the UK being £6,757.oo, where do they find the additional £180k ?

There is a line from the film Jerry Maquire:

Rey (Dorothy's son) What's wrong mom? - Dorothy: First class is what's wrong. It used to be a better meal, now it's a better life.

 

This current conservative government is not about catering to the 95%. It values only the 5%, some of whom, even with an income of £50k per annum, claim they find it difficult to sustain that better life, but still manage to do so. I am also astonished to hear people question the value of keeping the 45% higher rate tax for those whose income exceeds £150,000. Sarah Montague, on the World at One, asked a labour politician about reinstating the 45% stating "That's only 2 billion pounds, what else are you going to do?" as if to infer "what difference will it make?". Only 2 billion pounds? I suppose for someone on over £245,000 per annum, using phrases like "only 2 billion pounds" is not surprising considering she benefits by some £4,750 per annum from Mr Kwarteng's fiscal event. It convers the utility bill. She is in the top 1% as are a great many BBC presenters:

Gary Lineker, Zoe Ball, Steve Wright, Huw Edwards, Fiona Bruce, Stephen Nolan, Lauren Laverne, Vanessa Feltz, Alan Shearer, Scott Mills, Ken Bruce, Andrew Marr, Emily Maitlis, George Alagiah, Greg James, Jeremy Vine, Nicky Campbell, Dan Walker, Sophie Raworth, Mishal Husain, Jo Whiley, Sara Cox, Nick Robinson, Evan Davis, Jason Mohammad, Laura Kuenssberg, Naga Munchetty, Justin Webb, Mark Chapman, Sarah Montague, Nick Grimshaw, Emma Barnett, Amol Rajan, Jon Sopel, Trevor Nelson, Tina Daheley, Jeremy Bowen, Katya Adler, Mary Berry, Kirsty Wark, Clive Myrie, Fergal Keane, Faisal Islam, Rachel Burden, Louis Theroux, Jermaine Jenas, Mark Easton, Simon Jack, Charlie Stayt, Louise Minchin, Sarah Smith, Jonathan Agnew. Reeta Chakrabarti, Michael Vaughan, Ben Brown, Victoria Derbyshire, Annie Mac, James Naughtie, Clara Amfo, Gabby Logan, Orla Guerin, Shaun Keaveny, Simon McCoy, Joanna Gosling, Steve Lamacq, Graham Norton, Nihal Arthanayake, Isa Guha, Mary-Anne Hobbs, Carolyn Quinn, Winifred Robinson.

All of the above earn over £150k per annum, and some much much more. The first fifteen names earn from £300k plus. (The top two, over one million each). Those people will be benefiting by over £1,000,000 between them. So bear this in mind when they are interviewing pensioners, people relying on state benefit, and ordinary members of the public, presenting their stories with great sympathy. They may very well feel sympathy and compassion with the plight of the 95% but they are well shielded from their situation, and sometimes come out with questions like “That’s only 2 billion pounds, what else are you going to do?”

The amount they will receive from the tax cuts could provide the salary for 50 junior nurses starting work in the NHS, or 25 paramedics on ambulances.  I know that’s only one million pounds, what difference will that make?  Indeed, the 2 billion pounds, so cavalierly mentioned, could provide salaries for over 13,000 medical staff on £150,000 per annum, or 25,000 staff on £80,000 a year, bringing them all into the 5%. Think how many more on actual current NHS salaries. So do not speak slightingly of 2 billion pounds.

Clearly some perspective is needed. The cost of living is more than a crisis about bills. It’s about a better life, safer, more productive and healthier, both physically and mentally. It seems, at present, to be unobtainable for all but a few.  This conservative government is about keeping it for the few and those who support them. If they can gaslight some of the 95% to add their support, then they will remain in power to do as they please. They are not bothered about being unpopular, they are popular enough under the present electoral system to carry on regardless. This is a government that has usurped the right to govern through deceit and lies, hiding behind a cloak of patriotism and claiming the honour to be selected to serve.  Their claims are meritless. They do not serve, they take. They hide from and obfuscate any attempt to question their competence and character. Their chief culprit, now waiting in the fields like Cincinnatus behind his plough, eagerly anticipating his recall, still hovers over them, a mendacious menacing cloud on the horizon.

Virtually the whole of the financial world has reacted with disbelief at the declared mini budget by Truss and Kwarteng. The warning signs had been well posted prior to the event, but they went ahead regardless, and still they are not deterred and intend to carry on. The devalued currency has dramatically increased inflation by causing higher costs on imported goods and services, with commensurate higher interest payments on debts.  Result, right? As to their competence, one can only guess that if it were raining soup outside they’d go out with a fork.

I know very little, probably nothing, about economics and related sciences, but it is clear that the mindset of Ms Truss and Mr Kwarteng about such matters, is seriously flawed. Perhaps the events engendered by their fiscal event may teach them an appropriate lesson, perhaps not. In any case I hope the continuing pressure on them to change tack or do something useful, like resigning and calling for an immediate general election, will have some effect.

INEVITABLE OR NECESSITY

I sit and watch the service in Westminster Abbey.  It is the usual sequence of hymn followed by reading followed by hymn followed by sermon, followed by hymn etc. the only difference being the collection of attendees. There are two thousand odd people including a collection of the world’s leading politicians and people who knew or were honoured by the Queen herself. Whilst looking at Charles, William and George, I cannot but wonder whether they are representative of the question of “being at one’s own funeral”. All three of them are having a preview of what is in store for them at the end of their respective reigns, assuming there is still a monarchy in place. Indeed, looking at the picture below, one does wonder, doesn’t one, what the young prince is thinking, looking up at the heavens.

 

But the mourning is done and reality must resurface. There was disturbing news from Sweden and there is equally disturbing news from Italy. Sweden Democrat leader Jimmie Åkesson vowed at the party’s election night celebration to “Make Sweden Great Again.” A direct reference to the narcissistic psychopath Donald Trump. Giorgia Meloni of the Brothers of Italy Party, is equally on the rise. Their collective mantra appears to be about tax cuts and taking a hard line on immigration. Does that seem familiar?

 

The rapidity with which Liz Truss moved from Labour to Liberal Democratic through support of the European Union ("I don't want my daughters to grow up in a world where they need a visa or permit to work in Europe, or where they are hampered from growing a business because of extortionate call costs and barriers to trade. Every parent wants their children to grow up in a healthy environment with clean water, fresh air and thriving natural wonders. Being part of the EU helps protect these precious resources and spaces." Liz Truss pre June 2016) to the right wing of the Conservative Party and her current position on tax cuts, anti-Europe, ‘ship them off to Rwanda’, bring back fracking and drilling for North Sea oil and gas, is quite remarkable. 

 

In 2016 she was 41 years old, what road to Damascus was she on after the 24^th June 2016? The very fact that she has risen through the ranks of the Conservative Party to become its leader in so short a time, is indicative of an underlying xenophobia that appears to be spreading throughout the world. 

 

It began imperceptibly some time ago and became even more pronounced during the pandemic which created the landscape for it to thrive just as much as the virus. The changing pattern of employment, particularly in the western world, because of globalisation and technological advances, meant more could be produced with fewer people; however, the numbers of people were rising, as was their need for housing and all the services that went with that rise in demand. The influx of migrants, asylum seekers and displaced persons also increased. Local populations were to some extent disturbed by this and consequently, the domestic difficulties they faced were somehow attributed, not to the failures of their governments, but to the new arrivals, those tired, poor, and huddled masses yearning to breathe free. “But they’re breathing our air and sucking the life out of me” would seem to be the response.

 

The anti-immigration outcry became very popular. The separatists called for a move away from Europe and the end of free movement. It was a call to arms to ‘take back control’.  The pandemic was for them, a godsend. It resolved all disputes; the borders were closed and we were advised to isolate indoors. That isolationism has not been reversed with the improvements on movement and association through the vaccine, and there is a loud anti-vaccination lobby as well. It is coming out of the effects of the pandemic that has led to the proposed Rwanda solution as the dispossessed have not ceased to come. 

 

As to employment, prior to the pandemic, with increased technological activity and improvements, there was already a move towards shorter hours, job sharing, working from home and more variable time off work. With the introduction of personal isolation the working from home agenda, already partially in place, became necessity. Coming out on the other side of covid, it has become the norm, and for businesses and enterprises calling the workers back to the office is now a matter of negotiation. Offers of employment in some professions and industries must now contain an element of working from home. 

 

On top of this, where the on line/mail order market, from all sorts of stores, on eBay and amazon was a mere trickle, with isolation it has become a deluge. The major increase in delivery traffic from supermarkets for food, amazon, Argos and countless businesses for goods, has changed the face of the high street, if not obliterated it, altogether. Consequently an entire job sector previously employed in sales and interactions with customers has been dramatically reduced in size. 

 

Communications have equally become automated and largely dissociated from people. In a recent call to the department of work and pensions I was not able to speak to an individual. I was lead through a sequence of button numbers only to be told at the end of the quest to check with the website on line and then being cut off. What about people who are not able to gain access to the website? Is every single individual on the planet able to afford a smartphone, desktop computer or laptop? 

 

Enforced isolationism, it would seem, was becoming inevitable. Those unable to procure what may seem mundane essentials like housing, skilled employment and smartphones are cut off from all governmental institutions which are supposedly put in place to help them. Anyone unable to make use of or obtain the required gadgets is in effect, cut off and isolated. As a consequence they are open to any kind of theory that is claimed to offer them help. This makes them vulnerable to exploitation by charlatans of all sorts, dishonest politicians and fraudsters of every hue.   Indeed the increased exploitation of every citizen, through fraud over the internet and over the phone, whether mobile or land line, has increased to an alarming extent. 

 

So it has become with ultra nationalist and populist views over Instagram, Facebook and just about every television network one can imagine. The propaganda machine is flourishing and despite the comments of some, decrying dishonesty and lack of integrity, or denying endemic racism and professing freedom of speech, protest and assembly, the far right seems to be gaining ground wherever one looks.

 

There is some hope that this trend can be reversed, but I fear that the ravages of educated civilised society, by the Liz Trusses of the world, will have to carry on a bit longer for the general population to realise the cruel harm that is being done to them under the slogan of taking back control of economic prosperity and giving economic growth to a select few. 

 

This ongoing depredation is evidenced by the arrest of protestors against monarchy during the last ten days of adulation of Queen Elizabeth II. The arrests, although accepted as proper, has caused only disquiet among some politicians, who ought to know better. It should cause outrage that our civil liberties are being assaulted and made criminal under the guise of maintaining order.  Again I quote from a former late 18^th century, early 19^th century Tory British Prime Minster, William Pitt the Younger:

 

"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.” 

 

This comment should be emblazoned on the door of number 10 Downing Street. If nothing of what I have written makes any cohesive sense, just put it down to four score years of topic drift.

ANOTHER POINT OF VIEW

I recently sent an article from the Guardian Opinion page by Robert Reich to various friends who might find it of interest. It is headed ‘History will judge Republicans who stray silent about the big lie’. The Guardian describes him as:

Robert Reich, a former US secretary of labour, is professor of public policy at the University of California, Berkeley and the author of Saving Capitalism: For the Many, Not the Few and The Common Good. His new book, The System: Who Rigged It, How We Fix It, is out now. He is a Guardian US columnist. His newsletter is at robertreich.substack.com.

 

The Guardian piece is at:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/sep/11/trump-big-lie-republicans-democracy-election

 

There are a number of persons he mentions who are running for office in the 2022 midterm elections. I have no knowledge of these people, but on looking up their names on Wikipedia there is a common thread of hypocrisy running through the each and every one of them. I single out, in particular, Mehmet Oz, running for the U.S. Senate in Pennsylvania. He is another Lindsay Graham and Ted Cruz. He has adopted differing positions prior to his aligning himself with Mr Trump. From Moderate Republican to conservative Republican. Once inspired by Arnold Schwarzenegger and Theodore Roosevelt, he is now fully committed to the Trump narcissistic world view. He is clearly a man without any moral code whatsoever.

 

All the others seem to be much in the same place as Mr Oz. The power for the sake of power, with no heed to any concept of human rights. This is indicated with some clarity by Mr Oz’s comment about the right to health care. He claims citizens "don't have a right to health, but they have a right to access, to get that health." Gosh, we only have a right to visit or call a doctor? Who knew?

 

Both the Declaration of Independence and the preamble to the constitution indicate otherwise;

 

We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of happiness

 

Preamble
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquillity, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

 

Right to life and general welfare in my view indicates the right to health care. In addition, the World Health Organisation and the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human rights, in their publication on The Right to Health states:

 

The right to health is a fundamental part of our human rights and of our understanding of a life in dignity. The right to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health, to give it its full name, is not new. Internationally, it was first articulated in the 1946 Constitution of the World Health Organization (WHO)

 

The 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights also mentioned health as part of the right to an adequate standard of living (art. 25). The right to health was again recognized as a human right in the 1966 International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.

 

I believe the government of the United States is signed up to the United Nations Charter. In any event, he is not only wrong, but alarmingly misinformed, as well as being in breach of human and civil rights legislation. So how this man claims to be eligible to run for a seat in the Senate of the United States of America is beyond me, and should be beyond the voters in the State of Pennsylvania. There are many other issues in relation to this man and the others named by Mr Reich.

 

The 2022 midterm elections in the United States are a great import, not only to the United States, but to the entire world. What with the growing political right wing in Hungary, Poland and now Sweden, possibly Denmark and the United Kingdom, there is a desperate need for the United States to show that the finer principles of freedom and good governance of the people, by the people and for the people as set out by the founding fathers in the Constitution of the United States, is well and truly preserved and protected. This is especially so in the face of Trumpian Republican opposition.

 

There is in the United Kingdom, right now, great change taking place. The Head of State, for so long an office of Government hovering above the political fray, and standing for civility, unimpeachable integrity, decency and common sense (albeit sometimes antiquated and conservative) has changed hands. At virtually the very same moment, the first minister of government has been replaced. A number of things are changing rather dramatically.

 

The new head of state has been ‘in waiting’ for some considerable time. Although it would seem from his background and upbringing, that he would favour a Conservative parliament, he has over time exhibited a close association with what was once considered a non-political issue; protection of wildlife and of the environment. He has long been a supporter of organic farming, methods of conservation and preserving the planet. He has also had a close eye on architecture and design as they affect the well-being of the populace in the cities and the countryside. He has also run charities to assist and aid young people into better lives.

 

All these endeavours have very much come to the fore of political thinking, what with the rise of extinction rebellion and the likes of youthful activists such as Greta Thunberg. As a consequence of this impact on the political stage, the now new head of state has had to relinquish any thought of what could be viewed as interfering political comment.  He gives an oath to continue in the same fashion as his mother to preserve the continuity of the state.

 

It is surprisingly evident, from the reaction of heads of governments across the world, that they placed great value in the presence and conduct of the late Queen of Great Britain and Norther Ireland. The professed admiration coming from governments of great divergence is indeed an indication that the United Kingdom has a place in world affairs. It would now appear that is mainly down to her. I confess I am surprised. For a Frenchman like Macron to say “For you, she is your Queen, for us she is THE Queen.”  That is quite an accolade.

 

Coming back to King Charles III, how, after so much effort put into his projects, can he let go and take a back seat in the hope that others will carry on the work, particularly as he now has an even greater platform from which to speak his mind. In addition, given the current deep divisions that are emerging in Britain, the serious threat to democratic freedoms from the current Conservative Government’s prospective legislation, the even deeper divisions caused by Brexit and the possibility of serious pubic unrest, he may well have to take a more vocal position. On top of all that, there is the immediate problem of the current Prime Minister’s wish to scrap the green levy on energy and allow fracking to continue, both issues that will push back any commitment towards cleaning up the environment, so dear to the King’s heart. How can he stay silent?

 

The United Kingdom is once again in limbo. After the lying in state, the funeral and public mourning is over, where shall we be? A fractious parliament, with a singularly lacking in vision prime minister and a frustrated and silent head of state, is about all we have to look forward to. I am sure there is a better way ahead. It could possibly be resolved with a serious general election. Let us have all the ideas and projects discussed in full in front of the electorate, with as much truth telling as possible in the circumstances, and let the electorate decide. This is, after all, meant to be a democracy. Let the King then live his remaining time in peace and keep up the good work his mother seemingly so impressed the world with.

GENERAL ELECTION NOW

I have come to realize that I must look more closely at the present situation and reappraise my view of the current local conservative party membership.

On entering the 81^st year of my life I have had a received view, or rather, a stereotypical profile of the average member. A touch racist, xenophobic, upper middle to old aged, comfortably situated economically having had a reasonable and decent employment, with a few savings and large equity in property. A firm believer in the market economy. Well-mannered and therefore, when speaking to those not like them, polite, seemingly tolerant, attempting to hide their prejudice. In effect a perfect embodiment of strategic condescension,

These were some of the people I first encountered when arriving in the UK. It was an example of good breeding. There were the lower classes, the lower middle class, the middle class and the upper middle class, and the upper classes. It was very apparent that this was a very class conscious society. They reflected my perceived and received view of Noel Coward’s happy breed.

Just as most of Europe (indeed the world) had been subjected to the American way of life by Hollywood, so had I been influenced by the Ealing comedies such as  Hue and Cry (1947) Kind Hearts and Coronets (1949), Whisky Galore! (1949), The Lavender Hill Mob (1951), The Man in the White Suit (1951) and The Ladykillers (1955). There was also The Third Man (1949), I’m All Right Jack (1959) and Room at the Top (1959). In addition, in there were war films, Odette, The Wooden Horse, The Desert Fox, Angels One Five, Gift Horse, Malta Story, The Cruel Sea, Desert Rats, The Dam Busters, Colditz Story, Bridge on the River Kwai. Just before arriving in the UK, I watched the new 60s down to earth cinema of Saturday Night and Sunday Morning, Loneliness of the Long Distance Runner, Billy Liar, A Kind of Loving, This Sporting Life, as well as The League of Gentlemen, School for Scoundrels, Make Mine Mink, The Trials of Oscar Wilde, Tunes of Glory, Tom Jones and of course Lawrence of Arabia. There are many more films of note reflecting what one accepted as British society.

As you can see I was steeped in Britishness including, a period as a youngster in France during the 1950s listening to the BBC Home Service and The Goon Show, Hancock’s Half Hour, Journey into Space, Dick Barton, Life with the Lyons etc.

So when I arrived in London in 1965, having turned 23, I had formed a kind of cinematic and radio view of what I referred to as ‘England’, until corrected by a Scotsman to use the term ‘Britain’ or ‘British’, although I was once asked by a prospective landlady “You’re not English, are you?”.  The various identities of the local citizens were clearly of some importance.

I was at the time, politically leaning to the left. I was a long haired hippy. I went to the UFO club in Tottenham Court Road, saw Pink Floyd, Procol Harum and the Soft Machine, and when UFO moved to the Round House, Arthur Brown. I wore a wardrobe from I Was Lord Kitchener’s Valet, Take Six and Way In at Harrods. I still have a velvet jacket from Way In which only Celia can wear, although it has at times been loaned out to the nephews to make them look a bit tidier. 

I mention these facts as I was not the only one prowling round Swinging London in the latter half of the sixties, ’65 –’70.  

A lot of political activity was taking place and most of the people I encountered were leaning to the left. The anti-war demonstrations were many, and this in turn led to a number of radical movements which took actions into the early 70’s, such the Black Power movement of Michael de Freitas, known as Michael X, who was self-appointed leader of a Black Power commune on Holloway Road, North London, called the "Black House". John Lennon and Yoko Ono donated a bag of their hair to be auctioned for the benefit of the Black House. There was also the Angry Brigade whose trial in the 1972, from 30^th May to 6^th December, was one of the longest criminal trials in English History.

At the time, from my perspective, there was a very large group of people who seemed to be leaning to the left. I was of the firm belief at the time, that most young people felt as I did. We were sticking it to the man. It was also at that time that my perceived view of supporters of the conservative party was entrenched. What I now have to bear in mind is that those local conservative party members I envisioned in the 60s and 70’s have now gone to meet their maker. The current lot of local conservative party members are of the same age as myself, if not younger. So how the hell did the young people that I mixed with, and thought I knew, evolve into clones from the past. My perception is clearly very askew and off course.

Liz Truss could be my daughter. Indeed her father is five years younger than I am. He was, in the 60s and 70s, part of the very group of young people that I would have encountered and mixed with. How is it that his daughter has turned into this leaning to the far right worrying conservative politician? How is it that there are so many who appear to agree with her and support her? How is it that I think of them as the same conservative types I observed in the 60s and 70s?

Since 1924 (when Ramsay MacDonald became the first Labour Prime Minister) there have been only six labour prime ministers, MacDonald, Attlee, Wilson, Callaghan, Blair and Brown. They were in office for a total of 34 years and 333 days, out of the last 98 years. There have been 13 Conservative Prime Ministers in power for 63 years and 32 days, give or take a few days. The Conservatives have ruled the United Kingdom for approximately two thirds of the last century.  

In the last 57 years, since I have been in the UK, the Labour Party has been in power for 20 years 288 days, and the Conservative Party for 36 years and 77 days, included the last 12 years.

It should therefore come as no surprise that the majority of the citizens of this country have favoured the conservative party, which is why I am doubly surprised by the membership numbers. The Conservative Party has some 172,437 members, the Liberal Democrats some 73,544, Plaid Cymru claims some 10,000 members, the Scottish Nationals 103,884 and the Labour Party some 415,000 members. It is by far the Party with the largest membership. So why cannot a party with such a membership be more successful and enduring?

I suppose one could say Blair and Brown had their shot at it for 13 years and now the Tories have had their 12. On the whole, however, it seems historically, in the last century, the British public have favoured the Conservative programme. Given the present agenda, it seems equally clear that the current administration is on the way out. At least according to various polls. That may not be for another two years, by which time untold damage will be caused to the country.

It seems that after 57 years I am no better at understanding the British character that I was after soaking up all that cinematic and radio culture ladled into me between 1945 and 1965. Jack Hawkins, Alec Guinness, Michael Redgrave, Alastair Sim. Ian Carmichael, Terry-Thomas, Peter Sellers, Spike Milligan, Albert Finney, Rachel Roberts, Billie Whitelaw, Dora Bryan, Joan Greenwood, Edith Evans, Margaret Rutherford, Dorothy Tutin, Richard Wattis, Miles Malleson, Dennis Price, Cecil Parker, Vida Hope, Howard Marion-Crawford, Colin Gordon, Jill Adams, Hattie Jacques, Hugh Griffiths, Peter Bull, Wilfred Hyde-White, Richard Harris and many others who gave shape, sight and sound to a Great Britain I was to eventually inhabit for probably the rest of my life. My nostalgia takes me back to a period of time when I didn’t live in the UK except in fantasy. My first encounter would have been the magic of Celia Johnson’s voice over in Brief Encounter, agonising over Trevor Howard, with Stanley Holloway and Joyce Carey in the background, overlayed with Rachmaninoff’s piano concerto, one of the first films I ever saw at the Parkway Theatre in Mount Vernon New York, is difficult to forget. I was very young at the time, but my aunt was a sucker for romantic drama.

The drama however, that is being played out at the moment is very far from romantic. There is a tragedy of great moment being enacted over the citizens of the United Kingdom. The choices being made in favour of isolationism, repression and economic misfortune are more than somewhat unfortunate. To not understand the harm they are doing, and to try to use words like ‘labour’, ‘lefty lawyer’, ‘liberal’, ‘Corbyn’ as signs to promote fear and derision signifies a lack of vision or real attempt to bring the entire country together. Their sole mantra is to bring the conservative party to unity, never mind the rest of the population. They are a minority party, with a small membership, relying on a public too apathetic and blind to see through the conservative party’s sole aim, to remain in power regardless, supportive of and supported by the wealthier 1%. That is their unity. Too bad about the rest of us. The sad thing is that there is that underlying conservatism lurking within the British public that holds it back and allows it to regress rather than move forward. The present government is a government looking backward towards that fantasy world I grew up with. Why is that, given the history of continually fighting for human rights, promoting the rule of law and the health and safety of each and every citizen? Why has that ambition disappeared?

Nothing of what the Conservative party is at present promoting is what this country is really about. Theirs is a patchwork agenda trying to cover up the cracks. There is no resolution in mind. It’s just stop the leaks before we drown.  There is continual talk of economic growth with no real solution as to what is necessary to make that happen other than an illusion of trickle down money. There is no plan or real progress for dealing with the problems of the NHS, general education or actual employment.  There is nothing there. It is an empty shell sounding like the sea. Whoosh. The opposition party membership is well over half a million strong. Surely their voices can be heard louder that the 172,000. Demand a general election now. We cannot wait another two years. A proper government with a plan is what is required.

TRUTH TO POWER - YET AGAIN

It is sometimes informative to look back. A short while ago I commented:  ' it is unfortunate that in order to preserve the liberties we have, one must at times side with what may be reprehensible; but, the reprehensible usually has a way of exposing itself in the long run. It is certainly better and healthier to defend the principles of freedom and justice for all individuals, than for the state to imprison, crush or kill the innocent.'

Oppressive, dehumanising or potentially illegal legislation of any kind, as has been proposed and contemplated by the current conservative government, is a grievous assault on the continued liberty and wellbeing of the citizens of the United Kingdom.

Today, on looking at the statistics relating to views of this blog, I noticed an item on Liberty-Defining the Obscene, a posting on the 21^st June 2012, ten years ago. In it, I noted the following:

 In the course of this ponder, I came across one William Lloyd Garrison who stated:

"He who opposes the public liberty overthrows his own." Garrison was a prominent American abolitionist, journalist, and social reformer. He is best known as the editor of the abolitionist newspaper The Liberator, and was one of the founders of the American Anti-Slavery Society, he promoted "immediate emancipation" of slaves in the United States. Garrison was also a prominent voice for the women’s suffrage movement. In the first issue of The Liberator, Garrison stated:

I am aware that many object to the severity of my language; but is there not cause for severity? I will be as harsh as truth, and as uncompromising as justice. On this subject, I do not wish to think, or to speak, or write, with moderation. No! No! Tell a man whose house is on fire to give a moderate alarm; tell him to moderately rescue his wife from the hands of the ravisher; tell the mother to gradually extricate her babe from the fire into which it has fallen; – but urge me not to use moderation in a cause like the present. I am in earnest – I will not equivocate – I will not excuse – I will not retreat a single inch – AND I WILL BE HEARD. The apathy of the people is enough to make every statue leap from its pedestal, and to hasten the resurrection of the dead.

 I will be as harsh as truth and as uncompromising as justice

The charade of a leadership election equating with an election of a Prime Minister of this country, by some 160000 supposed members of the Conservative Political Party, is an outrage against democracy. The fact that it continues and that the citizens acquiesce in this charade is beyond apathy. It is, in my view, akin to criminal negligence leading to the death of the democratic institutions which are the pillars of British democracy, so long in the making and so bitterly fought for since the 10^th century.

What is going on before our eyes and ears is so manifestly wrong that it beggars’ belief. What Mr Garrison says, “The apathy of the people is enough to make every statue leap from its pedestal, and to hasten the resurrection of the dead.” is as appropriate today as it was in the United States of the 1830’s -1860’s. “Who opposes the public liberty overthrows his own” should be emblazoned on every school portico across the country.

Only an immediate general election would be appropriate in the circumstances. Far too much is currently at stake in this country and around the world for there not to be a general election of parliamentarians who can at least show some degree of maturity and understanding of what is needed to provide for the health and safety, both personal and economic, of the nation.

Whether such an election would sweep away the members of the present government from their parliamentary constituencies, is not known; but, there is every chance that, although they might remain in parliament, they will no longer be in government.  Indeed, there may not be a sufficient majority by any single party to form a government, given the present situation, but at least a democratic coalition could be established, and given the spectrum of thinking amongst some members of the Labour Party and the Liberal Democratic Party, the current government’s legislative agenda will be discarded.

There is the saying “If voting changed anything, it would be abolished,” or “They’d make it illegal”, which is largely attributed to Emma Goldman (1869-1940) anarchist, political activist and writer, and Russian immigrant to the United States at the age of 16. She was quite an impressive individual and well worth a look at. Be that as it may, voting is indeed problematic as the outcome of elections is never quite what one expects, particularly in so called western democracies. There is no doubt a wide political spectrum to choose from. More often than not the centrists, leaning (depending on the prevailing mood of the electorate) to either left or right, tend to be elected as representative of the various constituencies. Certainly the parties are never really that far apart, save for a few volatile extremists, or orthodox party members, who on the whole are kept in check.

Sadly, in what now appears to have been a year of aberration, 2016, the electorate on both sides of the Atlantic Ocean, often referred to as ‘the pond’ made disastrous choices. On the western shore of that pond, an unscrupulous narcissist was elected President of the United States, and on the eastern end, a country that was doing quite well, decided by referendum, to separate itself from a difficult but profitable union. This lead to the eventual election of another unscrupulous narcissist, as party leader and prime minister. Both of these leaders were serial prevaricators with a mendacious spine running from head to toe. The problems left in their wake have been exacerbated by yet a third unscrupulous narcissist who has initiated violent conflict in middle Europe thereby creating world havoc, and an excuse for the first two to hide behind.

This unholy trinity of Putin, Trump and Johnson has plunged the planet into barely rectifiable chaos. Attempts to expose Trump's evil have seemingly floundered in the United States, despite an overwhelming body of evidence. He should have been impeached twice over during his term in office, and should, by now, have been brought to justice for his incitement to violence and his assault on the American Constitution and rule of law. He is a violent terrorist attempting to disguise himself in a cloak of super patriotism.  

As to Johnson, his total lack of integrity, irresponsibility and chicanery still has not penetrated into the brains of his local party members who continue to endorse him. No matter what they see and hear about his dishonest and disreputable character, they still regard him as someone who has been hard done by and who should have continued as prime minister. His acolyte Liz Truss, who also continues to support him, has clearly been chosen by them as their next leader and, consequently, our prime minister. So no, their voting in this leadership election changes nothing.

As to Mr Putin, it is clear that so far as Russia is concerned, voting has already effectively been abolished. The control of media and message in the former Soviet Union is unchanged. How long this is likely to continue is impossible to predict. Will the situation get worse and expand into all out world war, is equally difficult to predict. So far most heads of state round the world are able to keep things in check; however, some disturbing rhetoric from Liz Truss is particularly dangerous. She is apt to say stupid provocative things in the guise of trying to sound prime-ministerial and show strong leadership. She is neither of these things and should keep her mouth shut. How she will behave as the actual Prime Minister from Monday the 5^th September is anybody’s guess. Is there anyone to keep her in check?

Over the last six years this world has been put through a mangle and that unholy trinity with its adherents is still turning the handle. Unfortunately the only way to stop it in our democracies is at the ballot box. The United States must find a way to prevent the onslaught of Trump’s allies in the coming mid term elections. The likes of Lindsey Graham, Mitch McConnel, Kevin McCarthy, Lauren Boebert, Marjorie Taylor-Greene, Matt Gaetz, Ted Cruz, Josh Hawley, etc, must be defeated.  In the United Kingdom the wider electorate must push for an immediate general election as soon as possible. To allow the current Conservative Party leadership to continue for another two years is permitting the continuing demise and impoverishment of the United Kingdom, both economically and spiritually. This nation cannot afford to vanish down a plug hole where it is most assuredly headed if it continues along its present path. We should all be as harsh as truth and as uncompromising as justice.