Humbuggery

A most dispiriting and frustrating 5 minutes spent watching elderly comfortably-off Conservative gentry on Newsnight last night. They were on a home counties golf course amiably dismissing the need for electoral reform. Their wives meanwhile were attending a pottery event nearby. They were far worse. Why should they worry their fluffy little heads with the complexities of AV? Far too difficult to understand. They would much rather leave such complicated matters to their menfolk. What? ! The only the way this bunch of complacent affluent noodles would burn their bras would be if their house caught fire. Their approach could be summed up as ‘we do what the Tory party and our husbands tell us.’ Isn’t evolution brilliant?

The ‘No’ campaign have appealed to the thick and the uninterested by making it all sound very complicated. No it isn’t. It is as simple as 1-2-3. The ‘Yes’ campaign have overcomplicated matters and relied on slick PR when clarity was all.

Cameron opposes AV. He is only PM because of it. The first ballot in the leadership election was won by David Davies. Cameron came in second. The bottom candidate dropped out and they all voted again. Second preferences anyone? There are many other similar examples where our ruling class use AV to decide who gets what but then, they clearly are so much cleverer and superior to us. 

Humbuggery, smuggery, thuggery and disregard for fairness allied to outright lies and the support of the Murdoch media empire are turning what should be a good debate about the future of our democracy into a farrago of flatulence. And there are a few more tortuous days to endure. 

Super Dooper Injunctions

The news that Andrew Marr has admitted that he took out a Super Injunction will surprise no-one in the Westminster Bubble. It rapidly emerged that the media and most politicians (aka ‘the chattering classes) exchange gossip on these matters on a regular basis. They knew but we didn’t. 

Does it matter? Not so much in the many cases of footballers and their affairs with grannies or slappers. But when an international company covers up the evil dumping of toxic material in a third world country using these gagging orders then it clearly does. They are so powerful that one has been applied to the whole world! 

This iniquitous process has created a two-tier system. The rich and powerful can increasingly buy silence, cover-up and privilege. At the same time the poor and the vulnerable are having legal aid budgets slashed. 

All in this together? Bollocks. 

AV or Not AV - that is not the question.

Let’s get this straight. The argument over a marginal improvement in our electoral system pales into insignificance against the massive and damaging failures of our democratic system.

Evidence 

All three major parties are singing from the same song book. They may not be on the same tune but they are on the same page. Very little real choice exists. Hence the made up spats about who is telling porkies in their av leaflets and internships. It is all designed by PR and Spinners to make us think there is a difference. Consider their abject grovelling before the bankers; their readiness to hit the weak and the vulnerable and the protection of the rich. And especially consider the supine approach to tax avoidance. So much so they are proposing to exempt themselves from upcoming legislation.

All three parties are dominated by bright young things who followed the same route. Oxbridge - Researcher to an MP - Assistant to a Minister or Shadow Minister - safe seat - Parliament. Not having a clue about real life outside the bubble. Yet these same people can happily send other people’s sons and daughters into an increasing number of wars. They can consign thousands to the dole queue with barely a qualm. They can reduce or remove incapacity benefits from the most vulnerable with the merest twinge of conscience. They offer patronising platitudes instead of radical action.  

The party system stinks. It was useful in the days when parties held national conferences to decide policy issues. Now it is done by sofa government with an inner caucus comprising members of the political class with several so-called advisors and rune readers. Many MPs are party hacks who obey their whips and traipse regularly through the lobbies without a brainwave troubling their skulls. It goes even further with the parties often parachuting in favoured creeps into local constituencies to ensure a shoe-in into the Commons. It is astonishing that any of the parties still have activists prepared to lick envelopes and ‘go on the knocker’ when they count for so little.

One new MP complained recently that she did not understand the contempt that MPs are held in. When the repayment of Expenses and their exemption of Tax Avoidance is considered (Daily Telegraph) it is clear they still do not get it. Too many still see it as a license to join the gravy train. This used to be a Conservative trait but recent research revealed that Labour MPs were just as eager to join the nest lining clubs. Shame upon shame.

Our system is rooted in the 18th Century. ‘My Honourable’ this and ‘My Respected’ that is just so much hifalutin twaddle when the sins and arrogance of the place are considered. Voting takes an incredibly long time and allows whips to bully the feeble minded (and the lecherous to have a quick grope - true!). Nothing that an electronic system could not put right. A root and branch reform of the procedures of Parliament is long overdue. 

AV is a very small step when giant strides are needed. A ‘No’ vote should serve to light the blue touch paper to all sorts of extra-parliamentary action. A ‘Yes’ vote will not lessen the need for swingeing reform.

Absolute Bloody Madness

Tomorrow morning two tribes from Manchester will entrain, ‘encar’ and ‘enbus’ to go to Wembley. They will traipse 200 miles to London. Stay a few hours and then traipse back again. And for what? A game of football. Manchester City are playing Manchester United in the Semi-Final of the FA Cup. 

Environmentally it is stupid and indefensible. It would have been much more straightforward and green to use Liverpool, Birmingham or Sheffield. All the way to and from Wembley there will need to be high security to keep the tribes apart. Motorway Services and Stations need to beware.

The start time (5.15pm) is truly amazing and remarkably ridiculous. The tribes will be able to spend a great part of the day imbibing dutch courage in copious amounts. They will then, suitably topped up, wend their wobbly way towards Wembley. Encounters with the other tribe will happen and enmity will ensue. How violent this becomes is a matter of considerable concern. A true blue asserted that he finds the offensive nature of the tribalism very disturbing. So much so he has turned down the chance to go, fearing serious trouble. 

They will gather at ‘New Wembley’ at grossly inflated prices to watch overpaid young men clatter into each other for the benefit of their respective owners. One, a dubious yankee consortium, who bought the club via enormous loans which have to be paid back by the club (Isn’t capitalism wonderful?). The other with very dubious human rights skeletons in his family background. Yippee. The players will count their cash and buy yet another too fast car and say nothing apart from invoking the usual ill parrots and boys done well platitudes which serve for intelligent analysis in the barmy world of football.

Each highly paid Manager will blame/salute the referee, depending on whichever decision turned out to be crucial. Tribal passions will be further inflamed and the journey back to Manchester will be fraught with difficulties. And why is this stupid timing going ahead? Mammon, in the form of TV has had its usual say. 

What a farce.

Ever since the FA recklessly vastly overspent their budget on New Wembley they have looked for ways to claw back some cash.

Environmental issues? Not a problem.

Trouble on the route and around the ground? Everything is under control.

Violence on the pitch? Usual lack of action.

Managers slagging off referees? Usual slapped wrists.

Think of the money! Think of the money! THINK   OF   THE   MONEY!

Bradley Manning’s shameful treatment.

“More than 250 of America's most eminent legal scholars have signed a letter protesting against the treatment in military prison of the alleged WikiLeaks source Bradley Manning, contesting that his "degrading and inhumane conditions" are illegal, unconstitutional and could even amount to torture.”

“The list of signatories includes Laurence Tribe, a Harvard professor who is considered to be America's foremost liberal authority on constitutional law. He taught constitutional law to Barack Obama and was a key backer of his 2008 presidential campaign.

Tribe joined the Obama administration last year as a legal adviser in the justice department, a post he held until three months ago.

He told the Guardian he signed the letter because Manning appeared to have been treated in a way that "is not only shameful but unconstitutional" as he awaits court martial in Quantico marine base in Virginia."

"Bradley Manning is the soldier charged with leaking US government documents to Wikileaks. He is currently detained under degrading and inhumane conditions that are illegal and immoral.

For nine months, Manning has been confined to his cell for 23 hours a day. During his one remaining hour, he can walk in circles in another room, with no other prisoners present. He is not allowed to doze off or relax during the day, but must answer the question "Are you OK?" verbally and in the affirmative every five minutes. At night, he is awakened to be asked again "Are you OK?" every time he turns his back to the cell door or covers his head with a blanket so that the guards cannot see his face. During the past week, he was forced to sleep naked and stand naked for inspection in front of his cell, and for the indefinite future must remove his clothes and wear a "smock" under claims of risk to himself that he disputes.

The sum of the treatment that has been widely reported is a violation of the eighth amendment's prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment and the fifth amendment's guarantee against punishment without trial. If continued, it may well amount to a violation of the criminal statute against torture, defined as, among other things, "the administration or application … of … procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or the personality."

In an Orwellian twist, the spokesman for the brig commander refused to explain the forced nudity "because to discuss the details would be a violation of Manning's privacy".

The administration has provided no evidence that Manning's treatment reflects a concern for his own safety or that of other inmates. Unless and until it does so, there is only one reasonable inference: this pattern of degrading treatment aims either to deter future whistleblowers, or to force Manning to implicate WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange in a conspiracy, or both.

If Manning is guilty of a crime, let him be tried, convicted and punished according to law. But his treatment must be consistent with the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. There is no excuse for his degrading and inhumane pretrial punishment. As the state department's PJ Crowley put it recently, they are "counterproductive and stupid". And yet Crowley has now been forced to resign for speaking the plain truth.

The WikiLeaks disclosures have touched every corner of the world. Now the whole world watches America and observes what it does, not what it says.

President Obama was once a professor of constitutional law, and entered the national stage as an eloquent moral leader. The question now, however, is whether his conduct as commander-in-chief meets fundamental standards of decency. He should not merely assert that Manning's confinement is "appropriate and meet[s] our basic standards", as he did recently. He should require the Pentagon publicly to document the grounds for its extraordinary actions – and immediately end those that cannot withstand the light of day.”

Bruce Ackerman, Yale Law School, New Haven, Connecticut
Yochai Benkler, Harvard Law School, Cambridge, Massachusetts

“Benkler told the Guardian: "It is incumbent on us as citizens and professors of law to say that enough is enough. We cannot allow ourselves to behave in this way if we want America to remain a society dedicated to human dignity and process of law."

He said Manning's conditions were being used "as a warning to future whistleblowers" and added: " I find it tragic that it is Obama's administration that is pursuing whistleblowers and imposing this kind of treatment."

“Ackerman pointed out that under the Pentagon's own rule book, the Uniform Code of Military Justice, Manning's jailers could be liable to prosecution for abusing him. Article 93 of the code says "any person who is guilty of cruelty toward any person subject to his orders shall be punished". Guardian online April 2011

Hang your head in shame President Obama. And hand back the Nobel Peace Prize - you are unworthy of it.

Silence of the Clams

There are many disturbing aspects of the phone-hacking scandal. One of the most puzzling has been the lack of interest shown by the great mass of the media. Imagine what  Murdoch’s media would have made of the story if the offenders had been the BBC? 

So why, when it comes to phone-hacking at Murdoch's News of the World, is everyone so quiet? Why has it been left almost entirely to the Guardian, with help from a few other media organisations such as the New York Times, to reveal the extent of the criminality? 

One reason is the unwritten rule that the press do not snitch on each other. Whether this comes from proprietors having a ‘gentleman’s agreement’ (what a misnomer) or that they know it would end up as dog eat dog. 

More pertinent is the probability that too many of them have used similar methods and are keeping their fingers crossed that the News of the World takes the hit. The Daily Mail has been the most silent. Under its loathsome bullying martinet of an editor (Dacre) it is not unreasonable to suggest that fearful staff may have resorted to illegal methods to keep their jobs. And staff at the Mirror, the Sun?

Another element is the lack of political interest apart from a few MPs. 

“This affair is just one example of how politicians have lost the authority, the will and the moral compass to control corporate interests. They consider only the most modest proposals to bring banks to heel. They make it laughably easy for multinationals to avoid tax. They stand by as supermarkets drive out small retailers. They introduce "reforms" to education and health that allow corporations to take over the provision, if not the ownership, of our biggest public services. The corporate sector gets what it wants. Why shouldn't Murdoch? It's business as usual.

The Labour party was once the political arm of the organised working-class. All three main parties are now the political arm of the organised corporate class. (My emphasis) This is not a peculiarly British phenomenon. Almost every advanced democracy, and particularly the US, struggles to control the corporate sector. It is not just that politicians depend on its donations to finance election campaigns but also that they lack the staying power to withstand corporate pressure.” Peter Wilby Guardian 12/4/11

Other MPs are scared.

“Another fear is that Murdoch's journalists will use their formidable resources against anybody who displeases them. Chris Bryant, one of the few MPs who dared to highlight what he calls "a many-layered scandal", told the Commons last month that "a senior figure allied to Rupert Murdoch" had sent him a warning "that it would not be forgotten" ibid.

We are ruled by a political class who are at the beck and call of the corporate world. No real choice in Westminster. 

Come on you Greens.

Toxic Clegg

With his admission that he cried, Clegg crossed a threshold from a hate figure into a sad and pathetic one. At the moment virtually everything he touches seems to go down the toilet. The LibDems are heading for a poor result in Scotland. They are currently lying behind the Green Party in 5th place. They are in a similar situation in Wales. Throw in the Local Elections and things could get very heated very quickly in his party. His role as Deputy seems to put him in the firing line without any apparent rewards. Cameron must be concerned about all this negative attention. How much can Clegg and the LibDems take before the coalition glue unsticks? Clegg came from a comparatively comfortable and largely unaccountable role in Europe. It must be appearing ever more attractive as the opprobrium and ridicule mounts. 

For example, Cristina Odone writing in the Daily Torygraph, “Nick Clegg must be hoping his interview with the New Statesman, in which he admits to crying over his critics’ attacks, will play well with the electorate. He will hope that the revelation that even his son is asking why Clegg is so hated will pull at heartstrings all over the land.

Think again, Nick. The son of a millionaire banker, educated at Westminster and Oxbridge, weeping because someone called him names, does not elicit sympathy at a time when millions really are worried about insecure jobs, food and petrol prices spiralling, and inflation returning to 1970s levels. Women are unforgiving about “lady men” who weep for themselves: stoicism in the face of hard times is inspiring, but blubbing when your feelings are hurt inspires mockery.” Daily Telegraph 7/4/11

Another ‘Glenda’ writing on the same subject was a little more supportive but went on to quote an occasion when she witnessed Harriet Harman under pressure. It was a time when Labour were in a mess and no other Cabinet Minister wanted to appear on ‘Question Time.’ Harman was booed onto the platform by a distinctly hostile audience, yet she stuck to her guns and gave as good as she got. It would seem very unlikely at present that Clegg will give as good as he gets. 

Overriding all this however, is the way the Tories are getting away with it. The NHS plans were not in their manifesto. The scrapping of the Educational Maintenance  Allowance was pooh-poohed by Gove  before the election. “Sure Start?’ Safe with us squire” ...and so on. They have lied and been duplicitous over numerous issues yet to date little heat has descended upon their slippery shoulders. 

Thanks to the Clegg firewall. 

A minority Conservative government would have had to be a lot more sensitive to the feelings of the poorest and most vulnerable in our country.