It’s crept back in! That ever so patronising (condescending? I always get the words mixed up) phrase ‘hard working families’ is back. Here’s a sentence from the Toolmaker’s Son’s speech at some photo-op in the Midlands:  ‘It’s time for change. My Labour government will be different. We’ll run a patriotic economy where Britain’s interest is centre stage and Britain's hardworking families reap the rewards.’ I wonder about these hard working families. How shall we measure the productivity of the two year olds amongst them? Perhaps in the over-arching ‘patriotic economy’ they will be given a say on whether yet another American hedge fund should snatch yet another chunk of the NHS, or whether some Indian conglomerate should decimate the British steel industry—such as it is. Does a ‘patriotic economy’ have anything to do with repatriating core industries—not just their location but their ownership? I doubt that Starmer has got this far, even if Biden is seeking to e.g. rebuild USA’s microchip manufacturing capacity. We’ll have to wait and see what, if anything Starmer lifts from the Biden patriotic economy plan, even if Starmer’s grand investment in the green economy has already been shredded, unlike in the States where Biden’s so-called Inflation Reduction Act survived its passage through Congress, albeit a wee bit battered. I have just watched an interview with Yanis Varoufakis on a You Tube show hosted by ‘Joe’ (sorry I’ve lost the link) where Yanis tells viewers that Starmer has got nothing between his ears, which translates as no analysis. For Starmer to use the phrase ‘patriotic economy’ precisely encapsulates what living in an analysis-free world means. On the other hand, I suspect President Presumptive Trump has a clearer idea, but he just happens to be congenitally incapable of delivering it, having built his empire on fraud and Russian oligarchs’ money.

A Tory grandee has died but the dear departed has received little attention. I refer to Patrick (Lord) Cormack whose parliamentary career spanned several centuries. I can’t say I knew him intimately, indeed I can’t really say I knew him at all (our clubs never crossed—Ackroyd Street Working (sic) Mens Club and the Carlton didn’t have a reciprocal arrangement) but where our interests did converge was in the All Party Parliamentary Arts Group. This was one of the great privileges for me of being an MP, since we were often invited to events and previews, and Patrick would, with his jowly gravitas make a little laudatory speech each visit, e.g. in honour of the Tate or the National Gallery, extolling the virtues of culture. His Wikipedia entry had him down as a wet and a Heathite. I can imagine him singing some Schubert lieder with Heath at the piano in the No. 10 flat. Not quite Thatcher’s kind of Tory because so far as I can tell Thatcher had no appreciation of high culture whatsoever. He may have been a Tory, but I suspect he understood the value of the arts, a sensibility nowadays largely absent among Tory MPs, whose understanding of the subject is constrained entirely by the dreaded word ‘woke.’ Patrick will now rest in peace, probably haunting a box at the Royal Opera House. His Wiki entry amused me when it recorded that at a constituency selection meeting, the result was disallowed because more votes had been recorded than there were electors. Starmer take note! (Got that one in.)

I have copied the following straight from Counterpunch:
 
'The  Alabama Supreme Court has ruled that frozen, unimplanted embryos qualify as human beings under state law. Here’s an excerpt from the opinion of the Chief Justice of the Court, Tom Parker:

"In summary, the theologically based view of the sanctity of life adopted by the People of Alabama encompasses the following: (1) God made every person in His image; (2) each person therefore has a value that far exceeds the ability of human beings to calculate; and (3) human life cannot be wrongfully destroyed without incurring the wrath of a holy God, who views the destruction of His image as an affront to Himself. Section 36.06 recognizes that this is true of unborn human life no less than it is of all other human life — that even before birth, all human beings bear the image of God, and their lives cannot be destroyed without effacing his glory."

This is the same Supreme Court that ruled the experimental destruction of Kenny Smith’s life by suffocation with nitrogen gas neither “effaced the [God’s] glory” nor the state’s constitution.'
 
It must be a remarkable feat for a mortal judge to know God’s mind so well that he can intuit which humans aren’t made in God’s image. I wonder how in the United States, where the constitution stipulates the separation of state and religion, a court—which is a pillar of the state—can base decisions on specious religious assumptions. Extraordinary. 

+It is I think an incontestable truth that the majority of MPs feel more duty bound to their party leaders (through the whip) then they do to their constituents. Particularly on the Labour side, it is now clear for all to see that you cannot afford to upset the party establishment, since they are the ones who can easily wield the knife at anytime during your career. And Labour MPs seem congenitally incapable of getting rid of their leaders, at least compared to the Tories. This is a problem for constituents, or voters generally. I dare say a good part of the electorate is happy to cast a vote once every four or five years and leave it at that. A much smaller group are more active and feel their voices and not just their votes should be heard. Sometimes these voices contradict each other, and on some issues there will never be a compromise. Abortion springs to mind. If half your constituents (as represented by your mailbag) are for abortion and half against, what do you do after having proclaimed that your constituents ‘always come first?’ Well, you’ll do what you were always going to do, which is to plump for the side you agree with. The losing half may feel aggrieved, but that’s just tough. The best you can do is to try and let them down gently. They will still tell you that you’ve let them down of course. Just hope that the winning half feel suitably grateful.
 
This is by way of a preface to the current debate about what are the legitimate bounds of protest? Should MPs homes and offices be targeted in any way whatsoever? There’s even talk of further curbs on protests outside parliament. MPs I think would be happy if all protests were well contained, polite and preferably placid. I did wonder during the expenses scandal whether MPs would be individually selected for critical treatment, but I don’t recall any incidents, even though that affair did more damage to public respect for their MPs than any other in recent memory. Now, Gaza has inflamed tensions, although shamefully this seems to have given rise more to anti-semitic attacks than attacks on MPs. And Just Stop Oil appear to be changing tack, less focused on inconveniencing the general public and looking more at inconveniencing MPs. This I think is justified on the old and largely valid argument that small ‘misdemeanours’ (if that’s the right word) are justified to prevent a much worse outcome. Climate change is the worst of all outcomes we face at the moment, with the possible exception of nuclear war. I don’t see that any form of peaceful, non violent protest on climate change should be condemned—although some tactics may be counterproductive if the object is to get public support. MPs are attention seekers (it’s part of their job) and so shouldn’t be surprised if they become subjects of critical focus. After all, with the great ‘net zero’ con-trick being worked on us, MPs seem to have found good grounds to go to sleep. They desperately need waking up.
 
+I ruminated recently on the likelihood of the dreadful Lee Anderson MP jumping ship to Reform UK. I read today that he has had the Tory whip suspended for making Islamaphobic  remarks. Has he passed one of the tests for joining Reform UK?
 
+We’ve just been told our energy bills are to come down by 12%. This useful chart (below) shows how our prices currently compare to the rest of Europe. Right wing numpties will say this is all because of green subsidies. It’s actually the result of decades of under investment by governments of all stripes, aided by privatisation. A bit of background I think to Starmer’s miserable u-turn on the £28 billion. (If you can't quite read the chart, we're second on the left next to Ireland, i.e. the second most expensive in Europe for domestic electricity prices.)

​

I caught a bit of the end of yesterday’s debate in the House of Commons on the various proposals for a ceasefire, a humanitarian ceasefire, or a pause or whatever in the Gaza calamity. At the point I caught up with it there was much ado about procedure (or lack of it), the Speaker having allowed another opposition party (Labour) to move an amendment to an SNP Opposition Day motion. Normally only the government would move an amendment to an opposition day motion. On this occasion the government did move an amendment but then withdrew it for no apparent reason. Perhaps they thought it would be a laugh to let the opposition parties slug it out over what precise form a ceasefire in Gaza ought to take. Speaker Hoyle came to the chair to explain his decision, against the clerks’ advice to allow Labour’s amendment. His explanation wasn’t in the least bit convincing and given his multiple apologies, he knew he’d ballsed up. Was this due to Labour pressure to get itself off the hook of another major backbench rebellion against the Labour three line whip to abstain on the SNP motion? Or did the Speaker just wake up thinking he’d create a new procedural precedent? I’m afraid I favour the former view. It can’t be a coincidence that yesterday we heard (in a new biography) of how in his youth Starmer beat up an attacker of a gay friend. He’s a tough man and ruthless with it. One word from him and the Speaker turned to jelly. Separately I’m pleased that on a point of order, a Labour MP criticised Jacob Rees Mogg for suggesting that in one division on his side there had been a vocal shouting of ‘Noes’ which he suggested the Deputy Speaker Rosie Winterton had ignored - the MP noted that he wasn’t even in the chamber at that point. I wonder if the Pompous One felt the slightest blush. I have to say having heard all the points of order and the Speaker’s responses, etc., etc. that somebody from the House of Commons technical department should be despatched down to the Royal Courts of Justice to sort out their audio system. Let’s hear not just how we’re governed, but also how we’re judged (or misgoverned and misjudged, take your pick).

I took up a suggestion by Craig Murray to register as a virtual observer of the court case currently underway regarding Julian Assange’s latest and possibly last throw of the appeal dice against his extradition to the US. The link to the Royal Courts of Justice—when it was finally made to work—was useless. The audio was possibly something that had been installed in the 1950s, and the defence lawyer’s words sounded as if they had been delivered from the bottom of a drain pipe, with suitable extraneous sounds which could have been the coughing and sneezing of the secret state blithely listening in. I tried again this morning, and thought it had improved, but it turned out that the mikes on the judges’ bench seemed to be the only ones capable of picking up the entirety of what was being said (by them). According to Murray (who was in court and has written a first class account of the first day’s proceedings on his website) the courtroom in use was one of the smallest in the complex. One wonders what the larger courtrooms were being used for—certainly nothing with the same level of public interest. Along with the rubbish virtual experience, one might come away with the impression that the state, through little technical ploys has sought to diminish the significance of the hearing. Such a thought of course amounts to a conspiracy theory distinguished and to be dismissed chiefly by its silly pettiness. Nobody could imagine such low behaviour in our justice system. The case continues.

I’ve just listened to an interesting BBC Radio 4 debate on the crisis in our criminal justice system, with the main problem being it is massively overloaded. This means that the average time it takes a case to come to court after a defendant has been charged is 305 days—nearly a year. That’s the average. Some cases, including serious ones can take between three and six years, during which time witnesses’ memories fade, police evidence can go missing, people die, and then if the defendant is found guilty they may leave remand prison straightaway on the grounds of already having served their time. That means the court cannot exercise any control, e.g. probation, etc. over their future behaviour. But despite the intelligent and insightful points made in the debate, the word austerity was never once mentioned. It’s almost as if the situation our justice system finds itself in is just a consequence of some evolutionary process with a bit of Covid disruption thrown in. It is worrying that the use of the a-word is beginning to be seen as a bit passé, a hackneyed term much loved by lefties, who let’s not forget were led by Corbyn into the worst election result for Labour since time began (sic). ‘Austerity’ was after all so last decade, so George Osborne. And we’re all still here aren’t we? (Some councils may not be for very much longer, their finances being so precarious, but that’s their fault innit?) Let’s not worry too much though, because when Labour gets in there will be much talk of efficiency savings and innovative solutions. Indeed, I can see an enhanced role for G4S. G4S judges anyone?

+Here’s two headlines from the paper of record, the Daily Express (11/02/24):
'Game on!' Reform being tipped to 'shock the political world' with by-election victory’
On what ’tip’ is this shock result predicted? The only pollster quoted in the article had this to say:
‘Respected pollster Andrew Hawkins told Express.co.uk: "I don't think Reform can win Wellingborough but I do think they can beat the Conservatives."’

Well, that’s a bit of a let-down for Reform UK isn’t it? Anyway, here’s another Express misleading headline:
Brianna Ghey's mum Esther breaks silence on trans row whipped up by Keir Starmer
The key quote in the story is:

‘Esther Ghey, who was in the chamber to attend a debate on mindfulness with her MP Charlotte Nichols, broke her silence with a comment on her Peace & Mind UK Facebook page. She said: "I don't wish to comment on reports of wording or comments recently made. My focus is on creating a positive change and a lasting legacy for Brianna.’ And later we hear from: ‘Brianna's father Peter Spooner [who] yesterday called on Mr Sunak to apologise for the "degrading" and "dehumanising" comments.’ (emphasis added) Hence Esther Grey wasn’t actually 'breaking her silence' on a row ‘whipped up by Keir Starmer.’

I’m not convinced that some of the contributors (I won’t call them journalists) at the Express understand English, no matter how proud of being English they are. But the key point here is with attention spans in rapid decline many people will read the headline and nothing else—it’s like well, that’s just what I thought and I’m not going to bother reading the rest of it. I must emphasise I don’t say this in a condescending way, because I find myself doing the same thing often enough, not least with headlines about yet another Starmer u-turn. How many times do you want to read the actual story to reinforce your opinion?  The thing with these Express headlines though is that they are deliberately misleading, designed to reinforce existing prejudices rather than invite any further questions. ‘Grab a headline’ is now more important than ever (not least for a dying press). Yes, I pick on the Express (it is an egregious example) but this behaviour is common across the media, and especially so in response to the new rabid ‘news’ channels with whom the legacy outlets think they are in competition with. It’s a zero sum game and it’s been fully engaged.
​
+Retired Admiral Lord West has remarked on the failure of our aircraft carrier HMS Prince of Wales to sail to take part in a NATO exercise saying that this is why we need two aircraft carriers (in case one fails). The earlier departure of HMS Queen Elizabeth was also cancelled due to some mechanical issue. So Admiral Lord West is clearly wrong. This episode tells us that we need four aircraft carriers, just like we have four Trident subs. Everything in the MoD’s realm should be multiplied four times, to be on the safe side. And then doubled again. After all, Putin The Great is lurking off Spurn Point, just waiting to take control of Withernsea. 

+​Labour hopes that ridding itself of the £28 billion green investment pledge will take the sting out of Tory attack lines prior to the next general election. But this kind of begs the question: what Labour policies will the Tories attack next, potentially signalling yet another Starmer u-turn? I am surprised the Tories haven’t yet had a go at Labour’s ‘New Deal for Working People.’ They may not want to make too much of the promise to end zero hours contracts or ending ‘fire and rehire;’ perhaps they won’t even go for Labour’s pledge to give new employees from day one full employment rights. But lurking in the New Deal for Working People is strengthening trade union rights and repealing the Trade Union Act and other recent Tory attacks on workers’ rights. Strengthening collective bargaining rights must also send shivers down Tory spines. So I expect the ‘Labour in the pockets of trade union barons’ line to predictably re-emerge, especially given continuing high profile strikes in rail and the NHS. There is of course the added problem of Rachel Reeves’ fiscal rules blah-de-blah, which suggests generous pay deals will be off the table under a Labour government. Will Labour want to strengthen trade union power under a new regime of austerity lite?

+Labour’s candidate in the Rochdale by-election, Azhar Ali has made a grovelling apology for suggesting in social media after the Hamas attack on 7th October that the Israeli government knew in advance of Hamas’s plans. Labour top dog Pat McFadden has condemned his remarks. But it’s too late to kick Ali off the ballot for the election on February 29th. So if he’s elected, no doubt he’ll have the whip suspended immediately. Ali’s mistake was possibly reading the following report in the New York Times (30/11/23):
 
‘Israeli officials obtained Hamas’s battle plan for the Oct. 7 terrorist attack more than a year before it happened, documents, emails and interviews show. But Israeli military and intelligence officials dismissed the plan as aspirational, considering it too difficult for Hamas to carry out. The approximately 40-page document, which the Israeli authorities code-named “Jericho Wall,” outlined, point by point, exactly the kind of devastating invasion that led to the deaths of about 1,200 people.

The translated document, which was reviewed by The New York Times, did not set a date for the attack, but described a methodical assault designed to overwhelm the fortifications around the Gaza Strip, take over Israeli cities and storm key military bases, including a division headquarters. Hamas followed the blueprint with shocking precision. The document called for a barrage of rockets at the outset of the attack,  drones to knock out the security cameras and automated machine guns along the border, and gunmen to pour into Israel en masse in paragliders, on motorcycles and on foot — all of which happened on Oct. 7.’
​
On these things it seems we must remain silent. Media reports on Ali's apology fail to question whether what he said may have some truth to it.