When Joe Biden visited Israel last week, in answer to a question about who bombed a hospital in Gaza, he said it could have been ‘the other team.’ The other team? I’m surprised he wasn’t immediately expelled on the grounds of expressing some equivalence between Hamas's ‘team’ and ours (ours being the team the US pours billions of dollars of military aid into each year). I dismissed this remark as just another Bidenism—in this case Gaza is replaced with gaga.
But sadly there’s been a lot of so-called misspeaking lately. Last week, at PMQs, a Labour MP called for a ’humanitarian ceasefire.’ I saw the clip. But that’s not Labour policy, so Hansard was instructed to record the remark as ’humanitarian corridor.’ Then there was the interview with Starmer on LBC where in answer to a question about Israel’s cutting off water, power and everything else to Gaza, he said that was their right. Again, I heard his interview. That’s what he said—and it’s exploded in his face as Muslim members of the party protest and in many cases resign. Later he ’clarified’ his remarks, suggesting he was answering the interviewer’s previous question about Israel’s right to self defence. Quick thinker, this Starmer. Today’s story is about Labour’s Shadow Chancellor Rachel Reeves plagiarising Wikipedia for a book what she has written. The story ran in the Financial Times, with various extracts side by side, demonstrating this startling fact. It makes you wonder (dunnit) who’s been writing her economic policy. But every aspiring politician has to have at least one weighty book under their belt. It reminds me of JFK’s little tome, Profiles In Courage, published in 1956. It won Kennedy a Pulitzer prize, even though it was ghost written. Gordon Brown wrote a similar book, but I think that sunk without trace. At least he could make a clunking fist of writing his own books. Words, words, words. The politicians’ tools in trade. If a carpenter used her tools in a similar fashion, could you rely on that newly carved chair? As you picked yourself up off the floor, you might hear ‘Oh yes! I’d just like to clarify that mortise and tenon joint!’ Addendum: I nearly forgot to mention the roof falling in on the UN Secretary General, António Guterres when he said that Hamas's attack (which he unequivocally condemned) didn't take place in vacuum - as if he were defending it, which his remarks when heard in full definitely wasn't the case. The trigger wire response from the Israeli government was to ban the UN from activities in lands under their control. The desire to be offended precedes humanity, it seems.
0 Comments
Out delivering direct mails (i.e. personally addressed items) today on behalf of our parliamentary candidate. It’s certainly one way of getting some much needed exercise. But not everyone seems to appreciate the effort that goes into this. A bloke chases me down the street telling me that ‘it’s toilet paper!’ He repeated this statement so many times, I realised he may not be a Labour supporter and trying to find out why not would be a futile exercise. He just wanted to hand the leaflet back to me personally so that I might fully understand that it was ‘TOILET PAPER!’ Thankfully, he hadn’t used it. I can’t blame him. I feel the same way about the Daily Mail.
Anyway, I had some other leaflets I was meant deliver, but have decided not to. These bear the words ‘The Tory Education Secretary wants you to thank her for doing a f***king good job’ while schools crumble.’ This refers to remarks made by the Education Secretary when she presumably thought she was off mic. Her words were widely reported. So why wouldn’t I want to stuff an unsolicited leaflet through somebody’s letterbox repeating these offensive words? Everybody knows what f***king means. Or maybe they don’t. You don’t know who’s going to pick it up. Why should we introduce Tory profanity into people’s lives on the off chance that they will appreciate how clever we are trying to score a political point? Isn’t that what p*sses people off? Perhaps I'm being over English about this, but these days - particularly in the age of social media - political parties should adhere to a greater standard. And if one party doesn't, it shouldn't need us to point it out post facto. Whilst at Labour Party conference I paid a visit to the Tate Liverpool shop, and bought in their sale for £5 Alex Danchev’s On Art and War and Terror, and what a good purchase it was. It is an addictively readable account of various cultural responses to war. Highly recommended. One bit that amused me was a bit of guidance by Winston Churchill, quoted at length on page 219. FYI here it is:
‘Operations in which large numbers of men may lose their lives ought not to be described by code-words which may imply a boastful and over confident sentiment, such as TRIUMPHANT, or conversely, which are calculated to invest the plan with an air of despondency, such as WOEBETIDE, MASSACRE, JUMBLE, TROUBLE, FIDGET, FLIMSY, PATHETIC, and JAUNDICE. They ought not to be names of a frivolous character, such as BUNNYHUG, BILLINGSGATE, APERITIF and BALLYHOO. They should not be ordinary words often used in other connections, such as FLOOD, SMOOTH, SUDDEN, SUPREME, FULLFORCE, and FULLSPEED. Names of living people—ministers or commanders—should be avoided; e.g. BRACKEN. After all, the world is wide, and intelligent thought will readily supply an unlimited number of well-sounding names which do not suggest the character of the operation or disparage it in any way and do not enable some widow or mother to say that her son was killed in any operation called BUNNYHUG or BALLYHOO.’ Churchill thought names from antiquity were suitable, or those of British (and American) war heroes were good choices. I am sure the Great Man would be pleased if his own names were used. Operation WINSTON or CHURCHILL are entirely suitable for most British military operations, though perhaps not, alternatively, Operation HAIG. I wonder what name the operation to get Keir Starmer (Oh NOO! Not him again!) elected had—Operation RAMSAY perhaps, or Operation MACDONALD? We’ll never know, these things are generally kept secret for a long time. Anyway, here’s a game we can all play. Think of something you have to do today, and give it a name. Boring things like Operation SHOP would fall foul of Winston’s rules. So would Operation RIPPEDOFF. Well? n.b. I must check what Churchill thought of Brendan BRACKEN. I’ve no idea if in his assessment, Bracken was woebetide, fidgety, pathetic and jaundiced. There could be some code at work here. The Labour Party’s by-election successes today—which really do herald the end of this Tory government—are to be celebrated for that reason. But as the champagne corks pop, there is I think a downside, which is to say that they will guarantee Sunak goes on for as long as he can. The chances of a spring general election must now be zero, so we’re definitely going to have a further six months of this appalling government. Sunak may even want to spend two more Christmases in No.10. Meanwhile Starmer must have been celebrating another victory—an endorsement from Larry Fink, the CEO of the world’s largest asset management fund BlackRock. This is not without controversy—BlackRock claims to be ‘right-on’ when it comes to the environment but still pumps money into fossil fuels and other naughty things. There have been suggestions that Fink & Co. are behaving hypocritically. Well I never! Isn’t this the problem with the ‘centre’ ground—you’re always looking in two opposite directions at the same time (with a strong veer to the right)?
It amuses me that the longer a House of Commons Speaker inhabits the role the more likely the disease of pomposity overtakes them. The prime example of this of course was John Bercow who relished the many chances (and every chance) he had to show off his polished put downs of the greatest in the land (n.b. most MPs think they are the greatest in the land). This disease may set in when the Speaker realises that they can no longer take sides in a debate, so have to resort to continual headmasterly interjections, even though they know that their injunctions against intemperance are doomed to fail. But they are impelled to cry ‘Order!’ at every moment often accompanied with the observation that people at home can’t hear the debate. Fatal error: only teenage obsessives (think William Hague) have any interest in what’s going on in the chamber. Lindsay Hoyle has certainly fallen into the pomposity pit with aplomb. All that’s missing from his rig is a mortarboard and cane. I have to say that one Speaker, if I recall, who wasn’t well disposed to issue pompous put-downs was the ill-fated Michael Martin. This avuncular chap never seemed all that keen on rousing himself to such energetic displays. He left the job prematurely during the ‘expenses scandal’ and quickly sunk into the obscurity of the House of Lords before popping his clogs. I bought a bottle of ‘Speaker Martin’s’ whiskey (signed by him even though he was a teetotaller) which I’m hoping will raise a bit of dosh at auction in December. Even if it only scrapes to its reserve, I think I’ll raise a glass to him. Bid now!
In all the great outpouring of commentary on the latest Israel/Palestine conflict, there seems to have been very little said about what Hamas thought they were up to. Instead we are left to believe that they are, in the words of one or two Israeli ministers, simply animals not worthy of human concern. This reflects the views of some on the Israeli far right that Palestinians don’t exist as a people and hence don’t deserve to possess any land of their own. As we have seen over the last week, this view isn’t very conducive to living in peace in Israel. Hamas must have worked for some time on their plan to invade Israel and it’s hard to imagine that they didn’t ask themselves what they thought the consequences might be. As the history of conflict in this area shows, a disproportionate number of Palestinians always wind up dead—and already more in Gaza have died than Israelis, with many more likely to follow. Israel knows how to do retribution. So Hamas will have anticipated what was to come, and this I think must form part of their religious fanaticism, indeed it is what is at the heart of it—the urge to martyrdom, not just for themselves but for all of the people in their charge. Like Hitler, if they cannot get what they want they would rather take everything down with them. What other explanation is there for their ’strategy?’ As part of this, it is conceivable that their aim is to drag others into a wider battle. Would they care if the whole Middle East went up in flames? Probably not. Is the Israeli government going to fall prey to this martyrdom complex?
"We have changed and because we've changed, we are now the party of change here in Scotland, we are the party of change in Britain, we are the party of change right across the whole country."
That’s what Keir Starmer said after the Rutherglen by-election win. Another masterclass in oratory. But what’s changed? A key test is who you keep for company and advice, and seeing the Price of Darkness himself, aka Lord Mandelson swanning around Liverpool this week suggests the baron of spin is still in the game. But another friend of paedophile Jeffrey Epstein has just taken a hit this week, something Starmer should pay heed to. This was former Barclays bank boss Jes Staley, of whom the Financial Conduct Authority ‘said the banker acted 'recklessly' and with 'a lack of integrity' while at Barclays by insisting he was not close to the convicted sex offender.’ Staley is contesting that judgement, although the evidence seems clear ( Former Barclays boss Jes Staley fined and banned over Jeffrey Epstein (msn.com)). So Staley, like Prince Andrew has faced a penalty of millions arising from his friendship with Epstein. Meanwhile, Our Mandy is swanking around Labour’s conference as if nothing had happened, leaving us to assume (he supposes) that he barely knew Epstein. Staley it appears hoped nobody would notice (or care) about his relationship too. So let’s see what’s changed Keir, what’s your judgement going to be? Sunday. At the Labour Party conference. Loads of young people in suits clutching important briefcases, in readiness for an important job (or internship) in government. And that's just the MPs. First off to a Morning Star meeting, where such ambitions are temporarily suspended. Instead, deselection is more likely - one speaker is Beth Winter (Cynon Valley), who kicks off the speeches with an impassioned call for community Solidarity. Every speech ends with the 'S' word, five syllables unlikely to ever pass the Leader's lips. But nobody mentions him. Every time solidarity is mentioned it nevertheless sounds like a rebuke. Is there radicalism alive here? Mick Whelan (ASLEF) thinks the word 'class' should be resurrected, recognising that the Tories have always waged a class war - simply the wealthy class versus the workers. Richard Burgon (Leeds East) suggests a wealth tax - 1.5% on income over £10 million. I suspect this would leave the new class war very much in place, but perhaps he feels it's such a modest proposal the leadership might agree to it. Live in hope Richard! He also calls for capital gains to be taxed at the same rate as income, a long overdue necessity but also destined never to happen. Later, go to a reception for remoaners hosted by Pedro Serrano, EU Ambassador to the UK. David Lammy delivers a speech full of his favourite clichés (from a very deep well). Such inspiring stuff, reaching a crescendo when he drew an analogy of our relationship with the EU with how his fave football team Tottenham is managed. Football analogies always raise a laugh whilst at the same time demonstrating how well located you are in the lives of ordinary people, as opposed to the lives of those who attend Bilderberg conferences. Onwards! A meeting Monday morning organised by the Centre for Cities is asking why some areas of the country fall behind in productivity. I feel a sense of deja vu. Weren't we talking about this 20 years ago? I asked the question. I don't think I got a clear answer. Perhaps it's down to the fact that a lot of the people now talking about this on the top table weren't here 20 years ago. So, I need to find the one with the answers. Who better than Ed Miliband, delivering his conference speech. I haven't seen him so impassioned. He could be leader! Keir's advisers will be worried that their wooden man will have been outshone. Ed at least suggested we had some policies. He needs to be careful not to let himself go native on energy policy - it's too energising! And the problem is, after fringe meeting after fringe meeting illustrates, the great energy transformation is horribly complex. Politicians can make laws, but it takes engineers to build bridges (so to speak). And we aren't training the engineers. This was a theme in a New Statesman meeting which was sponsored by the lobby group Offshore Energy UK. Just as their spokesperson was about to speak, proceedings were interrupted by a group of anti-fossil fuel protesters. They completed their cries of despair and were ushered out politely. Funny that they hadn't gone for interrupting Ed's speech, that would have got them on television. The odyssey continues. Over to Cain's Brewery for a European Movement reception. I'm a bit early, so have to pay for my first drink. The reason I'm early is because the venue’s a bit of a walk from the conference centre. Maybe all the remoaners can't be seen too close to the main event. The anti-Brexit protester who wears the blue and yellow top hat is here, it's that bad. But yet again caution is in the air. Our top line speaker is Will Hutton, who references a Chinese proverb about using stepping stones to cross a river (or perhaps the English Channel). Afterwards I ask Will if he has been asked to advise Labour’s current leadership. As I recall he was one of the wise - if possibly ignored (patronised?) wizards informing the Blair thinking. The State We're In was required reading. He says yes, occasionally but seems a little uncomfortable with the question. And why wouldn't he be? Who would want to own up to contributing to Starmer's blinkered vision of reform? Tuesday, the big day, the big speech. But that's not until 2pm, so a few fringe meetings beforehand. I mistakenly end up into a room which I suspect but cannot prove is full of private health lobbyists. We're in ‘conversation' with Wes Streeting, shadow health secretary who it seems is not averse to taking the shilling of private health interests. I would like to have asked him why that's ok but am not chosen. He talks about how lucky he was getting NHS treatment for his cancer - it shouldn't be a matter of luck of course. For the main event I find a seat in the overflow hall, where a big screen shows adverts for those philanthropic organisations Amazon and Uber, accompanied by the de rigueur pounding beat that always proceeds the Leader's speech. Starmer gets off to a standing ovation. It seems the audience has fallen under his spell. The now infamous glittering interruption notwithstanding there were no repeats of the regular heckling of the previous year. And who couldn't warm to such inspiring phrases like 'we're not here to mind the shop.' He talks of the Tories always looking after themselves, with tax cuts, etc. No mention oddly of us imposing higher taxes on them to reverse this awful situation. A lot of talk about 'working families' - now it seems ‘hard working’ families are passé but we do instead have repeated references to the hard road ahead. Something clearly has to be hard, especially when you have the very hard man who knows how to make hard choices. We can look forward to hard reforms, not state control and not free markets but something in-between. Applause! Apparently we're going to 'crowd in' private investment. In the NHS too? At the end of Starmer's speech the chap sat next to me said 'That's sealed the deal.' I felt like saying no, it's just another leader's speech. A momentary blip in the political theatre. Back on the fringe, and my time is devoted to more energy topics. I probably owe Gary Smith, GMB general secretary a small apology. His remarks about renewables and 'decimated working class communities' may have been more about how so much of what the UK is developing is being imported from the likes of China and Denmark. Fair point. He was at a meeting promoting hydrogen. Another miracle cure. The message I take away from this conference is that there are no miracle cures. We’ve moved out of Corbyn territory, that’s the change everyone was yearning for – but we’re not just here to manage the shop says Keir, obviously we’re no longer a nation of shopkeepers (that seems so increasingly true), we’re changemakers! But it’s going to be hard, hard, hard. At least it’ll be our hard. With our hard man. An excellent piece by Craig Murray on his blog today, re: solving the Ukraine crisis. ( Latest News - Craig Murray ) As a former senior UK diplomat he is well placed to comment on the hypocrisy that drives our leaders into untenable positions. In this case to push for total war until the enemy is on his knees begging for mercy before being decapitated. The Western position says that Ukraine is a united country with inviolate borders—even if nearly half the population is Russian speaking. One might think the way forward would be to have a two-state solution (a very popular if currently unworkable idea elsewhere). New countries can be formed after all with Western approval—South Sudan, for example, or earlier the Indian partition (followed by the Pakistan partition). But what clinches the picture of Western hypocrisy is its denial that Taiwan is historically part of China. What’s good for Zelensky seems bad for Xi Jinping. Ultimately the solution to all these problems should rest in the hands of the people themselves, with free and fair referenda (preferably with mandatory voting so results reflect the actual popular will, unlike our own idiotic Brexit outcome). But with politicians almost literally in the pockets of the defence industry I dare say millions will have to die rather than vote.
A little story in the Independent about a report produced by a travel company—Intrepid Travel—catches my eye. It’s about personal carbon emission allowances, and how holiday flights may have to be accounted for. It even suggests that as the world gets hotter tourists may prefer to alter their plans and go to cooler places. Well, I bet that’s already happening. The story has an opinion tracker, and when I looked it seemed a lot of people were in denial about the need for personal carbon allowances (allowance is such a nice word compared to ration). The comments below the line were similarly dismissive, and of course highly literate. Here’s an example: ‘what a load of rubish most of these called wild wires were caused by arson.this has been proven ,probably by the same people pushing the climate agenda,dont believe ,gb news posted this ,dont belive the rest of the globalist media been fed to you’ So that’s what climate scientists do when they go on holiday! Never mind the arseholes with their throwaway barbecue kits who seem determined to burn our precious moors. It’s high time the psychologists found a means of penetrating the brains (sic) of these people. Now we have the spectacle of the Tory leadership determined to give succour to the brain dead denialist numpties. And we’re told not to despair. |
Archives
October 2024
|