Frank Field actually has an amazing argument. Niall Ferguson should get into bed with him. Will Hutton should go jump into a tar-pitch lake. There is no Left or Right. There is BAD economics, which in addition to all its other faults, is economics without enough regard for good accounting. And there is GOOD economics, which requires as a minimum that honest, truthful and balanced accounting is essential for a healthy Economy.
Never mind the fight between Good and Evil. Today the fight is between the GOOD economics and the BAD economics, not Labour, Liberal or Tory, nor Left nor Right. Politicos are dinosaurs if they don't get on message.
The Greatest Wealth is that of All the Species of Life on This Earth. Save it for Ever and Always.
Showing posts with label Politics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Politics. Show all posts
Wednesday, February 24, 2010
Tuesday, February 09, 2010
Project Prevention - Drug Addict Sterilization
Radio 4 on BBC features Barbara Harris of Project Prevention, an USAperson, who having seen that children of drug addicts suffer horribly (eg from drug withdrawal after birth), has taken a stand to encourage these people to use contraception.
Her arguments are brilliant. Fergal Keane sounds like a sickly ivory tower liberal academic because it's his job to put his interviewees to the test (Well, he does usually seem like quite a sickly liberal in general, like one of those journalists who had to stand in the middle of a warzone as a reporter before he could actually feel the difference between right and wrong).
Anybody who has worked in hospitals, social services, or with druggies, or come close to their havoc, will have to agree that she is doing the bravest thing possible. She is a liberal, who is coming back to put boundaries on liberalism. Since the Sixties, we have been waiting for people like this. No need for neo-cons anymore.
Her arguments are brilliant. Fergal Keane sounds like a sickly ivory tower liberal academic because it's his job to put his interviewees to the test (Well, he does usually seem like quite a sickly liberal in general, like one of those journalists who had to stand in the middle of a warzone as a reporter before he could actually feel the difference between right and wrong).
Anybody who has worked in hospitals, social services, or with druggies, or come close to their havoc, will have to agree that she is doing the bravest thing possible. She is a liberal, who is coming back to put boundaries on liberalism. Since the Sixties, we have been waiting for people like this. No need for neo-cons anymore.
Monday, February 08, 2010
To criticise the judge Sir Mota Singh
This is why religious ceremonial daggers are banned by schools.
It's a bit shocking that judges in Britain can live in worlds so removed from the harsh realities on the streets, isn't it? Well, no change there then.
It would be better if judges were paid less, and so actually had to live in the mess that they help perpetuate (although they pretend to themselves, and in this case, to others, that they are making the world a better place). No, most judges live in precious fine suburbs, and in their private time, relieve their stress with perverse vices that harm nobody else but are nonetheless a waste of tax money.
East London Manslaughter by Ceremonial Dagger in 2004
It's a bit shocking that judges in Britain can live in worlds so removed from the harsh realities on the streets, isn't it? Well, no change there then.
It would be better if judges were paid less, and so actually had to live in the mess that they help perpetuate (although they pretend to themselves, and in this case, to others, that they are making the world a better place). No, most judges live in precious fine suburbs, and in their private time, relieve their stress with perverse vices that harm nobody else but are nonetheless a waste of tax money.
Wednesday, March 25, 2009
Down with Brown
I became wary of the Labour Government ever since Gordon Brown removed the Dividend Tax Credit from Pension holdings of equities.
When Stephen Byers and Railtrack happened, I blatantly distrusted the Labour Government financially.
The Iraq war came, and Tony Blair went, yet still the sun was shining out of Gordon Brown's arse.
You see, it has always been young and fashionable, to support socialist ideals.
But nobody stays young for long, and these days we spend more of our lives being old than being young.
Once upon a time we had to hate Thatcher because Thatcherism wasn't the young thing to do.
Now Margaret Thatcher is struggling with senile dementia, and Britain has been struggling with the results of 11 years of Gordon Brown.
Down with Gordon Brown.
I hate Labour and its pseudo-Socialism. Its people whom cannot count, nor care about money, nor know what constitutes real wealth. Its champagne socialists who hammed up the sham pain of archaic working class affiliations.
In a few years, when Gordon Brown is history, we can all look back at the clouds of lies and untruths that were sold to us under the banner of Socialism. Lies and untruths on a scale that was not achieved even under the banner of Thatcherism.
For the difference between Thatcher and Brown? You knew what Margaret Thatcher stood for because she did what it said on her tin, even if you didn't like the colour. Gordon Brown, on the other hand, is famous for not saying anything at all, like a Value Brand, No-name, generic tin. Today everybody knows that the stuff out of his tin has already faded, turned flaky, and is peeling away to leave behind nothing but a pile of rust.
It's okay to hate Gordon Brown. What shame is there in it? There's no need to be violent about it. Just feel it, and say what you feel. We're supposed to have free speech, after all...
When Stephen Byers and Railtrack happened, I blatantly distrusted the Labour Government financially.
The Iraq war came, and Tony Blair went, yet still the sun was shining out of Gordon Brown's arse.
You see, it has always been young and fashionable, to support socialist ideals.
But nobody stays young for long, and these days we spend more of our lives being old than being young.
Once upon a time we had to hate Thatcher because Thatcherism wasn't the young thing to do.
Now Margaret Thatcher is struggling with senile dementia, and Britain has been struggling with the results of 11 years of Gordon Brown.
Down with Gordon Brown.
I hate Labour and its pseudo-Socialism. Its people whom cannot count, nor care about money, nor know what constitutes real wealth. Its champagne socialists who hammed up the sham pain of archaic working class affiliations.
In a few years, when Gordon Brown is history, we can all look back at the clouds of lies and untruths that were sold to us under the banner of Socialism. Lies and untruths on a scale that was not achieved even under the banner of Thatcherism.
For the difference between Thatcher and Brown? You knew what Margaret Thatcher stood for because she did what it said on her tin, even if you didn't like the colour. Gordon Brown, on the other hand, is famous for not saying anything at all, like a Value Brand, No-name, generic tin. Today everybody knows that the stuff out of his tin has already faded, turned flaky, and is peeling away to leave behind nothing but a pile of rust.
It's okay to hate Gordon Brown. What shame is there in it? There's no need to be violent about it. Just feel it, and say what you feel. We're supposed to have free speech, after all...
Friday, September 12, 2008
E On F Off, Down with Brown, Up with Green
The trouble with getting excited about the recent jury trial court victory is precisely what I blogged about 6 weeks ago.
If you're the Gordon Brown Labour government, a bunch of anarchists winning this precedent-setting case can one way or another be turned instantly to your advantage. Politics is chess, and some people can look 10 moves ahead and have a strategy. Winning a pawn is not proof you are winning the game.
Already, the media, the intellectuals, and I are all bowed towards the inevitability of nuclear power stations, simply because Britain out of national security needs to maintain its Nuclear technological base, even if it does not pursue a massive program of nuclear power generation.
Meanwhile, this week the Brown government announced a "fuel-poverty" policy that has the correct intent, but is nothing different than what existed before. Lag your loft, pump your cavity walls with insulation, but keep your Central Heating on at 21 degrees, while you sit there in front of the telly like a battery human, being fed the food produced by machines, and barely ever producing energy out of it.
Nobody in politics is re-designing cities or social groupings, let alone the national economy. 12 years of a pseudo-socialist government, and all we have is a bunch of politicians who want to carry on driving to Tesco on a wretched motorway, and sitting at home alone in 21 degrees centigrade through summer and winter, until the time comes to rot in a nursing home at £800 per week.
Christian Socialists? Are they really that stupid?
If you're the Gordon Brown Labour government, a bunch of anarchists winning this precedent-setting case can one way or another be turned instantly to your advantage. Politics is chess, and some people can look 10 moves ahead and have a strategy. Winning a pawn is not proof you are winning the game.
Already, the media, the intellectuals, and I are all bowed towards the inevitability of nuclear power stations, simply because Britain out of national security needs to maintain its Nuclear technological base, even if it does not pursue a massive program of nuclear power generation.
Meanwhile, this week the Brown government announced a "fuel-poverty" policy that has the correct intent, but is nothing different than what existed before. Lag your loft, pump your cavity walls with insulation, but keep your Central Heating on at 21 degrees, while you sit there in front of the telly like a battery human, being fed the food produced by machines, and barely ever producing energy out of it.
Nobody in politics is re-designing cities or social groupings, let alone the national economy. 12 years of a pseudo-socialist government, and all we have is a bunch of politicians who want to carry on driving to Tesco on a wretched motorway, and sitting at home alone in 21 degrees centigrade through summer and winter, until the time comes to rot in a nursing home at £800 per week.
Christian Socialists? Are they really that stupid?
Tuesday, September 02, 2008
Chicken Licken ate Global is Good
"The Pound is Falling"
"The Pound is Falling!", Chicken Licken cries!
Surely not? London is the financial capital of a globalist world economy. If the pound is falling, then the Sky is Falling for global economics?
Oh no, don't be ridiculous. Every old person over the age of 40 still bleats to the beat of "Global is Good". Every day some professor, intellectual, politician or businessman still throws their hands up in the air, and says, "we live in a global economy, and we have to wait until it sorts itself out".
I have not heard one person, not one voice shouting against the mantras of Globalism. When I heard 8 years ago a small businessman shouting the Mantra "We must go global", I remember being dumbstruck by the significance of its pervasiveness.
Then for the last 8 years, all we have been hearing is "Global is Good. See how wealthy we are."
Now the Pound is Falling, the Pound is Falling, and Chicken Licken now says "Global is All There Is. We must sit under the Clouds and be rained on by worthless Falling Pounds."
It is fitting that Britain has endured officially the gloomiest (least sunshine) August since 1942. This is like being in World War 2. It IS World War 3. Instead of bombs and armies and submarines and destroyers, we have words, threats, gestures hissy fits, and Financial Market attacks. Just look at David Milliband and Russia. That whole Ossetia and Georgia affair has seen the Russian stockmarket collapse. I'm with Vladimir Putin on this. I admire a man with brains, and who has some shrewdness. Russia couldn't care less, and why should it? Its people will still be better off today with a collapsed stock market than 20 years ago with the rudderless Gorbachev in a collapsed Communist dream.
And isn't China finally getting revenge on Britain, more than a century after the Scots launched the Opium Wars and brought down millenia of Imperial society? When is it more fitting than when we have a Prime Minister, one Gordon Brown, who is Scottish, and the son of a sing-song preaching Minister of the Church? It is almost as though the ghosts of the mandarins of China have finally engineered the ultimate slap in the face: bringing down the British economy. Strange isn't it, that the British, whom prided themselves on being immune to occupation and revolutions ("We have never been invaded since 1066, and have a continuous monarchic and parliamentary history"), went so carelessly around the world to occupy other countries and seditiously incite revolutions.
I wonder how many Chinese people today understand where the Communists came from, and how their thinking was directed (dare I say toyed with) by European intellectuals. A whole century of occupations, revolutions and upheavals, instead of some continuity of adjustment, and now nothing but an environmental mess to clear up.
And Thaksin Shinawatra is selling Manchester City football club, even while the Thai government is trying to recover his assets. Will Britain be very popular if they give protection to rich globalists like him?
Meanwhile, in India, the floods in Bihar this past week have displaced 3 million people, and have been hugely overshadowed by the ddrama of the New Orleans hurricane panic attack. Oh yes, wasn't India part of the British Empire once? Obviously did it a lot of good, and the fact that it has a democracy is doing it just as much good. Everybody in India must surely understand by now that nobody is going to look after them in the world, but they have to look after themselves.
So "The Pound is Falling, The Pound is Falling". Why should China, India, Russia or any of the Asian countries rush to rescue "the Pound"? Britain drove Globalism and still wallows in Globalism as if it were Catholic Iconography. Gordon Brown has never bothered to understand history or Global Economics, but merely dreams of being like the U.S.A. So once again, Britain will have to be rescued by America. And nobody will ever understand any better what a mistake Globalist Economics have been.
There is only me here, writing, free of charge, unpaid, thankless. Soon I shall stop protesting against Human Globalism and start designing salvage plans for the Global Human Economic Machine... while machines are still worth a lot of money as scrap metal. So while everybody else is sitting on their bums, I shall be sitting on their faces for time immemorial?
One would think I was descended from a people who have spent thousands of years adapted to globalism. A people whom had to develop a culture that was adapted to having no homeland. Diasporas, gypsies and nomads come to mind. Maybe I am. Maybe the horrors of World War 2 are no longer able to blind people to the horrors of a future of Globalism.
No, I'm just not a brainless sheep. I might have a sheep's soul, but my brain is half wolf.
"The Pound is Falling!", Chicken Licken cries!
Surely not? London is the financial capital of a globalist world economy. If the pound is falling, then the Sky is Falling for global economics?
Oh no, don't be ridiculous. Every old person over the age of 40 still bleats to the beat of "Global is Good". Every day some professor, intellectual, politician or businessman still throws their hands up in the air, and says, "we live in a global economy, and we have to wait until it sorts itself out".
I have not heard one person, not one voice shouting against the mantras of Globalism. When I heard 8 years ago a small businessman shouting the Mantra "We must go global", I remember being dumbstruck by the significance of its pervasiveness.
Then for the last 8 years, all we have been hearing is "Global is Good. See how wealthy we are."
Now the Pound is Falling, the Pound is Falling, and Chicken Licken now says "Global is All There Is. We must sit under the Clouds and be rained on by worthless Falling Pounds."
It is fitting that Britain has endured officially the gloomiest (least sunshine) August since 1942. This is like being in World War 2. It IS World War 3. Instead of bombs and armies and submarines and destroyers, we have words, threats, gestures hissy fits, and Financial Market attacks. Just look at David Milliband and Russia. That whole Ossetia and Georgia affair has seen the Russian stockmarket collapse. I'm with Vladimir Putin on this. I admire a man with brains, and who has some shrewdness. Russia couldn't care less, and why should it? Its people will still be better off today with a collapsed stock market than 20 years ago with the rudderless Gorbachev in a collapsed Communist dream.
And isn't China finally getting revenge on Britain, more than a century after the Scots launched the Opium Wars and brought down millenia of Imperial society? When is it more fitting than when we have a Prime Minister, one Gordon Brown, who is Scottish, and the son of a sing-song preaching Minister of the Church? It is almost as though the ghosts of the mandarins of China have finally engineered the ultimate slap in the face: bringing down the British economy. Strange isn't it, that the British, whom prided themselves on being immune to occupation and revolutions ("We have never been invaded since 1066, and have a continuous monarchic and parliamentary history"), went so carelessly around the world to occupy other countries and seditiously incite revolutions.
I wonder how many Chinese people today understand where the Communists came from, and how their thinking was directed (dare I say toyed with) by European intellectuals. A whole century of occupations, revolutions and upheavals, instead of some continuity of adjustment, and now nothing but an environmental mess to clear up.
And Thaksin Shinawatra is selling Manchester City football club, even while the Thai government is trying to recover his assets. Will Britain be very popular if they give protection to rich globalists like him?
Meanwhile, in India, the floods in Bihar this past week have displaced 3 million people, and have been hugely overshadowed by the ddrama of the New Orleans hurricane panic attack. Oh yes, wasn't India part of the British Empire once? Obviously did it a lot of good, and the fact that it has a democracy is doing it just as much good. Everybody in India must surely understand by now that nobody is going to look after them in the world, but they have to look after themselves.
So "The Pound is Falling, The Pound is Falling". Why should China, India, Russia or any of the Asian countries rush to rescue "the Pound"? Britain drove Globalism and still wallows in Globalism as if it were Catholic Iconography. Gordon Brown has never bothered to understand history or Global Economics, but merely dreams of being like the U.S.A. So once again, Britain will have to be rescued by America. And nobody will ever understand any better what a mistake Globalist Economics have been.
There is only me here, writing, free of charge, unpaid, thankless. Soon I shall stop protesting against Human Globalism and start designing salvage plans for the Global Human Economic Machine... while machines are still worth a lot of money as scrap metal. So while everybody else is sitting on their bums, I shall be sitting on their faces for time immemorial?
One would think I was descended from a people who have spent thousands of years adapted to globalism. A people whom had to develop a culture that was adapted to having no homeland. Diasporas, gypsies and nomads come to mind. Maybe I am. Maybe the horrors of World War 2 are no longer able to blind people to the horrors of a future of Globalism.
No, I'm just not a brainless sheep. I might have a sheep's soul, but my brain is half wolf.
Sunday, August 17, 2008
The Labour Party Oversteps the Mark on GM
This week saw Prince Charles doing his job by speaking up about the dangers of GM crop production and what do we get?
The Labour Government, full of little boys and girls who get fed fat in the House of Commons on food grown by machines and a few lonely farmers, has overstepped the mark by suffocating the debate with a feeble call for science.
Scientists whose jobs depend on Genetic Modification obviously only have one motive: the need to keep their jobs, get rich, and puff themselves up by making themselves famous.
The Labour Government, whose jobs depend on espousing humanitarianism, obviously only has one motive: appear to be directly helping human beings all over the world to live.
Both Scientists and the Labour Government will delude themselves and us with all sorts of lies to achieve these motives. Who is supposed to keep a check on them? Friends of the Earth? Greenpeace? The Press?
Obviously Prince Charles recognized that his help was needed. He has a background of wealth and privilege, and now considerable maturity, that has given him an overview of the world, and its planetary ecosystem, far above the usual self-serving ambitions of a few specialists (scientists and politicians) in the Global Human Economic Machine.
A bunch of democratically elected children prancing around the House of Commons, none of whom will every bother to look for an earthworm in an industrially farmed field of Genetically modified crops, are putting not only the planet, but democracy itself, in danger. These twits think that because they have a moral case, that they have the overview of the moral case. They will not bother to count the pitfalls of GM:
- Breeds and varieties of crops that have been developed over centuries and continue to be developed to suit local conditions, will be driven into extinction in favour of the adoption of the quick fix of a globally marketed GM variety.
- Local economies and hence cultures destroyed as they are moved from local market farming to international industrialized agriculture.
- And the worst: Vulnerability to catastrophic crop failure by using monoculture varieties of GM, which in the face of a changing climate, will be challenged by new varieties of fungi, viruses and pests. New diseases arise more quickly and in a globalized world, new diseases spread like wildfire, so there is no way that new GM varieties could be developed in sufficient time to avert unforeseen disease catastrophes.
Consider the scenario of when half the world's wheat production is grown from the same single variety of GM wheat. Suddenly a new strain of wheat rust arises and spreads within a year to half the crops in the world. There you lose instantly 25% of the crop.
On top of all this, in a changing climate, there is no ability of Genetic Modification to adapt a crop to a climate that varies wildly from one year to the next.
Even if GM food production turns out to be successful for the first ten years, there lies the danger that the global food economy will become complacent and the global human population will be allowed to multiply to yet higher levels, at which even GM food production no longer can provide any solutions.
There is only one sustainable solution to world hunger: putting a limit on the number of human beings on Earth.
China has a one-child policy, and the rest of the world should have the courage to implement its example all over the world. The one-child policy is the most moral and sustainable of humanitarian solutions.
The Labour Government, full of little boys and girls who get fed fat in the House of Commons on food grown by machines and a few lonely farmers, has overstepped the mark by suffocating the debate with a feeble call for science.
Scientists whose jobs depend on Genetic Modification obviously only have one motive: the need to keep their jobs, get rich, and puff themselves up by making themselves famous.
The Labour Government, whose jobs depend on espousing humanitarianism, obviously only has one motive: appear to be directly helping human beings all over the world to live.
Both Scientists and the Labour Government will delude themselves and us with all sorts of lies to achieve these motives. Who is supposed to keep a check on them? Friends of the Earth? Greenpeace? The Press?
Obviously Prince Charles recognized that his help was needed. He has a background of wealth and privilege, and now considerable maturity, that has given him an overview of the world, and its planetary ecosystem, far above the usual self-serving ambitions of a few specialists (scientists and politicians) in the Global Human Economic Machine.
A bunch of democratically elected children prancing around the House of Commons, none of whom will every bother to look for an earthworm in an industrially farmed field of Genetically modified crops, are putting not only the planet, but democracy itself, in danger. These twits think that because they have a moral case, that they have the overview of the moral case. They will not bother to count the pitfalls of GM:
- Breeds and varieties of crops that have been developed over centuries and continue to be developed to suit local conditions, will be driven into extinction in favour of the adoption of the quick fix of a globally marketed GM variety.
- Local economies and hence cultures destroyed as they are moved from local market farming to international industrialized agriculture.
- And the worst: Vulnerability to catastrophic crop failure by using monoculture varieties of GM, which in the face of a changing climate, will be challenged by new varieties of fungi, viruses and pests. New diseases arise more quickly and in a globalized world, new diseases spread like wildfire, so there is no way that new GM varieties could be developed in sufficient time to avert unforeseen disease catastrophes.
Consider the scenario of when half the world's wheat production is grown from the same single variety of GM wheat. Suddenly a new strain of wheat rust arises and spreads within a year to half the crops in the world. There you lose instantly 25% of the crop.
On top of all this, in a changing climate, there is no ability of Genetic Modification to adapt a crop to a climate that varies wildly from one year to the next.
Even if GM food production turns out to be successful for the first ten years, there lies the danger that the global food economy will become complacent and the global human population will be allowed to multiply to yet higher levels, at which even GM food production no longer can provide any solutions.
There is only one sustainable solution to world hunger: putting a limit on the number of human beings on Earth.
China has a one-child policy, and the rest of the world should have the courage to implement its example all over the world. The one-child policy is the most moral and sustainable of humanitarian solutions.
Wednesday, July 30, 2008
British Monetary Economy and Mortgage Market
James Crosby was probably paid for this report, and that's what makes it shocking. If he hasn't found anything new or surprising about why Britain has landed in this mess, it means that we might as well have had Orangutans running the Bank of England and the Treasury.
Well here's my simple explanation for people who cannot count, let alone care about money:
Britain exposed its monetary economic control to global financial markets. It was borrowing money from global supplies, for example to sell mortgages. It thought it was keeping control of its money supply, through the Bank of England, but it didn't count how these inflows of global money were affecting its money supply.
Oh yes, could an anti-globalist wish for anything better? The global financial system failed in one part of its machine, and the whole damn machine broke down. Britain was so proud of being part of a global machine. Well globalists don't tell you the downside of globalism, do they? The bigger the machine, the bigger the breakdown when just one thing goes wrong in the machine. A bit like a whole Space Shuttle blowing up because one person used the wrong type of washer when they were fitting a bolt.
So now Britain's monetary economy has been left to recover on its own, and all they can manage to say is that:
The global system broke. There are no quick fixes. We will have to live without the global machine and learn to be self-sufficient again. This will take at least two years.
To which I add:
Stop eating mortgages. In fact, stop eating and wasting so much food, otherwise the global food system will break down too!
I hope the wide-eyed kids who studied politics in university who work at Westminster for our busy, simple-minded, Members of Parliament can explain these simple facts of Globalization to their bosses:
Global isn't always Good. Global always is dangerous. Take the collapse in World Trade Organisation Doha round talks for example.
De-Globalization is best managed, and not left to chance, or worse, to War. Everybody needs to have a Plan B, and people who walk around saying Globalism is Good never seem to give us a Plan B.
Well here's my simple explanation for people who cannot count, let alone care about money:
Britain exposed its monetary economic control to global financial markets. It was borrowing money from global supplies, for example to sell mortgages. It thought it was keeping control of its money supply, through the Bank of England, but it didn't count how these inflows of global money were affecting its money supply.
Oh yes, could an anti-globalist wish for anything better? The global financial system failed in one part of its machine, and the whole damn machine broke down. Britain was so proud of being part of a global machine. Well globalists don't tell you the downside of globalism, do they? The bigger the machine, the bigger the breakdown when just one thing goes wrong in the machine. A bit like a whole Space Shuttle blowing up because one person used the wrong type of washer when they were fitting a bolt.
So now Britain's monetary economy has been left to recover on its own, and all they can manage to say is that:
The global system broke. There are no quick fixes. We will have to live without the global machine and learn to be self-sufficient again. This will take at least two years.
To which I add:
Stop eating mortgages. In fact, stop eating and wasting so much food, otherwise the global food system will break down too!
I hope the wide-eyed kids who studied politics in university who work at Westminster for our busy, simple-minded, Members of Parliament can explain these simple facts of Globalization to their bosses:
Global isn't always Good. Global always is dangerous. Take the collapse in World Trade Organisation Doha round talks for example.
De-Globalization is best managed, and not left to chance, or worse, to War. Everybody needs to have a Plan B, and people who walk around saying Globalism is Good never seem to give us a Plan B.
Categories:
Economics,
England,
Globalization,
Politics
Friday, July 25, 2008
Isn't She Lovely
I had to go into Central London today. It was the hottest day of the year so far, but the temperature barely crawled up to 26 degrees, and I never once broke into sweat. This eventual arrival of summer was obvious from the number of tattoos visible on rough labourers who, surprisingly, still have jobs in this lame recession.
Enfeebled on the way home by the Lurgy I suffered mid-week, brought on by the trauma of losing my bike last week, I walked with heavy feet, and looked at the London Wall. The City gardening contractors are still obeying Chelsea Flower Show practices: using rubber rakes, wasting water on the grass in this dry weather, and teasing the flower beds to look as crisp and clean as china flower vases. There is a healthy fig tree, heavy with fruit, and a herb garden in honour of the herbalist John Gerard, in front of the Worshipful Company of Barbers (they were the original surgeons and medicine men, because they had knives). The garden bends into one of the Barbican's modernist rectangular ponds, softened with lovely water lilies to catch the splashing water of its plain fountain. Already I was seeing here people who had the saintly beatification of being "lovely" about their person.
What is "lovely"?
It must have been sometime before the millenium that Britain got fed up with "nice". Then we had nasty. It must have been at some time after the 2004 London terrorist attacks, that "lovely" became de rigueur. Corporations had to demonstrate social responsibility, including caring about humanitarian and green issues, and their human resources assets.
When I arrived in Finsbury Circus, the largest green oasis in the City of London, all my dread was hardened. There they were, all being "lovely", as the lunch hour was beginning on a summer Friday, on the grass, on the benches, in the sunshine. The internal melodies of R.E.M. Shiny Happy People kept their loveliness at bay from the pain I feel so easily when I am unwell. Indeed, to wander through London whenever you are not feeling well is the opposite of all medicine, even the crudely effective sort that John Gerard practised 450 years ago.
All of these Lovely People in Finsbury Circus were young, fit, healthy and good-looking. If they had not been born onto the Conveyor Belt of Success, then their youth and looks meant that they were quickly put onto it. Here we are, in a darkening recession, where even the people of Glasgow East, despite being the most sheepish form of Labour supporter, have finally thrown eggs into the unlovely face of Gordon Brown, our Scottish prime minister. Here we are, in another global food crisis, where over a million people in Ethiopia are waiting for a grain shipment from South Africa, or they will starve in the next month. Here we are, in London, where there are plenty of people whose pain needs to be shared.
And there I was, seeing the lunchtime workers in Finsbury Circus, being "lovely". Before Lovely, people in the City had to be thrusting and sexy, so this is a new social phenomenon.
When I saw the shop, The White Stuff, advertising "Lovely Clothes for Lovely People", I knew it was time to blog about "lovely". Attack!
"Lovely" has nothing to do with Love. In the English language, there is only one word for Love, which is a stunning reflection of the naive level of understanding of love in English culture and history. Sorry, I have to tell it like it is. As I have said before, in English, Love is just another four-letter word.
So what is "lovely"? To be Lovely is:
1. to appear absolutely harmless and non-threatening, and
2. to portray an aura of compassionate intelligence,
3. to appear to be able to extend kindness to anyone in the vicinity who should need it.
4. to appear to have an easy laughing heart
5. to know you must hide all your pain underneath lest it might violate the fragile fantasy of happiness of those around you.
Yes, "lovely", is superficial as it gets, even if it is the nicest form of superficial you can get. This is because Lovely is the old Nice.
The most "Lovely" people seem to live in North London, for miles around Crouch End, but they are not alone. They are just green enough so that they feel worthy. They are just humanist enough that nobody can say they don't care. They are all so terribly lovely, and live in such gilded lovely worlds.
"Lovely" is also endemic in the workplace. To see it in the City is a recent social phenomenon, but it has been brewing in the public sector for years. Particularly in the NHS, it has been adopted as the perfect camouflage by those staff who know that they are overpaid in relation to what they produce.
At least Lovely People are not bicycle thieves, knive stabbing murderers, or coke-snorting greedy City Traders, but their problem is this:
Lovely people are not part of the solution, so they are nonetheless part of the problem. "Lovely" does not solve any problems, let alone pressing ones. "Lovely" is a form of mutual social masturbation, akin to sitting around making cups of tea while bombs are falling on your neighbours.
*******
Onward to Spitalfields market, where Loveliness acquires Grittiness, and what do I have to report, except that the devastation of Spitalfields Market is finally completed, since I first blogged about it 4 years ago. Indeed, even the Health Food Shop near where the Spitz used to be, was finally moved out two months ago, and is now across the road while this last bit of the market is given the same tacky makeover worthy of a BBC Television programme. Yes, London is now for sale to those who couldn't give a damn about authentic historical places: so long as it has been modernized with the bling of Millenium Oil-Powered Industrialization, someone will pay more for it. Russians and Kazakhstanis, I suppose? Or Malaysians and Middle-Easterners, maybe? Who knows. It is all Global Capital, and the Lovely People of London who gather in Finsbury Circus, are quite happy to take home their wages while fostering this globalization.
Enfeebled on the way home by the Lurgy I suffered mid-week, brought on by the trauma of losing my bike last week, I walked with heavy feet, and looked at the London Wall. The City gardening contractors are still obeying Chelsea Flower Show practices: using rubber rakes, wasting water on the grass in this dry weather, and teasing the flower beds to look as crisp and clean as china flower vases. There is a healthy fig tree, heavy with fruit, and a herb garden in honour of the herbalist John Gerard, in front of the Worshipful Company of Barbers (they were the original surgeons and medicine men, because they had knives). The garden bends into one of the Barbican's modernist rectangular ponds, softened with lovely water lilies to catch the splashing water of its plain fountain. Already I was seeing here people who had the saintly beatification of being "lovely" about their person.
What is "lovely"?
It must have been sometime before the millenium that Britain got fed up with "nice". Then we had nasty. It must have been at some time after the 2004 London terrorist attacks, that "lovely" became de rigueur. Corporations had to demonstrate social responsibility, including caring about humanitarian and green issues, and their human resources assets.
When I arrived in Finsbury Circus, the largest green oasis in the City of London, all my dread was hardened. There they were, all being "lovely", as the lunch hour was beginning on a summer Friday, on the grass, on the benches, in the sunshine. The internal melodies of R.E.M. Shiny Happy People kept their loveliness at bay from the pain I feel so easily when I am unwell. Indeed, to wander through London whenever you are not feeling well is the opposite of all medicine, even the crudely effective sort that John Gerard practised 450 years ago.
All of these Lovely People in Finsbury Circus were young, fit, healthy and good-looking. If they had not been born onto the Conveyor Belt of Success, then their youth and looks meant that they were quickly put onto it. Here we are, in a darkening recession, where even the people of Glasgow East, despite being the most sheepish form of Labour supporter, have finally thrown eggs into the unlovely face of Gordon Brown, our Scottish prime minister. Here we are, in another global food crisis, where over a million people in Ethiopia are waiting for a grain shipment from South Africa, or they will starve in the next month. Here we are, in London, where there are plenty of people whose pain needs to be shared.
And there I was, seeing the lunchtime workers in Finsbury Circus, being "lovely". Before Lovely, people in the City had to be thrusting and sexy, so this is a new social phenomenon.
When I saw the shop, The White Stuff, advertising "Lovely Clothes for Lovely People", I knew it was time to blog about "lovely". Attack!
"Lovely" has nothing to do with Love. In the English language, there is only one word for Love, which is a stunning reflection of the naive level of understanding of love in English culture and history. Sorry, I have to tell it like it is. As I have said before, in English, Love is just another four-letter word.
So what is "lovely"? To be Lovely is:
1. to appear absolutely harmless and non-threatening, and
2. to portray an aura of compassionate intelligence,
3. to appear to be able to extend kindness to anyone in the vicinity who should need it.
4. to appear to have an easy laughing heart
5. to know you must hide all your pain underneath lest it might violate the fragile fantasy of happiness of those around you.
Yes, "lovely", is superficial as it gets, even if it is the nicest form of superficial you can get. This is because Lovely is the old Nice.
The most "Lovely" people seem to live in North London, for miles around Crouch End, but they are not alone. They are just green enough so that they feel worthy. They are just humanist enough that nobody can say they don't care. They are all so terribly lovely, and live in such gilded lovely worlds.
"Lovely" is also endemic in the workplace. To see it in the City is a recent social phenomenon, but it has been brewing in the public sector for years. Particularly in the NHS, it has been adopted as the perfect camouflage by those staff who know that they are overpaid in relation to what they produce.
At least Lovely People are not bicycle thieves, knive stabbing murderers, or coke-snorting greedy City Traders, but their problem is this:
Lovely people are not part of the solution, so they are nonetheless part of the problem. "Lovely" does not solve any problems, let alone pressing ones. "Lovely" is a form of mutual social masturbation, akin to sitting around making cups of tea while bombs are falling on your neighbours.
*******
Onward to Spitalfields market, where Loveliness acquires Grittiness, and what do I have to report, except that the devastation of Spitalfields Market is finally completed, since I first blogged about it 4 years ago. Indeed, even the Health Food Shop near where the Spitz used to be, was finally moved out two months ago, and is now across the road while this last bit of the market is given the same tacky makeover worthy of a BBC Television programme. Yes, London is now for sale to those who couldn't give a damn about authentic historical places: so long as it has been modernized with the bling of Millenium Oil-Powered Industrialization, someone will pay more for it. Russians and Kazakhstanis, I suppose? Or Malaysians and Middle-Easterners, maybe? Who knows. It is all Global Capital, and the Lovely People of London who gather in Finsbury Circus, are quite happy to take home their wages while fostering this globalization.
Categories:
Globalization,
Humanity,
London,
Love,
Politics
Thursday, July 24, 2008
Can David Cameron bring back Capital Punishment for Bike Crime
I am 8 days ahead of the fashion for having your bicycle stolen, because today, David Cameron also had his bicycle stolen, from in front of a supermarket.
Yes, to him, his bicycle was priceless. Mine was priceless too, and the priceless bit was counted in the tears, the grief, and is still being counted in the effort of finding its replacement. He is the future Prime Minister of Britain. He probably had insurance for it, and can afford to lose his bicycle more than I can, yet he feels upset about it. If there had been a camera filming me when I found out my bike was stolen, you would have seen how priceless a bicycle can be.
It should be discussed whether Capital Punishment should be re-introduced for Bicycle Theft. Since the Sixties the concept of having capital punishment has met resistance even for crimes of rape and murder. This has resulted in Western countries having prisons overflowing with drugs and obesity, even while indigenous tribes in Africa and Asia are dying of starvation and malnutrition.
I think it would be much easier to bring back capital punishment now, and especially for bicycle theft and crime. The mood is right. The failure to bring this subject into discussion in the Houses of Parliament will only result in yet more people being keen to adopt Sharia Law. Yes, even I could be converted to supporting Sharia Law, since I have had my bicycle stolen.
So there it is - we either spend the rest of our years suffering the social results of namby-pamby Sixties liberalism, while seeing more of society converting to Sharia law,
or we discuss bringing back Capital Punishment. After all, there are so many humane ways of execution nowadays - an overdose of Prozac, maybe? Or being given as much alcohol to drink as is necessary to become unconscious, before a quick capsule of cyanide is popped down the gullet of the heinous criminal.
Watch out, bicycle thieves. Give back your stolen bicycles, or be sentenced to death!
Yes, to him, his bicycle was priceless. Mine was priceless too, and the priceless bit was counted in the tears, the grief, and is still being counted in the effort of finding its replacement. He is the future Prime Minister of Britain. He probably had insurance for it, and can afford to lose his bicycle more than I can, yet he feels upset about it. If there had been a camera filming me when I found out my bike was stolen, you would have seen how priceless a bicycle can be.
It should be discussed whether Capital Punishment should be re-introduced for Bicycle Theft. Since the Sixties the concept of having capital punishment has met resistance even for crimes of rape and murder. This has resulted in Western countries having prisons overflowing with drugs and obesity, even while indigenous tribes in Africa and Asia are dying of starvation and malnutrition.
I think it would be much easier to bring back capital punishment now, and especially for bicycle theft and crime. The mood is right. The failure to bring this subject into discussion in the Houses of Parliament will only result in yet more people being keen to adopt Sharia Law. Yes, even I could be converted to supporting Sharia Law, since I have had my bicycle stolen.
So there it is - we either spend the rest of our years suffering the social results of namby-pamby Sixties liberalism, while seeing more of society converting to Sharia law,
or we discuss bringing back Capital Punishment. After all, there are so many humane ways of execution nowadays - an overdose of Prozac, maybe? Or being given as much alcohol to drink as is necessary to become unconscious, before a quick capsule of cyanide is popped down the gullet of the heinous criminal.
Watch out, bicycle thieves. Give back your stolen bicycles, or be sentenced to death!
Sunday, July 13, 2008
Boring Drab Weather and Entrenched Employment Protection
Anybody who came to England for the first time in 2006, when the El Nino was on full, would have thought they had stumbled on the perfect paradise to hide away if Global Warming was becoming true.
Well this summer, the El Nino and La Nina effects are gone at last, and the cloudy, unpredictable, sometimes chilly, grey and wet weather have reminded me that this is much the typical English summer. If you get a sunny day, you grab it, because it might be the last one you see for a long, long time.
A small local Chinese Grocery supermarket that opened up only a year ago is closing down and they say they're going back to China. Quelle surprise, as Julian Clary would say! It doesn't take people long to figure out now that there's no point in hanging around in England, when things are so much better at home.
Walking down one of the nearby major High Streets last week, I counted at least 5 shops that were closing down. Nearly every shop had a sale on, even though summer sales do not usually start until end of July.
The recession is on everyone's minds and lips. It may have taken 6 months longer for it to happen than in the USA, but it has gotten through to the man in the street. This time round, the property market went down before the retail business, and before the job market. I suppose that should have been predictable, since the property market has been the main engine of the UK economy over the last 6 years.
Oh yes, the job market is disappearing, and of course, the private sector has gone first. The public sector is protected by unions and endless employment law, and with a Labour Government in power, there is no chance that they will have to absorb cutbacks. Nonetheless, the unions will still fight for above inflation pay increases, even though they are lucky to have jobs, when all the people outside the public sector are losing theirs and have no new jobs to go to.
Yes, if there were an election in 6 months time, the Conservatives would sweep into power, and things would be sufficiently bad that they could probably do the one thing that nobody has dared to do for 30 years:
Remove enough employment protection so that it is quick and easy to remove unproductive and no longer required employees.
You see, despite all the reform from Thatcherism, this was never actually achieved in legislation. No, the only way to get rid of employees was to make them redundant, and this required organisations to re-structure themselves, or be slyly driven into bankruptcy, just to get rid of dead wood. The other ruses by which dead wood could be removed were much more roundabout, but became so common that they defined corporate business practice from the late Eighties to the early Noughties. They were of course, firstly Privatisation, and then secondly, Outsourcing.
Privatisation was essential to revitalising the European and especially the UK economy. Anyone from overseas who saw in the early Eighties, the European PTT (post and telecoms) organisations, for example, used to laugh their heads off at their backwardness, incompetence, inefficiency and lack of productivity.
Outsourcing was a far more ridiculous and devious solution to the need for organisational restructuring while keeping Seventies employment protection. It was also far less effective, because TUPE was upgraded to protect the rights of employees who were part of the organisation that was sold to an outsourcing company. What resulted was that dead wood ended up being transferred to an external outsourcing company, and only by extensive attrition and sidelining and eventual redundancies were useless and ineffective employees eventually removed from being paid to do nothing, or worse, being paid to do harm to the rest of their organisation.
None of the outsourcing would have been possible if Britain had not welcomed with open arms every illegal immigrant who was willing to work without being able to answer back to their boss in English. Yes, they took their pay, and didn't complain, which made them far more desirable than local employees. Of course, this eventually pissed off everyone in the country, because guess what? We have had a Labour Government since 1997, and this was what they were encouraging.
The French might only now be catching up with the UK, but the UK still has employment protection that defies economic sense. In this recession, I think the Tories when they take over the government, might be given the democratic power to remove the last nonsensical employment protection from the rulebooks. Is this a good thing? Yes, but it is sadly much too late. All that employment protection was the reason why British manufacturing stayed so uncompetitive that today, none of it is owned and managed by themselves, and what there is left of manufacturing survives because of factory robotics.
Well, robotics use oil, and human beings need physical work, so this is a silly state of affairs. This is the time to ask for a democratic mandate to remove obstructive employment protection laws. This can be done now because all the industry is gone, and because the welfare and social security system can be kept operational without the need to keep employees in jobs where they are producing nothing, or even less than nothing.
Well this summer, the El Nino and La Nina effects are gone at last, and the cloudy, unpredictable, sometimes chilly, grey and wet weather have reminded me that this is much the typical English summer. If you get a sunny day, you grab it, because it might be the last one you see for a long, long time.
A small local Chinese Grocery supermarket that opened up only a year ago is closing down and they say they're going back to China. Quelle surprise, as Julian Clary would say! It doesn't take people long to figure out now that there's no point in hanging around in England, when things are so much better at home.
Walking down one of the nearby major High Streets last week, I counted at least 5 shops that were closing down. Nearly every shop had a sale on, even though summer sales do not usually start until end of July.
The recession is on everyone's minds and lips. It may have taken 6 months longer for it to happen than in the USA, but it has gotten through to the man in the street. This time round, the property market went down before the retail business, and before the job market. I suppose that should have been predictable, since the property market has been the main engine of the UK economy over the last 6 years.
Oh yes, the job market is disappearing, and of course, the private sector has gone first. The public sector is protected by unions and endless employment law, and with a Labour Government in power, there is no chance that they will have to absorb cutbacks. Nonetheless, the unions will still fight for above inflation pay increases, even though they are lucky to have jobs, when all the people outside the public sector are losing theirs and have no new jobs to go to.
Yes, if there were an election in 6 months time, the Conservatives would sweep into power, and things would be sufficiently bad that they could probably do the one thing that nobody has dared to do for 30 years:
Remove enough employment protection so that it is quick and easy to remove unproductive and no longer required employees.
You see, despite all the reform from Thatcherism, this was never actually achieved in legislation. No, the only way to get rid of employees was to make them redundant, and this required organisations to re-structure themselves, or be slyly driven into bankruptcy, just to get rid of dead wood. The other ruses by which dead wood could be removed were much more roundabout, but became so common that they defined corporate business practice from the late Eighties to the early Noughties. They were of course, firstly Privatisation, and then secondly, Outsourcing.
Privatisation was essential to revitalising the European and especially the UK economy. Anyone from overseas who saw in the early Eighties, the European PTT (post and telecoms) organisations, for example, used to laugh their heads off at their backwardness, incompetence, inefficiency and lack of productivity.
Outsourcing was a far more ridiculous and devious solution to the need for organisational restructuring while keeping Seventies employment protection. It was also far less effective, because TUPE was upgraded to protect the rights of employees who were part of the organisation that was sold to an outsourcing company. What resulted was that dead wood ended up being transferred to an external outsourcing company, and only by extensive attrition and sidelining and eventual redundancies were useless and ineffective employees eventually removed from being paid to do nothing, or worse, being paid to do harm to the rest of their organisation.
None of the outsourcing would have been possible if Britain had not welcomed with open arms every illegal immigrant who was willing to work without being able to answer back to their boss in English. Yes, they took their pay, and didn't complain, which made them far more desirable than local employees. Of course, this eventually pissed off everyone in the country, because guess what? We have had a Labour Government since 1997, and this was what they were encouraging.
The French might only now be catching up with the UK, but the UK still has employment protection that defies economic sense. In this recession, I think the Tories when they take over the government, might be given the democratic power to remove the last nonsensical employment protection from the rulebooks. Is this a good thing? Yes, but it is sadly much too late. All that employment protection was the reason why British manufacturing stayed so uncompetitive that today, none of it is owned and managed by themselves, and what there is left of manufacturing survives because of factory robotics.
Well, robotics use oil, and human beings need physical work, so this is a silly state of affairs. This is the time to ask for a democratic mandate to remove obstructive employment protection laws. This can be done now because all the industry is gone, and because the welfare and social security system can be kept operational without the need to keep employees in jobs where they are producing nothing, or even less than nothing.
Thursday, July 10, 2008
Dance Powered Electricity and Welfare Powered Landlording
Mr Charalambous, a Greek-Cypriot who owns 1,000 properties in north London as well as land in Europe,
So now you can clean your conscience by turning green. To his credit, at least he is doing some good, and is doing it publicly, because there are many other wealthy landlords who keep a low profile and accumulate wealth for dynastic ambitions.
I remember in the Eighties when Landlording in Britain was something despised and condemned by all idealistic politicised youth.
Since then, we have had endless growth in landlording, effectively powered by the insatiable need for social housing. Tax is taken from some people, and the government has spent it on housing other people. For despite the growth in Housing Associations and new home development, the rental market for homes suitable for welfare-dependent mothers of many children has been fed by years of extreme left-wing idealism about the universality of human rights, particularly the right to housing, and this has mostly been focussed in the perpetually Labour boroughs of London, such as Hackney, Haringey, Lambeth, Tower Hamlets, Newham, etc.
New Labour was distinct from old Labour in that it spent years ridding itself of this base of alienated idealistic extremists. The borough first to benefit from this clean-out was Newham, partly because its MPs were part of or at least close to the religious group that formed the Blair government. Consequently Newham was one of the first boroughs to have its own elected Mayor. Since then, the placement of the 2012 Olympics in Newham has extended the changes to the extent that old Labour, in Newham, is effectively gone, and probably retired to Morecambe Bay.
The other Labour boroughs have also caught up, although they took a long time about it. Haringey, which is in North London had the benefit of wealthy middle-class neighbourhoods around Alexandra Park, the Ladder, and even near Turnpike Lane. Haringey is the undisputed centre of London's Turkish and Greek-Cypriot communities. That they chose to live next to each other is surprising but typical in London: in East London in the late 20th century, Tamils, Muslims, Hindus and Sikhs chose to live as close to each other as is possible without having to actually admit to liking each other. Since the 21st century started the influx of East Europeans from Poland, Russia, the Ukraine, and Bulgaria has predominated in London, although there has also been a steady flow of immigrants from every class level in every place in the world.
Now they can all come here to dance up a storm, or have lots of babies and get social housing that will power a landlord's empire, which because of welfare idealism and social housing, is still more recession-proof than sleeping on a solid block of gold.
Saturday, June 21, 2008
The Political Shufflings of the Dominant British Economists
Can I be a bitch about this please? It is ridiculous that an insular and incestuous academic organisation such as the London School of Economics is now the most supreme modern exponent of the "Old Boys Network" that used to run Britain.
We can now comfort ourselves that the planet's tolerance of Human Economic Growth will be stabilized and moderated by a cerebral man born after World War 2, into the Liberal and Idealistic Baby-boomer generation, who can mull over grave thoughts affably in the ghetto-mentality confines of the Royal Opera House, the E.N.O, and Lords Cricket Ground.
Who said we want the Economists from the LSE to pilot our future? I didn't, and I haven't even heard anybody else asking the question! As individuals, we get to vote for one lousy MP, and that is the full extent of our democratic power. Why does everybody think democracy is so wonderful? The traditional institutions of the Church, the Press, and the Judiciary which were supposed to act as checks on the State do not seem to have any comprehension of what is going on here. This is a lovely example of how Democracy is just as prone to despotism, ignorance and negligence as other political systems. Or is the fact that we get to watch Big Brother on Television the ultimate proof that democracy is superior to blatant oligarchy?
I would like someone to expose and subject the London School of Economics to a ruthless analysis of its intellectual and political machinations. As a member of the public, I am not paid to do this, so where are the intelligent journalists that were all directed into Media Studies five years ago?
We can now comfort ourselves that the planet's tolerance of Human Economic Growth will be stabilized and moderated by a cerebral man born after World War 2, into the Liberal and Idealistic Baby-boomer generation, who can mull over grave thoughts affably in the ghetto-mentality confines of the Royal Opera House, the E.N.O, and Lords Cricket Ground.
Who said we want the Economists from the LSE to pilot our future? I didn't, and I haven't even heard anybody else asking the question! As individuals, we get to vote for one lousy MP, and that is the full extent of our democratic power. Why does everybody think democracy is so wonderful? The traditional institutions of the Church, the Press, and the Judiciary which were supposed to act as checks on the State do not seem to have any comprehension of what is going on here. This is a lovely example of how Democracy is just as prone to despotism, ignorance and negligence as other political systems. Or is the fact that we get to watch Big Brother on Television the ultimate proof that democracy is superior to blatant oligarchy?
I would like someone to expose and subject the London School of Economics to a ruthless analysis of its intellectual and political machinations. As a member of the public, I am not paid to do this, so where are the intelligent journalists that were all directed into Media Studies five years ago?
Charles Bean, the new deputy governor, is a respected economist with eight years experience at the Bank of England. Known as affable and cerebral, the fan of cricket and opera was a successful academic before being lured to Threadneedle Street. Born in 1953, he studied at Cambridge and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology before working at the Treasury, and then becoming professor of economics at the London School of Economics in 1990. - Graeme Wearden
Paul Tucker, the Bank of England's executive director for markets, is the frontrunner to be the first head of the central bank's new financial stability committee from next spring, when Sir John Gieve leaves. Tucker, 50, has long been considered a rising star. He has extensive financial markets experience, at the Bank and in the commercial banking world, and is well respected in the City and internationally. He has also been on the Bank's rate-setting committee since 2002 so has extensive experience of monetary policy. Some suggest he could replace Mervyn King as governor in five years' time. - Ashley Seager
Friday, June 20, 2008
Will Hutton - a typical over-informed globalist journalist?
Have started to read his book, The Writing on the Wall, China and the West in the 21st century. Don't buy it, because I disagree with people running out to buy books and then ingesting them without applying sufficient criticism.
Not having read much of it yet, I am about to hazard a guess that he is an economist by training, and hence belongs to the Simon Jenkins school of journalism. I will now check Will Hutton out on Wikipedia. Lo and behold, I am nearly 100% spot on: introduced to A level economics, worked in equity sales, and then went to do an MBA, he is a governor of the London School of Economics, amongst other things.
How predictable. The intellectual pedigree of economists should be subjected to more ruthless analysis than currently exists, because economists have for the last few decades been allowed to wield influence far in excess of their experience, intelligence, and vision.
I shall reserve judgement until I read more of this book, but meanwhile, de-globalization is slowly becoming more topical. How do you explain to an economist that economies of a global scale cannot be coupled with the evolutionary history of Man and all other Life on the planet? They can't figure it out for themselves. Take away their jobs, and economize on economists. Hire common-sense instead.
There was a man today exercising five cages of his pigeons, by letting them fly home to Harlow. They were all this year's brood. He drove a taxi part-time, as he was semi-retired, and he was quite happy in himself, but appalled at what the world has become. "Nobody ever does anything, except sit at home watching telly, or in front of the computer, and driving to the supermarket." No, he was the last of his breed, an earthy pigeon fancier. He understood the problem with globalization, in that peer pressure from the younger generation and the demise of local focus has impoverished the pastimes, hobbies, and ability to be content that was so easy for the pre-television generation. And today, on the radio, it turns out that Peter Mandelson is becoming unpopular because of his liberal trade politics, whereas there is a growing understanding even in Europe (at last, and too belatedly to escape the damage) that globalization has a flawed and vapid vision.
Oh dear, maybe I shouldn't waste my time finishing Will Hutton's book. Just the usual idiotic scribings of the over-educated, over-informed, egocentric, self-publicizing journalist who claims to be intelligent, but cannot induce any new truths from all that he knows. As I said, he reminds me of Simon Jenkins.
Not having read much of it yet, I am about to hazard a guess that he is an economist by training, and hence belongs to the Simon Jenkins school of journalism. I will now check Will Hutton out on Wikipedia. Lo and behold, I am nearly 100% spot on: introduced to A level economics, worked in equity sales, and then went to do an MBA, he is a governor of the London School of Economics, amongst other things.
How predictable. The intellectual pedigree of economists should be subjected to more ruthless analysis than currently exists, because economists have for the last few decades been allowed to wield influence far in excess of their experience, intelligence, and vision.
I shall reserve judgement until I read more of this book, but meanwhile, de-globalization is slowly becoming more topical. How do you explain to an economist that economies of a global scale cannot be coupled with the evolutionary history of Man and all other Life on the planet? They can't figure it out for themselves. Take away their jobs, and economize on economists. Hire common-sense instead.
There was a man today exercising five cages of his pigeons, by letting them fly home to Harlow. They were all this year's brood. He drove a taxi part-time, as he was semi-retired, and he was quite happy in himself, but appalled at what the world has become. "Nobody ever does anything, except sit at home watching telly, or in front of the computer, and driving to the supermarket." No, he was the last of his breed, an earthy pigeon fancier. He understood the problem with globalization, in that peer pressure from the younger generation and the demise of local focus has impoverished the pastimes, hobbies, and ability to be content that was so easy for the pre-television generation. And today, on the radio, it turns out that Peter Mandelson is becoming unpopular because of his liberal trade politics, whereas there is a growing understanding even in Europe (at last, and too belatedly to escape the damage) that globalization has a flawed and vapid vision.
Oh dear, maybe I shouldn't waste my time finishing Will Hutton's book. Just the usual idiotic scribings of the over-educated, over-informed, egocentric, self-publicizing journalist who claims to be intelligent, but cannot induce any new truths from all that he knows. As I said, he reminds me of Simon Jenkins.
Sunday, June 15, 2008
World Naked Bike Ride in London 2008
The annual naked bike ride in London took place yesterday, starting as usual from Hyde Park Corner, but this time at 3.30pm. It was one week later than events elsewhere in the World Naked Bike Ride.
The day was partly cloudy, and slightly nippy. Consequently, the turnout was probably a bit less than last year.
I wonder if countries like Saudi Arabia, Singapore, India, China, and Kenya will ever have naked bike rides? In London, spectators are still amazed by the spectacle, and those who are appalled are more appalled at the spectacle of body honesty than nakedness. Ask anybody about the Naked Bike Ride, and their response will be, oh yes, they like it when an attractive young person of their sexual preference sails past. Their cameras are clicking away either for this reason, or because they want to prove to their mates that they saw all these loopy nutters riding their bikes without any clothes on. Even in post-liberal, totally-internetted England, nudity is still a major engine of sexual stimulation. This probably makes sense, since in cold countries, clothes are for most of the year a physical necessity for keeping warm, so seeing a naked person outdoors will always be a seasonal novelty.
I would like to hand a cheer to all the non-porn-stars who participated in the London naked bike ride. For they once again injected a forgotten humanity into a society that gloats about its own humanitarianism. This is the humanity of the human animal body, the one which many people deny until they are humbled by a nurse or a doctor while lying in a hospital bed.
Back in 1983 when I was a new adult, I paid my first ever visit to a naturist beach. It was in the south of France. My companion was brave and determined to strip off. I followed suitless. As we lay there, in the glorious sunshine by the Mediterranean, watching crowds of nude naturist French families having their picnics and swimming, one particular group caught my eye.
The young woman was a stunning beauty, with a body that all women would crave to have, and all men crave to touch. She was with her infant daughter and her mother. Her daughter would be a beautiful woman one day. Her mother was no longer the subject of any man's attentions, and in fact appeared to have made no attempt to fight the gravity and wear of ageing, but she was unashamed and "bien dans sa peau", she was with her family, and they were all together, having their day out on the beach.
I looked at them and thought how the young woman must be so much wiser than many in Anglo-Saxon lands. Here she could have no delusions that one day she will sport her mother's body, but she learns not to fear the day. She learns to live today, to love today, and already has accomplished her birthright of passing her genetic blessings to her daughter. No neurotic reluctant motherhood here.
Three generations of the family females, naked together on the beach, living on a sunny warm day. How natural, how lovely. With no commentary by David Attenborough, either. It is sad that only in such places may we learn what we are, and why we exist. It is sadder yet that even in 2008, a naked bike ride in London can never approach the beauty and education of such a scene. A naked bike ride in London makes less of a dent on the population's behaviour than does the rising price of that substance abuse - oil.
The day was partly cloudy, and slightly nippy. Consequently, the turnout was probably a bit less than last year.
I wonder if countries like Saudi Arabia, Singapore, India, China, and Kenya will ever have naked bike rides? In London, spectators are still amazed by the spectacle, and those who are appalled are more appalled at the spectacle of body honesty than nakedness. Ask anybody about the Naked Bike Ride, and their response will be, oh yes, they like it when an attractive young person of their sexual preference sails past. Their cameras are clicking away either for this reason, or because they want to prove to their mates that they saw all these loopy nutters riding their bikes without any clothes on. Even in post-liberal, totally-internetted England, nudity is still a major engine of sexual stimulation. This probably makes sense, since in cold countries, clothes are for most of the year a physical necessity for keeping warm, so seeing a naked person outdoors will always be a seasonal novelty.
I would like to hand a cheer to all the non-porn-stars who participated in the London naked bike ride. For they once again injected a forgotten humanity into a society that gloats about its own humanitarianism. This is the humanity of the human animal body, the one which many people deny until they are humbled by a nurse or a doctor while lying in a hospital bed.
Back in 1983 when I was a new adult, I paid my first ever visit to a naturist beach. It was in the south of France. My companion was brave and determined to strip off. I followed suitless. As we lay there, in the glorious sunshine by the Mediterranean, watching crowds of nude naturist French families having their picnics and swimming, one particular group caught my eye.
The young woman was a stunning beauty, with a body that all women would crave to have, and all men crave to touch. She was with her infant daughter and her mother. Her daughter would be a beautiful woman one day. Her mother was no longer the subject of any man's attentions, and in fact appeared to have made no attempt to fight the gravity and wear of ageing, but she was unashamed and "bien dans sa peau", she was with her family, and they were all together, having their day out on the beach.
I looked at them and thought how the young woman must be so much wiser than many in Anglo-Saxon lands. Here she could have no delusions that one day she will sport her mother's body, but she learns not to fear the day. She learns to live today, to love today, and already has accomplished her birthright of passing her genetic blessings to her daughter. No neurotic reluctant motherhood here.
Three generations of the family females, naked together on the beach, living on a sunny warm day. How natural, how lovely. With no commentary by David Attenborough, either. It is sad that only in such places may we learn what we are, and why we exist. It is sadder yet that even in 2008, a naked bike ride in London can never approach the beauty and education of such a scene. A naked bike ride in London makes less of a dent on the population's behaviour than does the rising price of that substance abuse - oil.
Saturday, May 03, 2008
London 2008/2004 comparison
There is no two-party system in Britain, thank intellectuals. But here in London for the Mayoral Election we have transferrable votes: every voter makes a first choice and a second choice. If nobody wins with an outright 50%+ majority, the two leaders are taken, and then all the second choice votes from the losers are added to the votes of the two leaders.
I must admit it works superbly. It tells you so much more. The Liberal Democrats are failing miserably in London. Obvious, if you are aware and intelligent enough to know that we don't need unbridled liberalism any more: what we still need are people who can contain and correct all the mistakes from the Sixties Onwards liberal era. But when I think that, I am guilty of intellectual snobbery, because notice that the BNP's % votes went down a bit, and the Green Party's votes went up by even less. There is no radical change in London democracy, despite the continuing transfer of London culture into the Globalized Economic Matrix. Democracy depends on demographics, in addition to depending on political free will. Those whom have babies, create voters. The Green Party and the BNP will never get anywhere, because they haven't even got a population growth scheme such as is encouraged by religions. The Liberal Democrats are dying out, simply because they tend to be secular, and reckless, so they are neither good at reproducing, nor are they any good at keeping their existing populations alive.
Evolution and Natural Selection in London human beings, all on one page of democratic voting statistics.
I must admit it works superbly. It tells you so much more. The Liberal Democrats are failing miserably in London. Obvious, if you are aware and intelligent enough to know that we don't need unbridled liberalism any more: what we still need are people who can contain and correct all the mistakes from the Sixties Onwards liberal era. But when I think that, I am guilty of intellectual snobbery, because notice that the BNP's % votes went down a bit, and the Green Party's votes went up by even less. There is no radical change in London democracy, despite the continuing transfer of London culture into the Globalized Economic Matrix. Democracy depends on demographics, in addition to depending on political free will. Those whom have babies, create voters. The Green Party and the BNP will never get anywhere, because they haven't even got a population growth scheme such as is encouraged by religions. The Liberal Democrats are dying out, simply because they tend to be secular, and reckless, so they are neither good at reproducing, nor are they any good at keeping their existing populations alive.
Evolution and Natural Selection in London human beings, all on one page of democratic voting statistics.
UK Local Elections 2008 : Part 2
At last, the London Results are in. It took an extra day, because of all the high technology electricity consumption methods they were using to count the votes.
Is this worth blogging? So Ken Livingstone lost. Well, to his credit, at least he stepped down. To the Electoral System's credit, democracy in the UK is sufficiently intact that Ken Livingstone HAD to step down, because he lost. There is the difference between Britain and Zimbabwe.
And the next biggest news will have nothing to do with the Green Party, which achieved nothing by sporting a young bright Nice North London Luvvie. Yes, it is that Richard Barnbrook of the BNP, has through the system of Proportional Representation, gotten the first seat ever for the BNP in the London Assembly.
Well, the only problem with this is the amount of police security that will have to be paid for to protect him and the whole London Assembly process. Very Expensive for the taxpayer. For it is a fact that he will endure more ill will than Salmon Rushdie, as the mini-tornadoes of Anti-Fascism will be whipped up to stir the paranoia of the many sheep who have been indoctrinated with fear.
And how will any of this help the planet? None at all. Because it will distract everyone from Humanity's Duty of Care towards its Mother Earth. This is 2008, not 1938. There are twice as many people on the planet today, and the majority of them live in nations that can build the atom bomb. The danger to the world today has nothing to do with dangerous human ideas being taken up by the masses. The danger to the world today is that the masses are sleep walking into the future. A future of a Market Matrix in which notions of Democracy, Freedom, Consumer Choice, Humanism and Resource Appropriation are the hyphae that will smother the rest of the diversity of life species on this planet.
Is this worth blogging? So Ken Livingstone lost. Well, to his credit, at least he stepped down. To the Electoral System's credit, democracy in the UK is sufficiently intact that Ken Livingstone HAD to step down, because he lost. There is the difference between Britain and Zimbabwe.
And the next biggest news will have nothing to do with the Green Party, which achieved nothing by sporting a young bright Nice North London Luvvie. Yes, it is that Richard Barnbrook of the BNP, has through the system of Proportional Representation, gotten the first seat ever for the BNP in the London Assembly.
Well, the only problem with this is the amount of police security that will have to be paid for to protect him and the whole London Assembly process. Very Expensive for the taxpayer. For it is a fact that he will endure more ill will than Salmon Rushdie, as the mini-tornadoes of Anti-Fascism will be whipped up to stir the paranoia of the many sheep who have been indoctrinated with fear.
And how will any of this help the planet? None at all. Because it will distract everyone from Humanity's Duty of Care towards its Mother Earth. This is 2008, not 1938. There are twice as many people on the planet today, and the majority of them live in nations that can build the atom bomb. The danger to the world today has nothing to do with dangerous human ideas being taken up by the masses. The danger to the world today is that the masses are sleep walking into the future. A future of a Market Matrix in which notions of Democracy, Freedom, Consumer Choice, Humanism and Resource Appropriation are the hyphae that will smother the rest of the diversity of life species on this planet.
Friday, May 02, 2008
UK Local Elections 2008; Part 1
Here are the UK Local election results, except for the London Mayoral and Assembly Election (which will not be published for a few hours, but there is no need to compare Robert Mugabe with Ken Livingstone for they are so obviously similar).
Labour has died. Conservatives have risen. Liberal Democrats have sat on the fence.
Other rates of Change? Notice that the BNP is growing at twice the rate of the Green Party, and is the fastest growing party. Somebody will try to use this meaningless and misleading statistic at the next election to sell Labour Votes to the Guardian Readers Who Can't Do Maths.
Absolute numbers? Notice that the rates of Change are absolutely inconsequential. The combined size of the BNP and the Green Party make up less than 1% of the total number of councillors. Britain is not Zimbabwe. There is no such thing as radical change at an election, whether or not it is democratically legitimate.
Other useful notes:
1. The BNP was only ever useful for drumming up support for the Labour Party, but they barely serve that purpose any more.
2. The Green Party is still a joke in the UK, despite the enormous middle-class concern for Global Warming over the last few years.
3. Both parties are nothing but foils and distractions who have no effect, and will have no effect in my lifetime, on the real power or government in the United Kingdom.
And none of this is either good or bad. It is just a statement of calculation.
Labour has died. Conservatives have risen. Liberal Democrats have sat on the fence.
Other rates of Change? Notice that the BNP is growing at twice the rate of the Green Party, and is the fastest growing party. Somebody will try to use this meaningless and misleading statistic at the next election to sell Labour Votes to the Guardian Readers Who Can't Do Maths.
Absolute numbers? Notice that the rates of Change are absolutely inconsequential. The combined size of the BNP and the Green Party make up less than 1% of the total number of councillors. Britain is not Zimbabwe. There is no such thing as radical change at an election, whether or not it is democratically legitimate.
Other useful notes:
1. The BNP was only ever useful for drumming up support for the Labour Party, but they barely serve that purpose any more.
2. The Green Party is still a joke in the UK, despite the enormous middle-class concern for Global Warming over the last few years.
3. Both parties are nothing but foils and distractions who have no effect, and will have no effect in my lifetime, on the real power or government in the United Kingdom.
And none of this is either good or bad. It is just a statement of calculation.
Tuesday, April 29, 2008
BNP Mayoral Candidate and his Ballerina Girlfriend mother of Mixed Race child
Critics say her views are extraordinary given that her daughter is of mixed British, Cuban and Chinese descent. Her relationship with her former partner, fellow English National Ballet star Yat-Sen Chang, broke up in April
Golly gosh, all the juicy news you've ever missed, and all because one does not read tabloids, yet one has been bored to tears so often by the BBC/Guardian/Independent/Times/Daily Telegraph media bloc.
And updated in today's Daily Mail, one reads that Richard Barnbrook
studied at the Royal College of Art before falling into the company of Derek Jarman, the award-winning gay film-maker who was later to succumb to Aids.
No surprises there. All the pieces of the puzzle are now in place. The Planet, and its many forms of Love, are more colourful even than Brian Paddick's underwear.
Mervyn King, the Piggy Banker of England
I cannot stand any more of Mervyn King. Is he an idiot, or just a piggy-faced day-dreamer?
He seems to have not the slightest clue that as Governor of the Bank of England, his role was to avert the problems we have been building up for the last few years. Instead every comment he has made since last August has been of the "I told you so" variety.
Oh yes, he told them so. So very softly, while pigging out on endless Mars Bars!
His job was NOT to stand by and watch and study the sinking ship of the British Economy these past few years. His job was to maintain, upgrade, re-build and steer the ship. Does he seem to understand this yet? NO.
He is still the Governor of the Bank of England. It can only mean that he has been planted in that position by very wealthy people who need to have a fool in his position to maintain their status quo.
Hardly the sort of appointment one would expect a Labour Party to allow. We might as well all give up and vote for the BNP! Nothing else seems to put any sense into the people who are supposed to be in power.
He seems to have not the slightest clue that as Governor of the Bank of England, his role was to avert the problems we have been building up for the last few years. Instead every comment he has made since last August has been of the "I told you so" variety.
Oh yes, he told them so. So very softly, while pigging out on endless Mars Bars!
His job was NOT to stand by and watch and study the sinking ship of the British Economy these past few years. His job was to maintain, upgrade, re-build and steer the ship. Does he seem to understand this yet? NO.
He is still the Governor of the Bank of England. It can only mean that he has been planted in that position by very wealthy people who need to have a fool in his position to maintain their status quo.
Hardly the sort of appointment one would expect a Labour Party to allow. We might as well all give up and vote for the BNP! Nothing else seems to put any sense into the people who are supposed to be in power.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)