Just Spit It Out

Porky

n. Untruth. From Cockney rhyming slang: Porky Pig

The blog is dead. Long live the blog!

And unlike last time, this time I mean it, so please update your links and bookmarks.

Schtick Amnesty (guest posting)

Irrepressible

Adj. Impossible to repress or control.

Chat rooms monitored. Blogs deleted. Websites blocked. Search engines restricted. People imprisoned for simply posting and sharing information.

The Internet is a new frontier in the struggle for human rights. Governments – with the help of some of the biggest IT companies in the world – are cracking down on freedom of expression.

Amnesty International, with the support of The Observer, is launching a campaign to show that online or offline the human voice and human rights are impossible to repress.

Find out more about this campaign.

Ignore this, it's just a tag: Amnesty International
Ignore this, it's just a tag: Irrepressible

It's all a load of bollocks, so bollocks to it all!

Some blokes sit in pub, solve world's ills

Left

adj. Not right.

You may be aware that a number of people have got together in the attempt to revitalise the democratic and progressive, er, left, for want of a better term, and have come up with a document that's generating lots of heat if not very much light.

The trouble is not just that it isn't an inspiring text - there may be a small prize offered for anyone that can dig out of there a quotation which would have me manning personning the barricades. It is more that, in and amongst the paragraphs with which I would tend to agree, there is a pernicious attempt to equate criticism of American and Israeli state policy with blanket Anti-Americanism and Anti-Semitism. I'm sorry, but that just will not do. Bad policies are bad policies, and vice versa, regardless of their origin. Hell, I was born in Bradford, but I reject an awful lot of the Blair administration's policies. Does that make me anti-British? If so, you'd better have a bloody good definition of Britishness ready.

In fact, there seems to be more about how hard-done-by the poor Bush administration is than there is about the tyranny the Eustonites ostensibly reject in principle 2. Two quick examples, and there will be many more: Why no mention of Uzbekistan? Anyone with the slightest ear for blogging might have heard a bit of criticism for that gem of a state. My own specialist country is Russia, which is likewise no beacon of democracy; I don't know if you know, but there are some nasty things still going on in Chechnya... I guess the news doesn't percolate through to Euston.

There is probably much more to go at, but I'm already bored of it. The last canard I will highlight here is the line that terrorism can never be "understandable". FFS, get a good dictionary, and learn the difference between understand and condone. If you never even try to understand the terrorists' motives, how will you ever hope to win the War on Terror, assuming you accept that such a concept is a valid way of framing the issues involved? You're dooming yourself to fail on your own terms.

It's bollocks, and deserves to be called as much. The Eustonites have got a measure so they and we know how many people have read it and signed. I'd like to propose a measure for those people who have read the thing but reject it. It's not scientific, but it's no less so than signing the manifesto itself, which only asks for a name and an e-mail address. Register your rejection here.

Ignore this, it's just a tag: Euston Manifesto

It's all a load of bollocks, so bollocks to it all!

Give us a T! Give us an A!

Fame

n.The belief that one will live forever

Blog posts are like buses, on this blog at any rate - you wait for ages and then, well, you know the rest: You get on, and find out it's not actually that pleasant an experience, not to mention the uncertainty over whether you'll get where you want to go, or whether the journey will be worth it.

Anyways, hello to all my new reader (Hi Mum!*) from the T&A article. If you want more slices from my domestic life (and let's face it, the political diatribing this blog now concentrates on is a bit tedious; it's done much better here, for example) then please click here. If you're only here for the kittens, then try this (nowt to do with me).

The title of this post reminds me of my old politics teacher - and that's the second time he's been mentioned here - talking about the only political demo he ever went on. It was freezing cold, so the slogan quickly changed to "Wadda we want? Cups o' tea! When do we want 'em?" etc. Tea Hea.

For the further-flung of you, the T&A is not me trying some gutter-press tactics to attract readers (you listening, Yorkshire Soul?); Nope, it's Bradford's very own upright organ the Telegraph and Argus. More on my thoughts about being featured in the other place.

On the off-chance that anyone cares, feel free to ask questions via the comment button just below this post: political questions here, and any other business best being taken care of in the Community.

*True! Although the only reason I know she has read it is her pursed lips as the paper was passed across. The thing about dictionaries is they have all sorts of language in them, although I think it's some sorts rather than others that she worries about. It's OK, Mum, it's the chorus of a song. If it's art, it must be all-right, mustn't it?

It's all a load of bollocks, so bollocks to it all!

That's Not What I Asked

Conflate

v. Join two or more separate ideas together, often deliberately in order to mislead or divert.

More by chance than design I'm just managing to sneak in under my self-imposed two month barrier. Mr Battle has responded, and much more quickly, to be fair, than this post might suggest, although his actual letter - reproduced below - is much more incoherent than his previous efforts.

10 March 2006

Thank you for your latest letter about the Government's programme.

In view of your concerns perhaps I should emphasise that as someone who campaigned and voted against the first Gulf War - and indeed the more recent involvement in Iraq I did not believe it to be the right decision.

However, we still do face issues of violence and terrorism including in our own communities - as last summer in London and Leeds graphically and traumatically demonstrated. Of course we must protect individual rights but they are never existent in a vacuum but in the context of a society. Hence individuals are not free to say or do just as they like. Getting the balance right between personal 'freedom' and a real sense of personal and community safety is not easy in the current contemporary context. Those who believe personal liberty should override all (including some newspaper commentators) are campaigning (and misreading) the legislative and regulatory reform bill.

I actually believe from my experience as a Minister that a greater clarity between the powers of the executive and political authority will be helpful at this stage.

Thank you for your interest in these matters.

A few points:

1] I'm aware of and applaud his stance on the conflicts in Iraq, but that don't mean the same applies to everything else he does or says.

2a]Yes, I have been in correspondence with him over ID cards, and the grave threats that they pose to our personal liberty (not to mention all the other objections you can raise). Incidentally, why not follow the advice of Charles Clarke (and there's a phrase I never expected to write - who'd have thought David Blunkett's successor could conceivably be more odious? *Update* I gather it's not just me) and renew your passport now rather than get co-opted onto the National Identity Register:

anyone who feels strongly enough about the linkage not to want to be issued with an ID card in the initial phase will be free to surrender their existing passport and apply for a new passport before the designation order takes effect. (source, approx seven paragraphs in).

The 'opt-out' negotiated by the Lords is no such thing - yes, you can choose not to have the actual card, but you still have to provide all the same details for the database, and it will still cost you the same amount of money.

2b]Still, I digress: I was hoping my constituency MP might respond to my point about the increasing dominance of the executive over the legislature, rather than whatever some newspaper commentators might or might not have said about the legislative and regulatory reform bill and personal liberty.

3]And what does that fourth paragraph mean? In my eyes - and not just mine - the bill would greatly clarify the relationship, giving the executive significantly more scope to significantly change legislation without parliamentary oversight. Have you seen the list of acts which would be affected by this bill? I'm not convinced that clarity per se is such a desirable quality. If anyone still doubts this government's propensity for knee-jerk authoritarianism, just listen to the mood music being played recently.

4]Still, no such mystery over the final paragraph, although Mr Battle seems to have forgotten the second half of the sentence, which, given that he has been known to discourage me from hesitating to contact him, is clearly "now piss off and don't trouble me again".

Given everything else which is going on in my life at the moment, it's difficult to summon up the energy to do reply, especially if he cannot be arsed to even pretend to counter my points. So farewell*, then, representative democracy, it was nice while it lasted.

*Terms and conditions apply.

Ignore this, it's just a tag: Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill
Ignore this, it's just a tag: ID Cards
Ignore this, it's just a tag: John Battle

It's all a load of bollocks, so bollocks to it all!

Let Battle Commence

Re-iteration

n. Here we go again.

Readers with long memories may recall that, way back at the start of December, my feeble attempt at commemorating the fiftieth anniversary of Rosa Parks' courage was to write to my MP. Once any new readers have recovered their composure after learning of my elan, they may be interested to learn that he finally responded at the end of January, and only needed prodding once.

The salient points in his response are quoted below. In the spirit of this slow paced correspondence, it has taken me until now to set finger to keyboard, but the reasons he cites, in conjunction with some newly proposed legislation that has even got two of the motorcycle lists I subscribe to in a lather, I had to contact him again. Come back in a couple of months, and I might have posted something else. There's about as much chance of that as of Mr Battle replying. Watch this space.

26 February, 2006

Dear Mr Battle

Thank you for your letter of January 25, 2006. In that letter, you write that “I am not sure setting up a select committee to look into the government’s actions would be a helpful or appropriate exercise.” Could I ask you to expand upon that statement, as I, like many others, am extremely anxious to understand the process by which we went to war, and believe that enough information has come into the public domain to cast real doubts over the validity and indeed legality of that decision. Given that the Inquiries Act 2005 has effectively drawn the teeth of judicial inquiries, surely a select committee would be a more robust method of investigation? You also write “I think there are probably more constructive means of improving government decision-making in the future”. Two points arise from this: firstly, I believe there are many more pressing reasons for wanting an enquiry to be held into the decision to go to war in Iraq than simply improving decision-making.

Secondly, that statement appears to presuppose that efficiency in government decision-making is necessarily a good thing. I am sure you are aware of, and deplore the concept behind, the phrase ‘elective dictatorship’. Can I ask whether you share my concerns that the current Labour administration appears to be strengthening the executive at the expense of the judicial and legislative branches in ways that gravely affect the health of our democracy. In particular, I am gravely worried by the implications of the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill which appears to place great powers in the hands of ministers whilst removing the requirement for parliament to vote on same, all apparently in the name of increasing efficiency. Could I also ask, then, what is your view of the bill, and whether you intend to support it? I would urge you to oppose it.

I look forward to receiving your response as my constituency MP to the points raised in both the above paragraphs.

Ignore this, it's just a tag: Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill

Ignore this, it's just a tag: John Battle

It's all a load of bollocks, so bollocks to it all!

Lame excuse

Shirk

v. Fail to tackle the important jobs.

So the government is trailing its plans to get tough on those claiming incapacity benefit. The BBc dutifully falls into line, running TV shows revealing the ease with which the 'system can be fiddled', or phone-ins allowing the 'general public' to ring in and berate the workshy, because their grandad, right, smoked 30 packs of woodbines a day, and lost both legs down t'pit. But he didn't riot, right, he got on his bike and looked for work. The odious and otiose Nicky campbell used to have a trailer for his phone-in on Radio 5 that had a tagline "Where the Nation Speaks its Mind". My inevitable adjunct to that was "Well, shouldn't take long".

We're led to believe, by the compliant MSM, that the scheme costs £12 billion per year. Fantastic, I like the thought that I live in a country where those who are unable to work - maybe they inhaled asbestos in their place of work, maybe they had an accident working at the docks - are given some support. I've lived on benefits, I know it's no bloody life of luxury. Even if we don't question the whole system our society is built on, for me this is money well spent.

But let's ask why the disabled are suddenly being singled out for attack? According to that bbc story, 1.8 million people currently claim incapacity benefit. Assuming they are pretty evenly spread throughout the country, that's unlikely to be a significant group of voters in any one constituency. A soft target, then. Mind you, the Mail reckons it's 2.7 million. The government can thus safely announce another series of tough measures to appease the populist press. Ah yes, the press. One of the biggest publishers of daily newspapers in this country is News International, which publishes among others the Sunt and The Times. News International, famously, pays no corporate tax in the UK. According to this 1999 article in the Economist, in the eleven years prior to 1999, News International paid no tax on £1.4 billion profits. Granted, som of this was written off against costs incurred in the merger with BSB, yet

B Sky B accounts for only that £317m, leaving around £1.1 billion in other profits. Mr Murdoch might normally have been expected to pay around £350m in tax on this. To put that in perspective, such a sum could build seven new hospitals, 50 secondary schools or 300 primary schools.

But even rival media outlets keep pretty schtum about this. Surely they don't have a vested interest in the tax affairs of media companies not being too closely investigated?

And even that ignores the fact that "our" glorious, free, democratic capitalist system relies on a large pool of unemployed people in order to keep wages low. If there is not enough competition for jobs, then the uppity workers will demand higher wages, and then how will Mr Murdoch and his ilk afford all those highly-paid tax consultants? At least have the decency not to take the piss out of those hapless, jobless souls who help underpin the capitalist state.

Oh, and don't mention the war.

Ignore this, it's just a tag: incapacity benefit

It's all a load of bollocks, so bollocks to it all!