Fatcher!!

It is not news for me to report that Baroness Thatcher has passed away, nor will I be considered the person who makes the landmark comment about her life, her years as our nation's leader, nor her passing.  That will come from a lot more informed people than me (and more than a fair share of those more ignorant than me).

As someone in their early 40's I have a somewhat cloudy recognition of the time.  Like most young people I suspect, mucking around with my friends was something that took up most of my time.  That said I have recollections of Britain in the 70's and it had a jaded and stagnant feel to it.  I recall seeing the news with union leaders standing on large platforms "balloting" workers for strike action.  Even as a boy, I always questioned how those leaders could tell the majority were up for it on such a rough and ready show of hands.  It all looked a bit contrived and pre determined.  I also recall seeing the Green Goddess fire engines flying past the end of our street during that strike too and I also remember endless images of men standing around oil drums with a fire on the go in them.  Britain generally felt a bit on its knees even to my young and uninformed eyes.

So I am going to find the next few days and possibly weeks amusing as those young bucks who weren't even a twinkle in their father's eyes during her premiership, pouring forth on Margaret Thatcher as though they were right there.  They'll even probably refer to her as "Fatcher" with the accompanying flecks of spit in the corner of their mouths.

Baroness Thatcher certainly provokes a range of reactions and it is the same when assessing her legacy.  For my own view, like most politicians there was probably both good and bad policy decisions.  That said, she was a leader and probably one of the last of her kind.  Whilst not everyone got what they wanted when Margaret Thatcher came to power, they certainly got what they needed.  They got someone with enough steel to attempt to drag Britain from it's knees who was willing to get in the faces of self absorbed demagogues who took the country on strike at the drop of a hat. 

Whatever you think of him, Jeremy Clarkson was right when he suggested that during the 70's the only thing the British car industry was any good at was a fire in an oil drum.

Margaret That also provokes repeated mantras, particularly from her opponents.  They say she destroyed British manufacturing.  Maybe there where things she did and decisions she made that had a hand in it, but I can't help but think some of her most vociferous opponents, played their own significant role in such a demise. 

They also like to say she ushered in the me, me, me generation and it's here I would probably like to draw it to a close. 

Their evidence is her famous quote of "there's no such thing as society".  Next time you here someone come out with it as evidence, ask them if they can give the full quote.  I suspect many of them can't because it's been deliberately framed as being nothing more than that.  It is in fact, quite different and forms part of a wider interview she gave to Woman's Own magazine in 1987 and it goes like this:

"I think we've been through a period where too many people have been given to understand that if they have a problem, it's the government's job to cope with it. 'I have a problem, I'll get a grant.' 'I'm homeless, the government must house me.' They're casting their problem on society. And, you know, there is no such thing as society. There are individual men and women, and there are families. And no government can do anything except through people, and people must look to themselves first. It's our duty to look after ourselves and then, also to look after our neighbour. People have got the entitlements too much in mind, without the obligations. There's no such thing as entitlement, unless someone has first met an obligation."

Doesn't look much like someone ushering in a me, me me society.  Looks more like someone trying to put an end to a me, me, me society that was enabled by something or someone that had taken that earned by working people to give to others that thought they were owed.

Let's take another look:

It's our duty to look after ourselves and then, also to look after our neighbour. People have got the entitlements too much in mind, without the obligations. There's no such thing as entitlement, unless someone has first met an obligation.

All I ask is that if you hear the pared down version of the quote, you politely correct the person involved and ask them what they could find offensive in standing up for the working man as the quote so clearly does. 

You might enlighten some, but I suspect that most are so wedded to their hatred of her that it will change nothing. 

Still you will have some fun listening to them spluttering some right old cobblers as they try to prove you wrong.

Rats eating rats

In a previous (somewhat rhetorical) post I was expressing my concern about the Cyprus depositor levy and how once out of the bag the concept, would probably fester in the minds of those who think everything is theirs because they will it to be so and that's all there is to it.

Fortunately there are better writers on hand to write more informatively than me, namely Autonomous Mind and The Slog  who have been having a look at how the idea has infected the minds of others and what was once not a template, now looks like it could become a template.

The problem for me is that many of its proponents and enablers are operating under an illusion.  As well as trying to prop up a political project, what we are in reality witnessing are people trying to keep their vast amounts of wealth however gained.  To some that means shafting others in this zero sum game. They are all trying to protect their bit in what is a collapsing system.

Our money system is illusory, in that the wealth of these investments and financial instruments is only "real" whilst they are numbers on computer screens.  It's not real money.  They couldn't all call on their wealth if they tried to cash it out. The problem we have right now is that leaves them with two options - the first being to maintain the illusion.

Unfortunately  we starting to see (although no thanks to mainstream media) that the illusion is starting to crumble.  It just will not play ball for them and it has become unstable.  What we're staring to see is option two come into play.  Option two basically involves making sure in a scramble for the really small pot of wealth that actually exists, you're not the one who loses out.  This is the Cyprus template. A lot of people have facilitated this and I presume in doing so they think it will protect their place at the trough.

If that is they're thinking, I think they've made a mistake.  I think many of them will in time to come learn a very harsh lesson.  The "elite" as we think we see them, looks like a single homogeneous entity.  I think it is a mistake that many on the inside of it, facilitating games like we have seen in Cyprus, think it is also a homogeneous group.  The truth is, it is nothing of the sort.  Even within this "elite" club there will be a pecking order.

I also think the illusion still has a long way to fall.  I am no financial expert but it is no secret that I am increasingly of the opinion that the whole thing could well smash itself on the rocks where it gets really desperate as we experience a financial collapse or as the understated language likes to classify it "a significant correction".  What they're talking about is serious, serious hardship and poverty.

It is said that rats will turn to eat each other in a starvation situation.  I suspect we may well start to see that in a financial sense, amongst those who have lived in a world very different from ours.  Why it concerns me, is the illusion needs confidence, even it is crumbling.  All it will take is a few of those who think they are in the elite club to be ejected and start to share their scorn, to hasten the lack of confidence in the system, thereby accelerating its downward spiral.

Events, events, events

My next post was going to involve expansions to the Be That Person post and was going to include the comments by Witterings from Witney, regarding things Harrogate and the observations by James over at Nourishing Obscurity / OoL.

All that said, my intention to do so has been somewhat turned on its end following this post over at John Ward's place.  The general gist as I've understood the Cyprus bailout is that the level of cash in its banks was regarded with suspicion as to the means with which it was earned.  Many considered it to be of nefarious provenance and as such it was felt fair by the scheme's designers to extract a levy on it in order to facilitate a bailout agreement.  If I read John's post correctly and some of the comments, there are rumours emerging that the big and allegedly questionable money is taking flight from Cyprus and that the capital controls are only really affecting the everyday folk, in effect saddling them with the bill.  In addition, this potentially means there will be a shortfall in the overall take that is raked in and one wonders where that leaves the people of Cyprus.

There is something else that worries me though.  We now seem to have a precedent set in which everyday people can have their hard earned cash locked down and plundered by others to fund political hubris / financial speculation gone wrong.  At the same time (if the above post is true) parallel arrangements exist (which those with access to extremely smart financial advice) to act as a back door for the big powerful money.  It seems to be another tool by which a group, privatise the wins and socialise the losses.

Why it worries me, is that this tool exists at all and that having thought it up, Pandora's box has been opened.  If it were a one off, my concern might be slightly less.  Having been designed and seen across the world, I am concerned that the government financial institutions might begin to turn their lusty eyes to this tool to access pots of money, never before available to them as part of what has become an unquenchable thirst for money that belongs to others.

Now such a tool exists, you cannot unimagine it and once such covetous ideas exist they tend to grow and become widely adopted.  In fact I see that already, one politician has already commented that this could be a model going forward to solve similar issues.  With Cyprus having rolled over for the scheme. some governments might feel emboldened to look at such tools for their nation.  It's not like they don't have form for raiding investments pots such as pensions.  I also find myself worried if it does become implemented more widely, that hybrid tools will be developed as creative ways to access even more money which will saddle the everyday person with even more debt.

But what is it that's really worrying me.  It's worrying me because as just an everyday person, events are overtaking not only me, but many others.  Its worrying me because as an everyday person, there are ever increasing ways in which I can be put in fiscal headlock and my pockets picked and then tossed to one side whilst my muggers warn me, they'll probably be back for more.  Governments and politicians have an appetite for cash that makes Monsieur Creosote look like he's at a finger buffet. What worries me, is whilst all this is happening I'm making an inconsequential noise out in cyberspace where no one is hearing me scream.  As a result I just find myself wondering what I'm really doing here, whether it's all just too big for me an whether its time I got about my own business as events toss us about like wood on an ocean wave.

The soft underbelly

I see from news reports that Abu Qatada has been arrested for allegedly breaching the conditions of his bail.

Obviously news is a little sketchy at the moment but below are the bail conditions set when the judge in his deportation case decided that he didn't like the Jordanian Government's promises and saddled the UK taxpayer with keeping him here:

The full conditions, published by the Special Immigration Appeals Commission, are as follows:

• Electronic tagging and reporting to a monitoring company
• Fixed address
• 22-hour curfew, with permission to leave home for a maximum of one hour twice a day
• Police and others permitted to enter and search his home
• No travel ticket or papers
• Ban on leaving a small area in his neighbourhood, set out on a map that he has been given
• Banned from attending a mosque
• Banned from leading prayers, other than those in his own family
• He must not publish any statement
• Nobody can enter home other than family, his lawyers and Home Office officials or children under 14
• Any other visitor must be vetted by the Home Office
• He cannot make any arrangements to meet anyone outside the home without permission
• If he meets an acquaintance by chance, he must make his excuses and leave
• No meeting with 27 named individuals, some of whom are in prison
• No meeting with anyone who is held on the new form of control orders known as TPims (Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures)
• No mobile phone
• No internet connection
• No computer kit that can be connected to the net
• Visitors may not use a mobile in his home
• He may only have one bank account
• He may not hold any bank or credit card not connected to that account
• He may not transfer money out of the UK
• He may not help others buy, sell or obtain computer equipment
• Any educational course or training must be approved by the home secretary
• Any job must be similarly approved

Source

Looking at the news report comment that a search has been taking place over numerous hours and across numerous properties across London, I am curious which of those bail conditions have been brokenthat would require searches of that nature to take place and at the same time fearful of what he's been up to.

I just hope that the judge's overriding concern for Mr Qatada's human rights have not permitted him the time and space to set events in motion, that we will pay a dear price for.

Imagine trying to explain that one away to the British people.

Be that person - part one.

Well, well well.  What a week.  Everything has been on view this week hasn't it and mostly that By-Election that quite frankly finished with comedy.  The result was a comedy in that the comments from the parties justifying their respective finishing positions were frankly farcical. That's where the comedy ended.  The real story of what it really says of our democracy, our politics and our politicians has been more ably commented on at other places and it is a sad one, in the history of a once great nation.

Whilst the mainstream media prattle on about what it means for the parties in their commentary, the blogs are setting the pace with questions about what we do about it.  It's a very fair question given what we've seen this week in Italy with the emergence of the 5 Star movement.  The first I saw on what's next for Britain came in Witterings from Witney.  Clearly that post had prompted some comments about Harrogate and so did Richard North's posts on the subject.  Rather interestingly there was a theme emerging about what do people do not intimately involved in Harrogate - good question.

The heart of the Italy situation is that it is a movement.  A rejection of the circus comprising modern politician ill equipped to lead their respective nations away from the problems they face.  It didn't succeed just because of the idea.  It succeeded because the people did something about it.  It is an action based movement i.e. people stop bleating and lift their backsides off their seats and push the movement forward.  They're not waiting for someone to do it for them, they carried their bit and so did everyone else.  That's important stuff and critical to any movement.  Movements die when people simply sit around and expect the idea to propel itself.  I don't know where 5 Star is going long term, because it's going to have to get serious about solving Italy's problems at some point otherwise it too will lose the goodwill of the people and will wither.

This takes me back to this post, which I have previously commented on and namely two particular sections that I think ring true:

What is needed is a new settlement.  What is needed is a constructive blueprint for the future that empowers people and makes them want to support it for positive reasons.  What is needed is something that is borne from the grassroots and evolves and grows, rather than something imposed from on high.

and

The seed might have been sown. But it will only germinate and take root if people who care are prepared to help nurture it and play a part in tending it to maturity and strength.  The time for complaining is over.  The time for positive and constructive action is at hand.

The 5 Star movement is not Beppe Grillo.  The movement is its constituents, the ones that move it along.  They all start with one everyday person who has had enough who will take the first step.  There's one of those in every locality.  I know that, because they come here and they go to other blogs, some of which I get to read.  Every movement that grows always start with a collection of one single person in lots of areas across the country.

All I ask (and maybe many others do) is that you be that person that gets the ball rolling where you live.  I ask that you start to take it forward. I ask that you be the one that gets out of the chair and starts something.  Every movement starts with just one person, that no one ever heard of, starting to spread the message and helping it thrive. If you hope for a better Britain, I'm asking will you be the person that helps build it.

I'm not asking for anything illegal or subversive here. Far from. I'm asking for clean, open and honest engagement in democracy and a restoration of the culture with opportunity for all, honesty, integrity, decency and one that will catch those who fall (and I mean fall) and will protect its elderly in a dignified and decent way. I also want a Briatin whose institutions work for the good of the people they were built to serve and in the genuine best interests of the natiion. 

My beliefs are in a restored Britain, one which has been in the vision of great men and women from years gone by.  That Britain was fought and died for because people held that notion dear.  Many of those that held that vision dear lie in graves across the world, never to return to the nation they loved.  Some lie in marked graves in manicured cemeteries and some lie under ignominious  piles of soil and will be forever hidden and walked past by people with no idea of the sacrifice made just yards from their feet.

Britain has gone wrong in ways too numerous to list here and the work must start soon.  The size of the challenge means everyone has to grab a metaphorical shovel and start the clean up.  If we all stay sat on our chairs expecting someone else to do, I do not believe I can articulate the disaster we will face as a result.  If people start and spread the message, others will find them.  Movement attracts attention. From them, hope will grow. I'm not talking about the mirage of Hope that was peddled over in the US for electoral gain.  I'm talking about genuine hope.

So my question is - will you be that person that starts it moving where you are?

A Gift Horse for UKIP

My frustration at UKIPs ability to miss opportunities right in front of them will not have escaped readers attention.  I'm not an out and out UKIP advocate - far from it.  What I'm lamenting is that everything is ripe for them to harvest and wake up the  three party inertia that grips this country and they're missing it each and every time.

One of their mistakes (in my humble opinion) is they're trying to make a big noise nationally which they're really going to struggle with that for all sorts of reasons.  Their best chance is local.  They need to wake up and organise their local network and presence - and quickly.  It doesn't have to be about politics in the classical sense.  They have to start by getting in the hearts and minds of local people by getting involved in their everyday lives and struggles.

Right now there's an advantage just waiting for them to pounce on.  It's actually there for anyone who wants it but as UKIP seem to be missing obvious sitters I'm going to make the suggestion to them, here on this page.  It's not rocket science.  In fact it's really small beer, but it's a start.

So here it is.

The horse meat scandal has taken on a life of it's own.  To the average man and woman in the street the detail is of little importance right now. Precisely who has done it they're not much bothered about, especially with (as Richard North is pointing out) the mainstream media is playing chase on this and reporting off the cuff thoughts as though they were fact.  

What's bothering the average man and woman right now is that they just don't know who they can trust to sell them beef that has no other meat but beef in it.  The effect is that some people are foregoing supermarket beef and looking more locally to places like the butchers (if they still have one).

Maybe it might help them to establish their local credentials if local UKIP representatives mounted campaigns in their local towns and villages to promote the local butchers.  They can come up with poster slogans for butchers to put in their windows extolling the virtues of buying local beef.  They could be clever and find ways to make a political angle out of it.  Maybe something along the lines of "there's a downturn on and whilst they're fighting for the own careers and interests, where here fighting for your food security and your community businesses".  I'm sure there's a big letter campaign somewhere in there too.  I'm sure the local news media might also be interested somehow.  They're always looking to get the national and international news hooked to the local agenda and this is a damn sight more relevant than the type of stories about broken fences that the council haven't fixed for a decade. I'm sure some wag can even think of some very clever link between 100% beef and politics.

Sometimes it's the little things that can make the difference.

Of course they could always look a gift horse in the mouth.

So turn on them

The Telegraph is carrying a story (at least on its website) about how much grassroots Tories feel betrayed by Cameron with their focus on gay marriage.  I understand they have composed an angry letter which has been handed in to Number 10.  In particular I noted this comment:

One said grassroots members had been left “angry, disillusioned and deeply puzzled” over the “sudden” introduction of the proposals, as another said life-long supporters no longer felt “at home” in the Conservative Party. 

This post isn't about gay marriage but about the general dysfunctional relationship those in Westminster have with their grassroots "supporters".

Might I suggest to those grassroots Tories that Cameron and his ilk could not give a toss about your angry letter.  One only has to visit, my blogging friend over at Witterings from Witney to note how disinterested they are in viewpoints from their constituents and constituencies.  A letter is something they can simply ignore.  If they genuinely want a change in that relationship they have to deliver a message that cannot be ignored, one with real consequences.  What those grassroots conservatives might not have realised though is that they do have their fingers on a number of pressure points with regards to the MPs they have supported.

It all rests in the fact that local constituency is the place where the power shifts from the MP to the electorate and that the MP needs to crawl to the local voters in however a disingenuous fashion they do it in order to be returned to the trough.

I would say that rather than deliver a letter which will be filed under B1N, the local grassroots conservatives could consider delivering a metaphorical kick in the nuts to the party, their MP and his or her agent if they wanted to put on a show of power.

They could if they chose, write to the MPs PA and their agent and inform them, that because of their consistent failure to  fulfil their election promises, their standpoint on a number of issues that run counter to grassroots Conservatives and their wilful refusal to take on board those who have supported them, they will refuse to support all promotional activity within the local constituency, until such time that as MPs they recognise the MPs responsibility to the local party and the electorate.  Personally I would prefer the electorate only but it's a start.

They could offer the MP one final opportunity to fulfil the promises they made or face the consequences of such a refusal.

In coming up with these suggestions I'm minded of how an absent friend of mine who was once a prospective Labour candidate was not supported by the national party because the seat he was campaigning for was not a target seat.  I'm also minded of his tales of how they also tried to cut the sitting MP in another constituency off at the knees because he wouldn't submit to the party line on a number of issues by starving him of support activity at election time.  The approach is to effectively starve them of support activity.  Any MP who makes it to Parliament only really does so with an army of volunteers, publicity and money which turns into promotional activity within the constituency.  Those that get little or no support, effectively have no voice, and those that have no voice, get no votes

Suggestions could include:

• A letter campaign to the local newspaper informing the public of their opposition to the local MPs position that includes their credentials as a grass roots conservative.  This could also include other PR activity.  I can imagine that a mainstream media looking to stick it to the Tories are more likely to cover such a rebellion than not.
• All support activity for the local MP surgery will cease.  This could even be as petty as refusing to unlock the office on the day in question and turning the heating or the lighting on.  No printing will be done, no photocopying will be done, no lists of who who the MP is due will be printed and no one from the local team will man reception.  In fact - sod it - let it be a free for all.  let the PA in Westminster sort it or the agent.
• Refusing to photocopy or deliver any leaflets within the local constituency and a promise that come the election campaign the MP will find no support whatsoever for campaign activity.  There will be no leaflets delivered, no doors will be knocked on, no leaflets or posted printed or displayed to say the least.
• Writing to all known funders of the MP confirming all of the above and ask said funders to consider their funding position given that there will be no local support from the local party returning the MP to Parliament whilst they hold the positions they do.
• Confirmation that they will turn up to local hustings for those that still engage in this and ask the MP uncomfortable questions in full public view letting the audience know of their connections to the local Tory party.
• Confirmation that where an opposition candidate declares a willingness to support key policies that they agree with, they will write in support of those and declaring their previous party affiliations.

To be honest there are probably more and these are just a few possible activities that could be employed to let the hogs in Westminster know they are no longer willing to be abused by those who have nothing but self interest coursing through their veins.  Whilst I have used the Tories as an example, grassroots supporters of any party could implement such a strategy in order to fire a shot across the bows of those who they have helped. 

A concerted effort of such a nature would likely hit the national news which would have its own effects.  Funders back winners and also avoid negative publicity.  If they felt their money was likely to head down the drain, I suspect they would give serious consideration to keeping their money tucked away elsewhere.

Of course such a strategy is risky because those activists will have to face up to some real questions of what matters the most - the principles of democracy or outdated tribal loyalty.  Many I suspect will stick to tribal loyalty because the consequences to them are too painful.  This is notwithstanding the fact that their loyalty exists in something that has parallels with abusive relationships where one party does all the giving and the other party repeatedly betrays their partner. 

It might or it might not have the desired effect, but I suspect some MPs would come to heel when they work out the potential risk to their place at the trough, especially those whose majority at the last election was, shall we say, less than robust.  Some might fall because of their intransigence.

Better still it might give an independent promising to be a genuine representative of the electorate more of a level playing field.

As David would say - "just asking"