The Last Ditch

Whatever happened to men?

Sean Linnane: STEVE McQUEEN.

Sean's affectionate piece on Steve McQueen reminded me (bear with me here) of my grandfather. He was also passionate and full of life. He drove like there was no tomorrow and was a ladies man. He was a fiercely competitive (is there any other kind?) sportsman and - in his 1940s/50s way - ineffably cool. In the military I suspect he was also inclined to fret and fool about under discipline. At least one such episode sadly left him, as we would say, "disabled" (and as he said, without a shred of self-pity "a cripple").

He spent a lot of time with me for the year or so before I started school. He had replaced his beloved cricket and table tennis with pigeon racing. It satisfied his competitive spirit and (by its cold eugenic culling) his ruthlessness. He was president of the National Flying Club and adjudicated on disputed races. Big money rides on racing pigeons in prizes and side bets, so disputes can be serious. He was only appealed against once and promptly appointed himself chairman of the appeals committee, dealing contemptuously with the man who dared question his judgement. That story almost ended in the High Court, as it fell foul of nemo iudex in suo causa (no man shall be judge in his own cause); one of the two principles of natural justice acknowledged by the Common Law.

He used to take the awed three and four year old me for training runs in his Humber Hawk, releasing birds from a basket in the boot by the lakeside at Ellesmere. The car was a tame beast by the standards of my Vittoria (whom he would have adored) but was a force of nature in his hands. He raced his pigeons home and - implausibly on twisting country roads - would sometimes beat them. Racing pigeons fly at 60 mph and (as he thought) in straight lines. What possessed him even to try? How did he accept winning as merely his due?

Years later scientists found that homing pigeons avoid the apparent strain of using their natural navigation skills by learning landmarks to follow on repeat runs - even tracking the roads beneath them. I laughed out loud when I read that; Granddad's feats were theoretically possible! I tried (on clear roads in the early light with my first sports car) to reproduce them and could not. My trip computer showed I came up short of beating a pigeon. How he would have laughed, by the way, at being commemorated in such a boyish fashion.

At five years old, he cast me off without a word when his next grandchild came along. I saw him constantly in company of course, but we never talked much again until I got to know him better in his final years. He always had a favourite. He would have been contemptuous if he thought that it bothered any of us. Life was hard and toughness was the answer. He had no time for "softness" and someone he thought "soft" would simply cease to exist for him. Nor would he miss them.

His wife - more educated and better read than him - would tell a different story. He was a bad husband in many ways and they spoke to each other in terms that made at least one young grandson doubt the wisdom of marriage itself. Yet, when he finally gentled towards the end, she needled and provoked him until he roared; observing with a smile, "the fire's not out yet."

She tried to raise her sons to be (at least by comparison) "New Men", but with mixed results. He dominated their raising with a strap of leather; wielded with right good will. As a father, I agonised about discipline. When my daughters misbehaved and blamed each other I suffered minor agonies in my attempts to do perfect justice. Granddad simply formed a rapid view based on his own judgement, acted accordingly and never spared a second for doubt. I suspect I did more wrong in allowing myself to be played upon, than he did in his ruthless practicality.

His last advice to me was;

"I regret nothing I did, but I regret lots of things I didn't do - like the trip to Japan I cancelled. Your Mum and Dad taught you to be careful - especially with money. That's fine, up to a point, but try not to let it spoil your life. I will die with money in the bank but only because I can't get there to take it out and blow it!"

I owe the joys of Vittoria to that advice, and much besides. Thanks, Granddad.

For all his dashed-by-envy business success, my grandfather was a tough member of the Northern working class. Were he fully alive today (as opposed to those fragments of him flaring erratically in my genes) I suspect he would shock most of my readers. Especially the women. I also suspect that much of what's wrong with modern society is to do with with passing of his, and Steve McQueen's, model of manhood. 

Again, Wat posts the graph that matters

Burning our money: Pathetic Autistic Castrates.

As everyone and his dog prattles on about the politics of the Conservatives and the EU, Wat Tyler (link above) keeps his head and posts this graph (click for the full misery);

He observes, drily;

UK withdrawal would hurt them a lot more than it would hurt us

Given the graph he posted the other day, by what logic is Britain such a huge net contributor? Why is Poland, doing better in the crisis than most other EU countries, taking so much from the Germans, Brits and Dutch? I lived there 11 years and love the place dearly, but do they think we have some moral obligation to compensate for their years of suffering under Communism? Though they like to blame it on the Russians now, let's not forget the KGB was founded by a Pole. As for the Greeks, really guys! A few millennia is long enough for anyone to rest on their laurels, however magnificent. It might be time to roll up your sleeves and do a bit again.

Britain's glory has long since faded and it's time to face the truth. We are a poor country with a lower standard of life than the other net contributors to the EU budget. Don't blather, please, about our relative GDP. It's what our money can buy us that matters for this purpose. My friends and colleagues in Stuttgart, Paris or Berlin earning less than half what my partners in London earn can live far better on it. Their direct taxes are roughly the same; they have fewer stealth taxes; their public services are actually usable and for what it will cost me to buy my daughters a studio flat in London, I could buy them five in Berlin.

Whatever the (massively undemocratic) politics of the EU may be and regardless of its murky accounting to conceal its shameful corruption, it is an enormous rip-off for the British. The crowing EU-philes* enjoying David Cameron's (well-deserved) embarrassment should instead be doing something about that. Whoever is the next Prime Minister, I suggest Margaret Thatcher sends him her biggest, heaviest handbag and he takes it to Brussels with a house brick in it.

If you want us to love this bastard child of yours, at least get its hands out of our pockets!

* I really object to them stealing the word "europhile." I am a europhile. I holiday in France in my Italian car while wearing my Swiss (or sometimes my German) watch. I drink only French wine and would prefer only ever to eat French food. I speak French and Polish and understand German and Russian. I am no Little Englander, yet I completely detest the EU. I see it as a threat to all European freedoms, not just those of Britain.

We have our answer

please-go - epetition response | Number10.gov.uk.

The Prime Minister has, finally, responded to the most popular petition ever on the Number 10 website; requesting him to resign. His response to the request of 72,234 signatories? He strung together the clichés he has been uttering for months, while Britain daily slides deeper into an economic mire of his spendthrift government's making;

The Prime Minister is completely focussed on restoring the economy, getting people back to work and improving standards in public services. As the Prime Minister has consistently said, he is determined to build a stronger, fairer, better Britain for all.

His contempt for us really is total, isn't it?

Me is mine, you is yours

Here's the antidote to the propaganda your children get in school.

h/t Dick Puddlecote

The face he deserves?

Brown to grey: Portrait of a Prime Minister feeling the strain | Mail Online.

It's obvious Brown himself has lost the will to live, but what were his advisors thinking about in permitting this undead photo to be published? Surely they had approval rights before publication? Any decent undertaker could have made him look better. Did worm-tongue Mandelson tell him it looked dignified?

The brittleness of cast iron

David Cameron to shed 'cast iron' pledge on Lisbon treaty | Politics | The Guardian.

David Cameron was elected to lead the Conservative Party for his political and presentational skills, not his convictions. It remains to be seen if he has any convictions, but now we must also question his skills.

He has a tendency to give hostages to political fortune. He tried to seize the moral high ground on becoming party leader by pledging to avoid "Punch and Judy politics". He has been persistently prodded with political pitchforks by Mandelson and the lesser demons ever since, but if he responds in kind, they jeer "Punch and Judy" at him. I fear the phrase "cast-iron guarantee" is going to haunt him in a similar fashion.

People don't trust politicians and it's not entirely their fault. It is a defect in democracy itself that if you don't tell people some approximation of what they want to hear, you can't get elected. We all like to believe in the wisdom of crowds, but the truth is that the majority of modern Britons want to hear that the state will solve life's problems, without effort or cost to them. Politicians are torn between over-promising to stay in power and the fear of their lies becoming so obvious as to discredit them. Their corruption is a mirror held up to decadent, economically-ignorant, essentially amoral voters.

Politicians' careers are an assault course, during which they sustain repeated political injuries. For a while they run on bravely, but eventually the damage is too much and they fall. The most typical injuries are failures to deliver on those promises they would have preferred not to give. Gradually, inevitably, they become too discredited to continue.

Margaret Thatcher was the exception. She was principled. She promised nothing she could not deliver and she was utterly relentless in making sure she did. In pursuit of her objectives she fired one minister after another, making enemies within her party faster than outside it. In the end, the pygmies with wounded pride were numerous enough to bring down a political giant. I was at a dinner in the City with Francis Pym, prominent among the pygmies, on the night she fell. As all my hopes for the arrest of Britain's decline died - I bitterly watched him drink in gleeful celebration. There must have been dozens of others doing the same that night.

But Cameron's injuries were never going to be of Thatcher's kind. He is one of the pygmies, lacking her political courage and her moral vision. His was always going to be the routine political failure of one too many broken promises. That's why his "cast-iron" pledge of a referendum over Lisbon was so foolish. He will now suffer more injury from every future broken promise because of one broken before he even took office. A promise he need not have made.

A referendum only made sense if it would prevent the adoption of the EU's constitution-in-all-but-name. Once it had been adopted, any referendum (as the Euro-sceptics baying for it well know) would be on our continued membership. The issue of the EU dangerously divides the Conservative Party. Any Conservative leader must manage the issue constantly and cleverly. Cameron's mistake was not to break the promise. It was to make it in the first place, and to make it - again - in such memorable terms.

Margaret Thatcher will go down in history as the Iron Lady. This farce means that Cameron will be remembered, if at all, as "Cast Iron Dave".

The worst in the world

Burning our money: Worst In The World.

Posts like this are why (pace the big boys of British blogging) I always recommend Burning our Money and Wat Tyler to reactionary sorts who doubt the value of new media. Where is the press coverage of this? Why will this not lead the BBC news tonight? How could Labour's spin survive the widespread dissemination of this OECD graph? (click to enlarge, if you can bear it).

Ned Ludd rides again

BBC NEWS | UK | UK Politics | MP warned over electronic readout.

Had the Deputy Speaker been in his post at a different point in history, presumably he would have objected to an MP reading out a letter not written on parchment?

Should expatriate Britons continue to be second class citizens?

Iain Dale's Diary: Should Ex Pats & Overseas Territories Have Their Own MPs?

What a small-minded spirit sometimes lurks behind Iain Dale's engaging smile. My blood warmed mildly at his remark;

...if UK expats were genuinely worried about their democratic rights, they'd vote in far larger numbers than they do. Only 12,800 are even registered to vote....

Other nation's expatriates (or any citizens who happen to be abroad on polling day) can walk into their embassy anywhere in the world, identify themselves and vote. British expats however, must re-register in their last UK constituency (a place, in my case, with which I have no ongoing connection); apply separately for a postal vote, and then appoint a trusted proxy to whom the ballot is (possibly) sent in time. This must be done each time you want to vote. Organised and politically-passionate as I am, even I didn't always succeed. 

I have been abroad so long now that I have lost my vote completely. This, though still working for and remitting profits to a British business to be taxed. This, though still paying council tax on a UK property. This though still paying VAT, car tax, petrol duty etc on all purchases there. This, worst of all, though my family will still get to pay almost half of my lifetime's savings in Inheritance Tax to be squandered by the UK government when I die. 

As to whether I am, as Iain sneeringly suggests, not;

"....genuinely worried about my democratic rights..." 

...readers of this blog may well judge for themselves. If his remark was annoying, however, it was as nothing to those in the comments. As Kipling's mother said;

What do they know of England, who only England know? 

Not a lot, if Iain's readers are anything to go by. By the time I caught up with the post, there were over 40 mostly blood-heating comments. Probably no-one will scroll down far enough to read mine, but if you can be bothered, please do so and take part in the "debate".

Expatriates come in many varieties. Those in the EU get to vote locally, which is something. Those outside are ultimately disenfranchised completely. Many contribute massively to Britain's economy, especially those of us who produce those "invisible exports" that so often prop up the UK's GDP. To read Iain's commenters, you would never guess.

UPDATE: For ease of reference, here's my comment on Iain's post:

The debate in the comments is horrifying. Not all expats are tax exiles. Those of us with homes and other assets in the UK pay a lot of taxes and we are liable to inheritance tax. Even those who **are** tax exiles are not using any of the benefits taxes pay for and are serving those back home by keeping some competitive pressure on the government to keep tax down. When did tax - essentially a legalised protection racket - become a moral issue, for God's sake?

I work overseas for a UK business and have been instrumental in remitting millions to that business, all taxed and taxed again. That your commenters think an unproductive parasite living in Britain is worthier of a vote than a British citizen who is an agent of economic growth and a generator of valuable "invisible exports" is appalling.

I think the fact my hobby is writing a blog on British politics suggests I am rather more connected than many Kipling was thinking of when he wrote "What do they know of England, who only England know?"

As for your comment that expats don't bother to vote, have you ever tried? It's a nightmare. Postal votes are not allowed to leave the islands and you need to appoint a proxy you can trust. Even a politically-interested person like me failed to get it organised several times. Other nations' expats just go to a polling station in their embassy. Not us. Then, after you have been abroad too long, you lose your vote altogether (even though the Revenue still plans to steal almost half your life's work from your family when you die).

Why I love Americans

I hosted a "thank you and farewell" dinner in Moscow last night for three gentlemen who were my first major clients here. They are experienced Russia hands and were reminiscing about the petty restrictions of old. 

In those days, if you couldn't produce the currency exchange receipts on exit, the customs officer would smilingly "confiscate" any unspent roubles. An American to whom this happened, on having the rules explained to him, apologised and said that of course he would not take his roubles out of the country if that was against the law. Then he took out his cigarette lighter and set fire to them. His travelling companions saw what he was doing and passed their roubles to him to be burned. Then they smilingly set off to board their plane. 

That's the spirit a Welfare State kills, and the world would be a worse place without it.

Everyone's quote of the day

Heresy Corner: Abusing the evidence.

The Heresiarch has hit the nail on the head perfectly in the linked post, highlighting the government's mendacious approach to science (and supporting it with quotes from an academic whose research was disregarded in favour of "data" from pressure groups);

We've seen this process in campaigns to tackle binge drinking or obesity (aka "the obesity epidemic"), in demographic predictions and assessments of terrorist threats, in education policy, in foreign policy - in fact, there can be few areas of government policy untainted by the selective use of statistics and tendentious research. The government has loudly proclaimed its commitment to "evidence-based policy-making" while instead pursuing policy-based evidence making. In the short run, this has produced some extremely bad legislation. In the longer term, it risks destroying public faith in any evidence put forward by the government. Even when their figures are accurate no-one will believe them.

"Policy-based evidence making". Le mot juste, and sadly all too true.

Law (0) Religion (1) (o.g.)

Will France Ban Scientology? - Page 1 - The Daily Beast.

If Scientologists commit fraud, then let those individuals be convicted and punished. If that discredits a particularly loopy religion (in a hotly-contested field) then so be it. To ban the religion itself, however, would be a mistake. Religion thrives on oppression. When I first moved to Poland, church attendance was incredibly high. Throughout the Communist era, the church was the only public voice of opposition. Poles credited Pope John Paul II (with the help of Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher) with the fall of Communism. By the time I left, 11 years later, attendances were falling to "normal" levels and (though Polish national identity is closely tied up with Catholicism) educated young people were becoming as anti-clerical as other modern Europeans.

Scientology itself is no more a "fraud" than Catholicism. Indeed, by comparison to the immensely wealthy Catholic Church, Scientology is a raw beginner at the delicate art of parting the credulous from their cash. If there is no God, then asking believers for money to support the infrastructure of any church and to keep the priesthood in parasitic existence on the gullible is "fraud". I mention Catholicism in particular both because this story is about France and because it is a church with a long record of strong opposition to competitors. Banning an heretical sect is quite mild by Catholicism's historical standards.

When believers in old religions mock followers of the new ones, they remind me of smokers and drinkers decrying more modern drugs. Cigarettes and booze are the same thing; they are simply hallowed by age and convention. The first followers of Jesus of Nazareth, the Buddha and the Prophet Mohammed were probably regarded with just as much derision as those of L. Ron Hubbard today. Viewed dispassionately, the tenets of the old faiths are no more plausible - and certainly no more verifiable - than Scientology's ludicrous, lucrative tales of space aliens.

Indeed, it seems to be a feature, not a bug, of religions to test "faith" (i.e. the ability to believe without proof) with crazy stories. Having crossed the desert with a caravan of camels, and experienced the hallucinations typically brought on by thirst, starvation and heat, Lawrence of Arabia observed it was no coincidence that the Middle East was where so many religions were founded. Mr Hubbard may have raised the bar on the faith test, but not much.

Ban one religion and, logically, you should ban all. Ironically, since any religion requires that all others be seen as fraud, you would have the support of most religious people if you did it one by one. There would be no point however. If neither the Inquisition nor the KGB could suppress one or all modes of religious belief, then no milder force is likely to succeed. Religious believers simply see repression as yet another test of their faith.

People are entitled to believe, and to persuade others to believe, what they wish. They are entitled to solicit donations or charge fees for religious rites, just as others are entitled to refuse with a laugh or a curse. In the end, the problem with accusing entire religions of "fraud" is that, while some followers may know (or suspect) they are living a lie, most don't. While the cynical may say that all victims of fraud are betrayed by their desire to believe something too good to be true (consider Socialists, for example) it's important that the "victims" here are willing. They could, if we are honest, easily be any of us.

France is making a mistake about Scientology. Her politicians and courts are in danger of accidentally playing the part of Pontius Pilate in converting a cult into a religion. No church that has Tom Cruise and John Travolta as respected "Elders" should be taken so seriously. It is below the dignity of the 
nation of Voltaire and Diderot to do so.

A deliberate provocation?

Menezes police officer gets top IPCC role | Politics | The Guardian.

The director of investigations of the IPCC, the "independent"  body which investigates complaints against the police, is to be a man it criticised in its report on the de Menezes affair. Our leaders were not content with sending the blundering killers on a taxpayer-funded holiday as a reward; it was not even enough to promote the commander in charge on that disastrous day. All concerned, it seems, must have prizes. Except of course for the dead man and his grieving family.

Our leaders are never going to let us forget how little claim we have to the loyalty of "public" servants, are they? Kill an innocent member of the public, trash the CCTV tapes, perjure yourselves about shouted warnings and smear the dead man's name? Not a problem. Every member of the team is rewarded for loyalty to the state. It is hard to believe that this appointment is not a deliberate provocation; a message to all that to cross the British state and its agents is always to come off worse; whatever the justice of the matter. It is one more reason (if more were needed) not to cooperate with New Labour's politicised police "service".

The man himself smugly said;

"I'm delighted to be joining the IPCC which has a vital role in building public confidence in policing. I am confident I can contribute to that aim."

He must be using, Humpty-Dumpty like, his own definitions of "confidence" and "confident." Right now, I am only confident that we are led by amoral men and women without a glimmer of conscience. New Labour and its apparatchiks can't go soon enough for me; those in the police not least.

The next tech thing

TED Blog: Wireless electricity demo: Eric Giler on TED.com.

It's been a while since I posted a TED talk. This is not one of those inspiring insights into the human condition. It's just a scientist enthusiastically demonstrating something cool I can't wait to have.

The commercial side of implementing this is as interesting as the science, when you think about it. The devices transmitting and receiving power are on matched frequencies, so other devices would not receive it. What use is that? I want all my devices to be battery-free, picking up power from broadcast transmissions as I walk around. On the other hand, I must be charged for that power, or no-one will invest in the infrastructure to provide it to me. Short of taxing everyone to have the state provide the infrastructure (in which case it will be as unreliable as any service where payment is guaranteed regardless of performance) how could this be done? Will the company transmitting the power have to trust the data from the receiving device? That's not under their control and could easily be rigged.

I am sure someone will figure it out. I hope it's soon. Batteries are much of the weight in our mobile devices and wireless electricity would transform their design as much as their function.

Genies and bottles

How I became the story and why the Right is wrong | News.

My post last Saturday was based on the quoted remarks of Andrew Neather, a former adviser to Tony Blair, Jack Straw and David Blunkett. He is now trying to qualify those remarks and to accuse the Right of hyperventilating "...at the drop of a chapati..." Let him squirm and smear. The genie is out of the bottle.

He certainly does not seem to have convinced his readers of his bona fides. Most poignant of the reader comments on the linked article was this, from "Digger" of London;

My Dad always warned me about Labour. You cannot trust them, he used to say. They hate Britain and everything it stands for and want to undermine it from within to create a permanent majority in their favour. They destroyed a fantastic education system in order to give all us plebs no fighting chance at social mobility (so we won't vote Tory), and they love creating state dependencies be they people on benefits, a bloated public sector or even quangos for their privately-educated mates. My Dad used to say all this in the 1980s and I thought him an old school bigot who didn't get it. But Dad - you were right. That's exactly what they are like. I'm sorry for dismissing you, and I'm even sorrier I ever voted for them (embarrassed even that I fell for the "New Labour" lie). My Dad has dementia now so doesn't notice the damage done to his country after 12 years of their nonsense. All I can do now is warn my son and hope he is not as fooled as I was.

This seems to me to be the authentic voice of the British working class. A class betrayed by a party founded, ostensibly, to serve them. In simple heartfelt words, Digger expresses many of the points I have tried for years to make here.

I hope his son listens, for all our sakes.

Parish notice No. 2

The Last Ditch: Parish notice.

Thank you for your votes and your comments on the new banner for The Last Ditch when it moves to China. The vote was not particularly conclusive. My own preference was option 3, but in responding to the suggestion that I needed a lofty overview in the style of the current banner, I seem to have lost the Chinese aspect altogether! Not that the blog will be about China. As a mere guest, that would be rude. Still, there should be some reference to my new home.

For this round, I have eliminated Option 1 (which no-one but me likes). I have taken the text from Option 2 and applied it to the Shanghai skyline of Option 3. And I have added a new one (in photo and poster versions) which is a picture of Hangzhou, showing the old China against the background of the new.

Just click on any picture to enlarge it. Am I there yet? Comments please! Then I promise I will resume normal service.

Option A

 

Option B

 

Option C

Giving an unattractive nation a makeover

Labour wanted mass immigration to make UK more multicultural, says former adviser - Telegraph.
This story proves the Labour Party knows no ethical boundaries to state power. A government should serve the people, not seek to manipulate them. Social re-engineering of the people in the interests of the governing party is no part of a government's remit. Labour cannot even deny this particular exercise was against the peoples' will. Why else did it manipulate the data? If it had thought there was popular support for re-engineering the nation to make it "more attractive and cosmopolitan", it would have campaigned for election on that basis.

Let's face it however; what nation would elect a government that despised it as unattractive and parochial? In deliberately flooding our islands with millions of unnecessary immigrants, Labour concealed its "driving political purpose" and "concentrated instead on the economic benefits". Those benefits have proved illusory, but they were never what mattered to Labour.

I feel sorry for the immigrants concerned. They have been used as political weapons to attack the people they came to live among and can hardly expect to be loved for it. Yet this was not their fault. They sought, as sane humans do, to improve the lives of their families. They disrupted their lives; removed themselves from their communities; made huge efforts in many cases to come to a place they hoped would offer more life chances. Many with strong religious and cultural beliefs came because they were encouraged to believe they need not adapt in order to live in Britain. Now we know why. They were being deliberately imported in order to modify Britain; to adapt it to them. They have been cruelly used in a campaign not of their making. It is impossible to imagine any party but Labour being so cynical and arrogant.

This was about importing Labour voters, dramatically changing the country Labour has long despised and taking a mischievous chance to "rub the Right's nose in diversity." It was, in short, a betrayal of the nation. Labour has today been exposed as not merely unfit to govern, but unfit to live among the people it so hates. All involved in this exercise should emigrate to a country sufficiently "diverse" to be "attractive" to them. Perhaps Cuba?

Parish notice

The reaction to the new banner I designed for the Last Ditch when it relocates to China was not positive. So I have tried again. Here are the current three choices. I would be grateful if you could indicate your preference (click on images to enlarge). Thanks in advance.

Click Here to take survey

Option 1

 

Option 2

 

Option 3

 

With capitalists like this...

FT.com / Comment / Opinion - The two-stage de-risking of banks.

I am not arguing with Mr El-Erian's thesis here, but I am rather alarmed by his language. Apart from the horrible and unnecessary word "de-risking" (eugh), consider the way he describes the sequence of events in the late economic unpleasantness (my emphases).

The first stage of de-risking of the banking sector was led by the markets. Fueled by massive concern about the banks’ lax risk management practices and related over-exposure to toxic assets, the process was vicious and indiscriminate. With the market-induced contraction of the banking sector over-shooting, the highly disruptive implications for employment and economic activity forced policymakers into a ”WIT” mindset – doing ”whatever it takes” to stabilise the sector.

Got that? The market over-shot. It got it wrong. It was all the foolishness of crowds. People making decisions about their own money succumbed to some kind of mass hysteria, thus destroying the value of their assets. Then he describes the actions of policy-makers. Despite their "WIT" or perhaps even "HC" (headless chicken) mindset, they proceeded sagely;

The massive policy reaction succeeded in stabilising the banking system. And while the banks are still not lending in any meaningful manner to the real economy – an issue that will become politically even more problematic as unemployment continues to rise in the industrial countries (particularly, in the US and UK) – most have used the extraordinary policy support to strengthen their balance sheets and, also, take on risk.

Thank goodness for these wise, all-knowing policy-makers, who know so much better than the market itself what it will, or rather should, do. Using other peoples money they splurged trillions wisely to save the markets from themselves. Of course. Is this the end of their wisdom? No indeed not.

There is another stage of de-risking in banks’ future. This second stage will be driven by the regulatory authorities, rather than the markets.

God help us. He then goes on to make a number of suggestions, which I leave my readers to evaluate. My questions, however, are these; if Mr El-Erian is so much wiser than the market, why does he need to make money writing books? Did the funds he manages do better in this chaos than others? Or worse? If those in government are so much wiser even than him, why are they badly-paid bureaucrats, rather than retired to their personal islands? If they are collectively so wise, why did they not advocate these new regulations before the silly old markets fouled up? Finally, if banking could really be "de-risked" (which, if it means anything, must mean removing all risk) wouldn't everyone be a banker? How would that work?

Democracy gone sour?

The furore over Nick Griffin's appearance on Question Time showed me just how much Britain has changed since I left it in 1992.  As I followed the interminable and intemperate "debate", I felt more and more disconnected. The mob at the BBC Television Centre calling for Griffin and his followers to be burned to death merely added to the feeling. Are those people really my fellow-citizens? They are far scarier than the BNP's pale and baggy losers, yet they belong to a group supported by David Cameron.

"No Platform for Fascists and Racists" was a concept invented in 1970's student politics. I was there, laughing at the Communist dweebs promoting it, but I was wrong. It became National Union of Students policy in the 1990's and, if the outcry against the BBC for giving Griffin a platform is anything to go by, seems perilously close to becoming the norm for "grown up" politics.

The mainstream parties are to blame for the rise of the BNP. They know how many voters feel about current levels of immigration, but they ignore it. They have created a political climate in which merely to seek to discuss it is to be denounced as "racist" and ostracised. Perhaps the fears of the "aborigines", as Griffin charmingly called us, are misplaced. Perhaps our culture will not be lost. Perhaps the social infrastructure of Britain can cope with seventy million souls on our archipelago. But aren't these fears at least legitimate? Are they not worthy of discussion?

The three members of Britain's political cartel frame all national debate within the tight parameters of left-liberal thought. They ignore the declining memberships of their parties that were once genuine mass movements. They turn their back, in some sense, on the very concept of democracy. If some of their snubbed voters and ex-members have turned to the BNP in protest, it's regrettable but hardly surprising. Nor is the way in which they routinely speak of BNP voters likely to win them back.

In 2000, voters tried to break the cosy cartel of Austrian politics by voting for the late Jörg Haider. They put his party into a coalition government and the European Left into a frenzy. A civilised, educated and kindly Austrian friend explained to me at the time "it was the only way to make them listen". The LibLabCon cartel risks the same outcome, unless it engages in real debate and listens to its people. If it had a leader with half Haider's glamour, the BNP would be doing better even now.

Today, the BNP is a statist, authoritarian joke, but so were those student politicians of my youth. Mad ideas can prevail when democracy goes sour.

MPs' expenses: still not getting it

MPs' expenses: pay rise for MPs to stop rebellion - Telegraph.

Unlike angrier members of the blogosphere, I would be happy for a reasonable number of MP's to be paid a handsome salary. We have too many for the size of country and the scope of the role, given that 60-70% of legislation comes from Brussels. As electors make strange choices, I know this will mean a lot of overpaid oafs. It is certainly galling to contemplate the likes of Dennis Skinner, Michael Martin and Jacqui Smith on, say,  £175,000 a year, when they have barely the talent to command a minimum wage between them in "real life." On the other hand, it would be sensible to make a career as a legislator an attractive option for non-oafs, and the salary enough to remove all temptations for corruption.

The expenses scandal has blown away the last shreds of the pretence that politicians are disinterested, noble souls. Many - perhaps even half of them - are clearly amoral chancers. The truth is, it's a job like any other and employers need to be alert to bent employees with their hands in the till. The electors, as employers, should really consider the qualifications of the candidate, not just to what political conspiracy s/he belongs. Perhaps the realisation that s/he would command a serious salary might make voters think before electing the more obvious media-friendly buffoons, with no talent for reviewing and amending complex legislation. Full CVs of all candidates should be available on-line in a standardised form, so that voters can compare and contrast what they would be getting for their money. I suggest all candidates should take psychometric and IQ tests and those results be published too.

MPs exist to serve their employers and should live in their constituencies so as to be accessible. Expenses for that should be their own. Everyone has to live somewhere, and people move when they get a new job. They should get a modest, public, equal allowance for a London apartment (which they can supplement if they want something grander) and travel vouchers for travelling between constituency and office. London MPs should not get even that. The allowance should pay rent, not finance a purchase. Office and secretarial services should be provided by the Civil Service and all other expenditure on parliamentary business should be published, as incurred, on a public website, so that electors can monitor their employee's conduct in relation to "jollies" etc.

The idea that they could monitor themselves as "honourable members" was a crock. So is the idea that they can create an "independent" body to monitor them. No-one can monitor them but their electorate and this should be made as easy as possible.

Damage is being done to democracy now. Not because the public is angry; we are entitled to be. It's because the MPs and the party leaders in particular are responding to this as a political, not a moral issue. Many more MPs should be expelled from their parties for the crooks they are. Party leaders should be informing the police of the conduct of the more egregious offenders. Their whingeing and moaning is destroying democracy. It's time for them to bite the bullet.

No pay rises, ladies and gentlemen please, until the stables have been cleaned.

Crime mapping

Crime mapping for English and Welsh police forces - CrimeMapper.

A new crime mapping website is available in England & Wales. I used it to check the area around my house in England and the results surprised me. It's a city centre and I knew there was crime but was amazed how much of it violent. Two or three burglaries a month is bad enough, but 50-70 assaults!? Presumably they were fairly serious for the police to be involved.

(click chart to enlarge)

Can any of our police blog colleagues tell us if this is typical?

The love police at Canary Wharf

It gets better

MPs' expenses: parliamentary privilege could hamper police inquiries - Telegraph.

If they use (spurious) claims of parliamentary privilege to interfere with police investigations, even the densest voters will know them for what they are. Our elected representatives seem intent - for the first time - on solving the problem of apathy in the UK. Keep it up, chaps. You may not be justifying your expense claims, but you are finally earning your salaries.

Could we really be this lucky?

Labour MPs may sue over expenses | Politics | The Observer.

If these aggrieved gentles act on their threats, the effects will be wonderful. Some lawyers will make an honest living. The corruption of our members of parliament will be kept in the public gaze throughout the next election campaign. Labour will have its resources sapped to deal with the litigation. Some might even win, forcing the worst enemy ever known to the British working class to divert money from its election war chest to the payment of their damages. Some of them will undoubtedly lose, to further humiliation. Best of all, I would not put it past a high quality civil court judge to berate the Crown Prosecution Service for not having brought them to justice.

It would all be just too delicious. Please do it guys. Pretty please.

Tom's day of heavenly peace

[Click on pictures to enlarge]

It has been a strange week. A few meetings in Beijing, but mainly I have been on conference calls with Europe, lasting - because of the time difference - into the late evening. It has been oddly tiring, although not unusually busy. Today, however, was reserved for leisure. I can't visit a new place without some exploration.

Fairly strenuous it proved to be as I walked around the city for five hours. At several points, I paused to reflect how lucky I am to have such a life; to have the chance to visit the far-off places I dreamed of as a boy. My whole family has lived in one square mile of what is now Wales, probably, since prehistory. It seems to be my destiny to improve our averages when it comes to travel.

The Forbidden City was not quite what I expected. Yes, it's huge and impressive and oozes history. Yet it also feels rather sad. It's as if the Emperor had just walked away and no-one had quite decided what to do with it. Renovation of such a complex must be a huge burden. It covers 7.8 million square feet and comprises 980 buildings. It is a city within a city. A city that feels, in parts, abandoned and neglected. Some structures are quite dilapidated, although crews were working on others. The task of maintenance is eternal. While it's a "World Heritage Site" and rightly so, I can't help feeling it would be better put to use. Such wonderful spaces should be occupied and enjoyed, not just gawped at by the likes of me. The occupants would also pick up on minor repairs that would otherwise become major while waiting for scheduled maintenance.

It was crowded, particularly at entrance and exit where I was pressed closer to a mass of strangers than any Englishman can well endure (yet without ever feeling in danger, or worrying about my wallet). After a while, the masses de-merged into family groups and I could observe the Chinese at leisure. My main impression was of extended families. I saw some old people so thin and drawn that it was hard to believe they were mobile. Yet they were cheerfully led, or pushed around by their families and looked happy in their company. The welfare state in Britain has destroyed so much. Such skeletal specimens would be in a "home", out of sight and out of mind. Here they cheerfully chatted to the family's infants, who seemed completely relaxed (as they should be) in the company of the old and frail.

Basking happily in the bright sunshine in their leisure wear, many Chinese wore English slogans. I never understand why our language has such glamour for strangers. Apart from the usual brand names (paid for or otherwise) there were random English words. One lady had "Praisworthy" (sic) emblazoned on her blouse. I don't know why our scruffy leisure costume has been adopted at all. Traditional Chinese clothes are so much more attractive, but I only saw a few people - usually very old - wearing them. Even most of the very elderly sported trainers and jeans. I noticed the cheap and brightly coloured baseball hats handed out by tour organisers so they can recognise their flock in crowds were lined with the attractive check that Burberry has now pretty much had to abandon, so "common" has it become.

Tienanmen Square (天安门广场) did not disappoint although, as my Chinese teacher in Moscow had warned me, the full visual effect of its vastness (440,000 square metres!) has been diminished by the erection of Mao Zedong's mausoleum in the centre. In the short film I have posted, the mausoleum is behind me and you are only seeing half, perhaps less, of the full square. As a young teenage Maoist I had dreamed of joining the Red Guards there to see the Great Helmsman in person. I sat to reflect for a while and chuckled at the idiocy of youth.

The only blights on the day were the street vendors and other sharks in the tourist pond. The first couple, claiming to be art students, talked me into viewing an "exhibition" of their works. They proved to be mere flimflam men for vendors of cheap tourist tat. Another "student" tried the same script minutes later but got even shorter shrift. A motorcycle rickshaw driver tried to charge me more than 10 times the most expensive taxi fare I have paid in China. I paid him a mere 4 times and threatened (bluffing) to call the police if he didn't get lost. A passerby laughed and said "the police will want money too", but he backed off. This was entertaining enough in its way, but sad in its effects. I spent the day avoiding engagement with other people, when I could have practised my Chinese more.

I would probably have bought something today, if not constantly wary of being tricked. I am sure such people damage a tourist economy far more than the benefit they gain themselves. If you spend 60 years telling people that capitalism is theft, however, and then tell them to be capitalists, it's not entirely surprising.

Despite that, all in all, it was a great and highly memorable afternoon. I have saved the Great Wall and much more for future trips. Tomorrow, I fly to Shanghai for two more weeks of work before returning to Moscow to tidy up my affairs and hand over my practice to my colleagues and friends before moving permanently to China.

At my advanced age, it's a wonderful thing to have a great adventure ahead - and so much more to explore.

Trafigura releases report

Minton report: Carter-Ruck give up bid to keep Trafigura study secret | World news | The Guardian.

So Trafigura has given up its counter-productive attempts to suppress the Minton report. We can all read it if we wish. It's a dry technical account of what happened, setting out the possible health consequences to those who came in contact with the waste.

These were clearly matters of public interest and the Guardian was right to report them. In the wake of the cyber-furore, I am sure that companies and their lawyers will reflect on what happened and take different decisions in future. Lawyers are well aware of the non-legal consequences of legal actions and do take them into account when giving advice, though that advice is not always taken.

The practical consequences of an injunction are different now that opinion in favour of free speech can be rapidly mobilised by Twitter and blogs. It was interesting and gratifying that the editor of the Guardian credited the blogosphere in the linked article. Bloggers need to be aware however, even in their moment of triumph, that injunctions need to be taken seriously. Campaigning to have them lifted is fine, but breaching them can have serious consequences. The blogosphere is so entertaining partly because many bloggers are "not worth suing" and so don't worry about laws like defamation. Even that is unwise. Breaching an injunction is even more unwise. You could end up in jail for contempt of court.

Yesterday, I expressed my disappointment that so many bloggers misdirected their ire at working lawyers doing (as far as we all know) an honest job of work. In that context, please note that Trafigura's chief financial officer, told the Telegraph:

We decided that our best course of action at the time was to get the injunction, because we didn't want more inaccurate reporting on things which are very clearly wrong effectively. It is a heavy-handed approach, absolutely. With hindsight, could it have been done differently? Possibly.

The relevant words here are "We decided". Though this gentleman's protestation that the injunction "...was never intended to gag parliament or attack free speech..." is positively Mandelsonian, he has the decency to take responsibility on behalf of the company for its decision. QED.

The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers

Carter-Ruck in new move to stop debate in parliament | UK news | The Guardian.

I understand all the concern about injunctions preventing the reporting of Parliament, but why are the lawyers at Carter-Ruck the villains (and partner Adam Tudor in particular?) There have been flash mobs outside their offices and they have been vilified across the British blogosphere.

Why is the headline to the linked article not "Trafigura in new move to stop debate in Parliament?" Lawyers do nothing without instructions. Those instructions come from their clients and whatever actions they take are on their clients' behalf and in their name. If Mr Tudor has been asked to block publication, then that is what he must try to do - whether he personally approves or not. You may say he is liable to criticism for failing to advise his clients that their actions would be counter-productive (as they certainly have been - who had heard of Trafigura before?). However, you don't even know whether the actions were on his advice or against it. He can't tell you without his client's permission, which is hardly likely to be forthcoming.

Perhaps Adam Tudor is the ass or the villain you think he is. A first class degree from Oxford doesn't speak to his morality or his common-sense. You should at least accept that he is the agent of his clients in these matters. If you want to be angry, be angry with them. Except maybe you shouldn't. At least not just yet.

If there is anything to make Adam Tudor smile in the media today, perhaps it's this quote from Prodicus, in the course of roundly criticising him and his partners and calling them asses;

These are the world's smartest legal brains with vast collective experience.

If the partners of Carter-Ruck have a collective sense of humour, they will use that quote on their website, to the irritation of the world's smartest legal brains. After all, they didn't go into defamation work to be loved. As I am sure they are reminding themselves today.

An independent legal profession, free to serve the interests of (popular or unpopular) clients, is a pre-requisite of a free society. You may not like how much some lawyers earn for doing this important work, but if you want the big bucks what's stopping you? There's almost always a shortage of legal talent. Get the qualification, put in 20 years of hard work, and maybe you can nose through the flash mobs in your Porsche too.

Because that's really why the lawyers are the villains here, isn't it? The English Vice: Envy. I can understand "rich bastard" rhetoric from the envious left, but the rest of the blogosphere should really know better.

[I am a partner in a City law firm. I am not, and have never been, a partner or employee of Carter-Ruck]

The Boys Who Cry Racism

The Boys Who Cry Racism by Harry Stein, City Journal 15 October 2009.

The linked article is an excellent piece about how the once-serious issue of racism has become a casual political smear.

...the charge of racism is invariably a crock; indeed, that more than simply an expression of (often contrived) liberal moral outrage, it’s intended to be the ultimate conversation stopper. Ward Connerly, long the leader of the fight against racial preferences in America, observes that he’s had the experience more times than he cares to count of speaking before an audience, knowing that 99 of 100 people agree with him. “But if there’s one angry black person in the audience who disagrees,” he says, “that person controls the room. He’ll go on about the last 400 years, and institutional racism, and ‘driving while black,’ and the other 99 will just sit there and fold like a cheap accordion.” And Connerly is black himself. For the liberal opinion makers and trend setters who’ve set themselves up as America’s racial referees, the accused racist is always presumed to be guilty of at least something.

Do read the whole thing. What's true in America may be even more true in Britain, where the equality industry has a vested interest in finding racists under our beds. If the BNP is constantly in the news, it's not because its paltry ragbag of idiots represents a threat; it's because banging on about it keeps Trevor and his team in their sinecures.

The worst "reform" of modern times?

I was brought to blogging by a shocking piece of Labour legislation, but I am coming around to the view that the worst legal "reform" of my life was carried out under a Conservative government. In 1986, the Crown Prosecution Service opened for business. Before then, the police officers who investigated cases prosecuted them (or employed lawyers to do it for them). This was thought somehow to be a conflict of interest, but in an adversarial system, conflict is part of the process. It made a lot of sense for the accuser to face the accused, with an independent judge deciding between them. However, in the 1980's this was thought insufficiently "modern" and the CPS was formed

At the time, reflecting on what kind of fellow-lawyers might opt for a career with the CPS, I simply thought it was a shame that the best legal talent would no longer be available to the police. I was not wrong. When my wife served on a jury, she noticed that - though the cheap local defence barrister was hopeless - the Crown Prosecutor was worse. Like many others at the time, however, I entirely missed the truly important point. I would like to think the government of the day did too.

Under the current administration, there have been numerous incidents that should have led to prosecutions, but didn't. Does anyone doubt that Yates of the Yard would have prosecuted Lord Levy and Tony Blair in the affair of cash for peerages, for example? Would there have been prosecutions for the undoubted frauds perpetrated by numerous Members of Parliament in relation to their parliamentary expense claims? It is hard to avoid the suspicion that the CPS takes orders from its political masters; the Director of Public Prosecutions (currently Kier Starmer QC) reporting to the Attorney General (currently the Baroness Scotland).

Nor did the CPS acquit itself with honour in the case of Jean Charles de Menezes. Had you or I killed him on that tube train in the mistaken belief that he might otherwise detonate a "suicide bomb", we would have faced a jury. If the jury believed our explanation, we would have been acquitted. There is no question, however, that the police or the CPS would just say "fair enough" to our story themselves. Particularly if the CCTV records of the incident had mysteriously disappeared, apparently because you or I had removed and "lost" them. Particularly if we had lied about the incident and defamed the dead man in the days following. However, that wasn't how it worked for the officers of the Metropolitan Police who killed Jean Charles or their bosses who ordered them to do it. In consequence, the bereaved family feels cheated and the thinking fraction of the population feels suspicious that something was covered up.

It is hard to avoid the suspicion that senior police officers, the Home Secretary and the Prime Minister did not want the legality of the "Kratos" shoot-to-kill orders issued in the wake of 7/7 tested in court. I believe the then Prime Minister, Home Secretary and Metropolitan Police Commissioner have cases to answer for Jean Charles' death because they gave illegal orders to kill. With the CPS under political direction, those cases will never come to trial, unless the family brings (as I believe it should) a private prosecution. Of course, the previous system would have been only a little better. With the Met's own officers involved, an inspector from another police force would have investigated the matter and it would have been his decision whether or not to prosecute. Whether he would have acted with integrity or covered up for his colleagues would at least have been out of political control.

I think the CPS was created out of a sincere desire to professionalise the administration of justice. In yet another example of the law of unintended consequences, however, it has made justice - whenever the men of power are involved - far less likely. As we must fear the men of power more, it has made us less free.

Pay it back, Ms Smith. It's not yours.

Jacqui Smith Request for Payback.

The Sunlight Centre for Open Politics has written a very fair letter to Jacqui Smith. Ms Smith has cheated the taxpayer and an apology will not suffice. If you or I cheated our employer of £4,000, let alone £42,000, an apology would not absolve us. Perhaps if we paid it back, with interest, a kind employer might drop the charges after dismissing us. More likely he would call the police anyway. If he realised that our whole family had become so accustomed to living at his expense that they were carelessly including bills for their porn movies in our claims, I am pretty sure he would.

Ms Smith should pay the money back. Then her employers can decide what to do with her. As various MPs are showing, including the God-bothering Ann Widdecombe, they still don't get it. Not yet, at least. With an election looming, the party leaders are "getting it" though. They are digging into their own pockets to pay back their own unjustified claims.

It was only a proper expense, ladies and gentlemen of Parliament, if it was wholly and necessarily incurred in the performance of your duties. Lying about your main residence to score tens of thousands towards mortgage payments and/or household expenses you would have had whether an MP or not, was not. "Flipping" your homes so as to claim expenses on each in turn, was not. Flipping, claiming expenses to refurbish and then selling for a profit was property development at the taxpayers' cost, not a legitimate expense.

Your every protest now just condemns you more in the public eye. So, "get it" finally. Shut up. Pay up. All of you. Now. And never let us hear a slimy, hypocritical word about your vocation for "public service" again.

Lies, damn lies and government statistics

Children educated at home at severe disadvantage, study shows | Education | guardian.co.uk.

These conclusions are based on a sample of just over 1,000 children. Who selected that sample and on what criteria? Have children who are simply absent from school (because their neglectful parents can't be bothered to send them) been included alongside children whose committed parents have made a positive - and challenging - choice to educate them themselves?

For now, the authorities say they will always license parents unless there are clear negative factors. How long does anyone think it will take before the ideologues of the public sector start refusing licences to those who simply do not conform? If they apply the same criteria they use for adoption, for example, how many home educators will qualify?

Just as nationalising health services has led to the state thinking it owns our bodies, so nationalising education has led to it thinking it owns our children. This is brewing into a disaster.

Innocent until proven guilty? Not in Hampshire.

Dead surfer had been held over child porn | Metro.co.uk.

Apart from coping with the sudden death of their husband and father, "...wife Diana and daughter Sofia..." must now also live with the shame of his alleged crime. Have Hampshire Police never heard of "innocent until proven guilty?"

There is no suggestion that this death was connected with the charges. Quite the contrary. The dead man can never now clear his name (and, let's face it, it's remarkably easy to plant something incriminating on a hard drive). Yet his grieving wife and daughter must live with the stigma of a crime of which he is, as a matter of English law and tradition, innocent.

The British police are no longer the friends of ordinary citizens. They are (with such honourable exceptions as this one) the lickspittles of government and a disgrace to a free nation.

My sympathies are with Diana and Sofia in their grief, especially as to that part of it caused by Hampshire's heartless Plods. Whatever the truth of the charges against their husband and father, they are suffering innocents. That the "police spokesman" took his moment in the limelight rather than spare their feelings is proof enough that, socially and morally, Britain is broken. God rot him.

Chez Madame Mao

钓鱼台国宾馆.

The best part of forty years ago, denouncing the Gang of Four as a fervent young Maoist, I could never have imagined that I would ever spend the day in Jian Qing's (Madame Mao's) then home. It's a beautiful place. I slipped away to take a business conference call on my mobile from a pavilion on the lake and smiled as I worked to the sound of fountains and rustling willow trees. Sometimes, I feel like a very lucky man. I will post a photo of the pavilion later [now added]. The free wi-fi here lacks the bandwidth to upload it, but I want the honour of being (probably) the first person to blog from here.

The "economic forum" I am attending was supposed to be graced by the presence of the Russian and Chinese Prime Ministers. I was particularly keen to see Mr Putin, having missed out on seeing him in person on a previous occasion. I agreed to speak at a seminar in Moscow a few years ago when he was President, because he was due to speak before me, but he sent his deputy instead. That gentlemen gave a fascinating speech but was not - with all due respect - such a significant historical figure. Sadly "VVP" eluded me again today. He and his counterpart were in the building, but did their signing ceremony away from the rest of us. I was not prepared to lower myself to dashing around the back to watch him drive away so I have still not seen him gig live, as it were.

All in all, a fascinating day though. Watching Russians and Chinese do business at the State level is very interesting. Sadly, their speeches are uniformly worthy and dull. There was not a spark of humour all day and I now understand the disapproving glances I have received over the last six years when joking my way through speeches in Russia. They are as serious, when the occasion demands, as they are fun when it doesn't. Nonetheless, had I either language to a useful standard, I would have been tempted to have a go myself.

My first new city for a while

Beijing Official Website International - eBeijing.gov.cn.

Travel becomes boring when you are used to it, but a new city is always exciting. I am in Beijing (still known to the French and Russians as Pekin) for the first time at an event which may prove to be a blogger's nightmare. It could provide exciting stuff to talk about, which I won't be able to blog about because (a) it's to do with work and (b) it involves politicians from two countries (Russia and China) that I do not write about as a matter of principle.

Let's hope it's boring, or I shall burst.

Two of the few Chinese characters I can recognise after 8 lessons are those which make up the city's name, so I am taking childish delight in recognising them everywhere (e.g. on the taxis).

I plan to live here at some point in the next 5 years, so my first visit is particularly interesting. So far (see photo) it passed one of my tests for a real city during the drive from the airport. Scale, a certain grubby reality and a lively culinary scene are among the others. It undoubtedly has the first and I shall report on the others as my researches continue.

What, gentle reader, are your tests for a "real" city?

A hoon, or merely a chump?

Geoff Hoon 'checked phone during Iraq war memorial' - Telegraph.

Is it any wonder his surname has become one of the British blogosphere's favourite euphemisms? Yet, in truth, Hoon (the only Labour minister with whom I have had the misfortune to break bread) is only displaying Labour's bog standard attitude to our armed forces.

The true attitude of the British Left is revealed by those teachers who want to prohibit the services from visiting schools. His natural arrogance amplified by years in office, Hoon simply could not conceal his contempt for brave men and women who died so that Tony Blair wouldn't look quite so wet.

I'll only be happy if banning is banned

I'll only be happy if smoking is banned | Duncan Bannatyne | Comment is free | The Observer.

You need read no more of this appalling article than this;

"Smoking should be banned in cars, and particularly any vehicle with children in it. On a school visit I met a 12-year-boy who wanted to be an athlete who told me that every morning his mother lit up when she was driving to school, even though he'd begged her to stop. He should be able to report her to the police (my emphasis).

If he could report her to the police, he ought to be ashamed of himself if he chose to do so.

I have never smoked cigarettes, but I have long had my life made intolerable by authoritarians like Duncan Bannatyne. His craving to order the lives of others is a filthy, addictive habit which should not be tolerated in a civilised society.

Pop memories

Late evening listening – the evolution of music | nourishing obscurity.

I was at a party last night with my soon-to-be-ex-team in Moscow. It was at a way-too-cool-for-me bar and I was already feeling old when a kindly, well-meaning (and jollier than I had ever realised) colleague made things worse by asking if I had ever been at a Beatles concert.

Clearly, I must get more sleep and eat more healthily.

He was disappointed to hear that the earliest concert I ever attended was by Blondie (of whom, thanks to the Iron Curtain, he had never heard).

I was reminded of the conversation this morning by this delightful picture of the super-talented Ms Deborah Harry at Blogmeister Higham's new site. I have heard that, to this day, new bands with songs to promote are asked if they have a new "Heart of Glass." It is considered by many to be the definitive pop song - catchy, memorable, quirky and instantly recognisable from the first notes.

YouTube does not allow embedding of the video of the 70's live version at the Ed Sullivan Theater. However, here's the link if you need your memory refreshed. At the risk of offending the Misses Paine who shudder at my "poppy" sensibilities (and Mrs Paine who despairs of my "bimbo rock" tastes) I admit this video is on my iPod and I watch it at least once a month.

That confession over, if any of you know anyone who saw the Beatles live, my Russian colleague - a more avid Beatles fan than I have been since I pestered my mother for Fab Four wallpaper at the age of 8 - would like to shake his or her hand. Being told that Mrs Paine's mother knew John Lennon's uncle wasn't good enough, I am afraid.

Being elected while black

Obama's Nobel Farce - The Daily Beast.

The right-wing blogosphere is understandably angry about the award of the Nobel Peace Prize to President Obama. Surely that prize, its credibility already much stained, can now never be taken seriously again? How could he possibly have earned it, given that he was nominated when he had only been President for two weeks?

I have linked to the Daily Beast's article on the subject because it is written by a supporter. It cannot reasonably be dismissed as right wing foaming at the mouth. Frankly, I think this paragraph says it all;

I like Barack Obama as much as the next liberal, but this is a farce. He’s done nothing to deserve the prize. Sure, he’s given some lovely speeches and launched some initiatives—on Iran, Israeli-Palestinian peace, climate change and nuclear disarmament—that might, if he’s really lucky and really good, make the world a more safe, more just, more peaceful world. But there’s absolutely no way to know if he’ll succeed, and by giving him the Nobel Prize as a kind of “atta boy,” the Nobel Committee is actually just highlighting the gap that conservatives have long highlighted: between Obamamania as global hype and Obama’s actual accomplishments.

Much though I hate the word "racist" (and all those who regularly use it to debate-dampening effect) I can't help but observe that it applies here. President Obama has, in effect, won the Nobel Peace Prize for "being elected while black." There is no other explanation. 1964's laureate - who famously dreamed of men being judged by the content of their character not the colour of their skin - must be spinning in his grave. He wanted to eliminate discrimination, not reverse it.