Gordo Uber Alles

So, what’s the state of play in UK Politics? Despite death, danger and pestilence all around, everything’s in safe hands, the media tells us.

Good old Gordo, just look at him, chairing his twice-daily crisis committee during the latest foot and mouth crisis. Oooh, isn’t he strong jawed, isn’t he resolute and calm, isn’t he just the very picture of a father of the nation?

So unlike like that odiious simpering Blair…. Crises, what crises? Gordo will save us!

That’s the picture we’re being given anyhow:the British political media would have us believe that their own personal relief at finally being shot of the Blair/Campbell spin machine that they’ve been such slaves to all this time somehow translates into a general wiping-clean of Labour’s political slate. All is forgotten and it’s a bright new day with Uncle Gordo!

Even the Tory press loves him.

But just because there’s been a change at No.10 doesn’t mean this is a new start: it’s the same authoritarian, secretive and incompetent government it always was.

Proof of this comes from Conservative blogger Ian Dale who has kindly fisked most of Brown’s recent “New!” policy statements and his sincere promises to a disaster-hit population and found nearly every one to be a complete sham.

Meanwhile those journalists who were so cowed by Campbell that they forgot how to do their jobs are now so releived to have someone who doesn’t shout in charge that they’re sucking up Brown’s own spin even more obediently than before.

Brown’s image-making is very clever – his voice is slow, measured, almost whispering and every announcement he makes is in that ‘more in sorrow than in anger’ tone, like Daddy dishing out the discipline; but he too relies on it resonating with a particular public archetype of masculinity, just as the laddish and crush-prone Campbell sold Blair’s image of debonair international statesmanship. Campbell must’ve been chuffed to bits when Hugh Grant was cast as PM.

But like Blair’s, Brown’s public image is a facade: look behind the heroic moral posturing and his soothing paternal words and there’s nothing there but mendacity and greed for power.

Nevertheless thanks to a compliant press the spin appears to be working. After all, who is there to oppose it?

As Ian Dales’ post shows the official Opposition has actually got ammunition to use against Brown, but none of it seems to be scoring a direct hit. I doubt it ever will while David Cameron is in charge, either.

Cameron may have been a necessary transitional Tory leader in that he changed the party structure, but he’s well outlived his usefulness now and is dead in the water – he just hasn’t realised it yet. Failed challenger David Davis and former party leader Willam Hague are just giving the Etonian Cameron enough rope to hang himself before swooping in to deliver the coup de grace and take the party back to it’s petty-bourgeois Thatcherite roots..

The Lib Dems’ seemingly unshiftable Ming Campbell, while being a throughly decent and principled man, has about as much oomph as a wet sponge. Saving the return of the bibulous Charles Kennedy there’s no-one with any gumption there at all. At the moment we have effectively no Opposition whatsoever and there is no political means to get an opposing voice heard, except by direct action, but try that and you’ll end up in pokey for terrorism offences. We seem to be turning into a one-party state.

The End For The ASBO, But Still No Sense On Drugs

The amusingly-named Ed Balls, Gordon Brown’s former right-hand man and no Secretary of State for Children, Skills and Families says Antisocial Behaviour Orders have been a failure and appears to be trailing a u-turn in policy.

About bloody time. The ASBO, with drugs, poverty and a rampant consumer culture, has helped create a lost generation in Britain that’s way beyond antisocial and accelerating and no-one seens to care.

No-one knows what is to be done and the default policy is just round em up, stick a label on ’em and write them off forever. What’s resulted is a permanent population of excluded youth who live at the margins and pick off what they can, as the law-abiding, knowing the police are useless, pull up their metaphorical drawbridges against what they imagine is a ravening horde of feral youth.

It’s been way past time for a rethink. Could it be? Could a Brown government be prepared to not only dump the ASBO but to rethink their entire youth justice polcy?

I wish I could be that hopeful.

hen Jacqui Smith and 7 other minsitersd admitted their own dopesmoking youth there was an opportunity for a real public coversation and real change – but the cabinet has had a chance to entirely rethink its drugs policy in a radical way and has flunked it, saying to the nations’ youth ” We smoked dope and that was a youthful indiscretion – but you, you’re a criminal”. It then promptly proposied to reclassify cannabis upwards because it was shown that it might cause a propensity to mental illness in the still- growing brains of young Crispin or Emily and stop them getting into Durham or Bristol..

Well, yes, so does binge-drinking at Rock in August or alcopops round the back of the Aldi but heaven forbid Tesco or Sainsbury’s or Allied Domecq or whoever should stop making money from drink sales. This country’s whole public attitude to intoxicating subtsances and their regulation and use is a sick joke.

The most hypocritical thing of all is that the shadow economy of the whole nation is run on drugs money. The government in effect relies on drugs money to supplement the incomes of unemployed youth and stop them from rioting – why else would it expect a teenager living on their own to live on forty quid a week?

But the money that circulates in the drugs ecoinomy on the street doesn’t xtay there and enrich local businesses or families; in a neat reverse of Reaganesque economic theory the wealth trickles up.

I wonder how many of the neighbours in those posh gated communities in Cheshire or Surrey or wherever, that they’ve retreated to to get away from the crime and the druggies and the chavs, know how many of their neighbours are making money, albeit indirectly, from drugs? How many private schools or lucury car dealers, or estate agents are unwittingly laundering drug money when they accept fees from the new rich?

Drugs are the elephant in the roon when it comes to criime, and youth crime in particular. It’s insane the way British people use drugs in private and condemn them in public, all the while consigning a cohort of its own young to social nothingness for supplying them. Where do they think that twenty quid for a teenth went? Into the building society?

Even more insane is that there is a legal drug that does more damage to more people than any amount of drugs, and which is available 24hrs a day with the government even taking a cut of the proceeds.

Until the government gets to grips with the concept of the use, regulation and yes, taxation of intoxicants of whatever nature this growing divide in society between the young urban and exurban poor and the comfortable suburbans and metropolitans will only become even more marked.

But first Labour has to admit to itself, and the British in general have to admit to themselves, their own complicity in the drugs trade, even if it’s only a toke and a movie on a Saturday night or a couple of E’s at a Labour Party Conference fringe do. That joint came from somewhere, it didn’t just miraculously appear.

The nation as a whole has a substance abuse problem, it’s just that some substances are more illegal than others If we don’t want to become a fearful, locked-down society preyed upon by the armed young urban poor we have to stage our own intervention and work out a sensible decriminalisation, use, treatment and regulation policy that doesn’t turn a cohort of each succeeding generation of children into criminals with nothing to lose.

UPDATE

As if to prove my point….

Sex Workers Vote Too…

So why shouldn’t they be represented on their local council?

Knowing my home county as I do I suspect that, aside from allowing the likes of Guido Fawkes to make totty jokes, that this latest Lib Dem sex hooha in Bideford has more to do with simple snobbery than any real ethical issues with sex work.

Lester Haines in The Register:

Three Devon councillors have quit the Liberal Democrats after discovering that a fellow party member is offering herself as a £75 a pop topless stripogram, the Telegraph reports.

Myrna Bushell, 34, secured a seat on Bideford council in May, along with hubby Mel. Voters were probably unaware, however, that she leads a double life as “Jessica”, a “very sexy auburn professional multi-talented adult & non-adult entertainer” who’s shamelessly punting herself online.

She also apparently runs a £1.50-a-minute sex line from her home, which proved too much for Tony Inch, his brother Simon, and deputy Mayor Caroline Church who harrumphed out of the Lib Dems and now sit as independents. A joint statement issued by the three declared: “We believe that our integrity and principles will be compromised if we stay.”

Bushell retorted: “There are elements here that run deeper. The reason I do them is to pay my bills and be able to spend quality time with my family. It’s not incompatible with being an elected councillor and it’s not illegal. Three people seem to be upset but no one else is – I’ve got to earn a living somehow. Caroline Church hasn’t liked me from the beginning.”

Council clerk George McLauchlan confirmed Bushell had “not breached the councillors’ code of conduct because her business activities do not impinge on her duties as a councillor.

Personally I see no reason why she should not do this work and be a councillor so long as she’s honest and upfront about it, and she obviously is. If the electors are happy with her who the hell are her fellow couincillors to judge?

On the other hand I can’t see how it can possibly said conclusively that her activities do not impinge on her council duties, unless she has some way of proving that no-one with any business whatsoever before the coiuncil has ever looked at her website or called her chatline or attended a party at which she has performed. There is certainly potential for a conflict of interest even none has yet occurred.

That said this attempt to stop a young, active and engaged citizen in the joint enterprise of running the local community just because of her sexual activity is narroiw-minded and snobbish and has only served to make Bideford and the Lib Dems look ridiculous.

Given the current crop of politicians’ proclivities for political whoredom I’d say Ms. Bushell’s ethics may be superior to theirs; at least what she does is, as she says, legal.

What Lies Beneath

No this isn’t about the horrible floods, except as they’re being used by the Brown government to bury things they really don’t want us to notice.

How very convenient that the papers’re full of strong-jawed resolute Gordon overseeing natural disaster and that the usual attack-dogs, Paxman, Humphreys et al, are all off in Tuscany or Cornwall or fly-fishing in Iceland till the end of August.

Take the Guardian, for example, which couldn’t be giving Brown an easier ride; here’s Jonathan Freedland:

It’s been an intense initiation, but people are listening to Labour again

Brown’s first month, and his carefully signalled priorities, look like a success, despite the unexpectedly tough start

More…

Gordon is sitting pretty with the media right now, which means the Brown regime can get away with being equally as politically corrupt as Blair ever was, but with hardly anyone noticing.

Item one: Brown took a leaf out of the Karl Rove playbook this week and did an info dump the day before Parliament recessed; quite a lot of important announcements were made all at once, not least the least interesting of which is that the chair of the Guardian media group has been appointed to his fourth government post. (Why don’t they just rename it the Brown Guardian and have done?)

None of these announcements can be questioned in parliament because it’s not sitting and as mentioned the parliamentary reporters are away on holiday so by the time parliament returns events will have overtaken any questions anyway.

Nod, nod, wink wink, say no more.

Item two: Leader of the House and Secretary of State Harriet Harman also tried the same trick in the Commons, waiting until the very last moment to try and ourageously push through the appointment of the odious Keith Vaz as chair of the Home Affairs Select committee, the supposedly independent, cross-party parliamentary body which oversees all executive actvity in prisons, terrorism, policing, community cohesion and so on.

It’s hard to overestimate the potential power that the Chair of a truly independent Home Affairs select committe could have to hold a rampant executive to account – so of course Brown seeks to decapitate it by disregarding the constitution and getting one cabinet puppet to interfere in another branch of government and appoint another puppet as committee chair. Simon Carr in the Independent:

{…]

…may we express some post-honeymoon scepticism about the PM’s assertions on the value of an independent Commons as well. He doesn’t believe anything of the sort.

As a result, Harriet Harman had great lumps torn out of her on the floor of the House. There was that, at least.

She had suspended Standing Orders in order to appoint Keith Vaz as the new member of the Home Affairs Select Committee (and, under the whips’ instructions, to be the next chair of it).

It’s fairly clear Harriet knew Vaz was the replacement last Monday, when the appointments committee was due to sit. But as Sir George Young said, and as its chair, Rosemary McKenna, confirmed “there was no government business to conduct so the meeting was cancelled”.

Harriet then springs her surprise motion the day before the House rises for the recess.

Richard Shepherd: “To the casual viewer, this looks like the Government choosing who shall be chairman of the Home Affairs Committee… This looks like executive control over the choices of the Chamber and bypassing the very function of the Committee of Selection. It is outrageous!”

Also, “great discredit” (Simon Hughes), “withdraw the motion” (George Young), “I suppose we have to accept [it] at face value” (Nicholas Winterton), “Will the Leader of the House give way?” (Douglas Hogg, George Young, Richard Shepherd, John Bercow.) “I’m an idiot” (Harriet Harman).

Yes, all right, you’re so pernickety. It’s true that one of those quotations has been fabricated

It was just a matter of timing, she said. She wasn’t in a position to put forward his name on Monday, she said.

She’s not a real QC, you know.

Under Vaz’s leadership, we can speculate that the committee will now come out in favour of 58-day detention without charge and that the body of the acting chairman, David Winnick, will be found swinging under Blackfriars Bridge. This is for the future.

More…

Not only Gordon Brown is trying to put the government in charge of oversight of itself he’s rubbing salt in the wound by appointing the sleazy Keith Vaz, a man with several alleged stains on his character.

In February 2000 the Parliamentary standards watchdog Elizabeth Filkin was requested to investigate allegations of undisclosed payments to Vaz from businessmen in his constituency.[1] The following year, 2001, members of the opposition began to question what role Vaz may have played in helping the billionaire Indian Hinduja brothers – linked with a corruption probe in India – to secure UK passports.

In March 2001, the Filkin report cleared Vaz of nine of the 18 allegations of various financial wrongdoings, but Elizabeth Filkin accused Mr Vaz of blocking her investigation into eight of the allegations. He was also censured for one allegation – that he failed to register two payments worth £450 in total from Sarosh Zaiwalla, a solicitor whom he recommended for an honour several years later.

Mrs Filkin announced in the same month a new inquiry which would focus on whether or not a company connected to Vaz received a donation from a charitable foundation run by the Hinduja brothers. The results of the inquiry were published in 2002 and it was concluded that Vaz had “committed serious breaches of the Code of Conduct and a contempt of the House” and it was recommended that he be suspended from the House of Commons for one month[2].

Keith Vaz was also a director of the company General Mediterranean Holdings’ owned by the Anglo-Iraqi billionaire Nadhmi Auchi, who had in the past hired British politicians Lord David Steel and Lord Norman Lamont as directors. Vaz resigned his post as director when he became Minister for Europe, but it was later discovered that he had remained in contact with Auchi and had made enquiries on his behalf over a French extradition warrant, Auchi even calling Vaz at home to ask the minister for advice.

And this is the man who should have parliamentary oversight of policing?

What lies beneath the superficial veneer of Brown’s strong-jawed manly Scottish probity is the same old corrupt New Labour. He can reverse the gambling bill, take his conspicuously low-key and self-denying holidays in an eco-friendly country cottages in Scotland, he can push his ‘son of the manse’, prudence and probity schtick as much as he likes, but that’s all it is, a veneer; underneath nothing has changed. It’s just another face on the same old Labour sleaze.

UPDATE: To further reinforce my point, I jjust came across this:

NI minimum wage ‘may be reduced’

Mr Brown is believed to be considering reducing the minimum wage in NI
Prime Minister Gordon Brown is considering plans which could see the minimum wage reduced in Northern Ireland, it is believed.

The minimum wage is set at £5.35 across the UK, however, if the plans go ahead it will be reduced in NI, Scotland, Wales and the north east of England.

[My emphasis]

That’s only 10,272 pounds annually for a 50 week, 40 hour week year- before tax. the national average after tax is 22,202.

For comparison’s sake, MP’s salaries are over 60,000 pounds annually (and are about to rise by another 2%, at least) plus allowances of around 85,000 pounds, plus special responsibility allowances and perks for ministers.

MI5 and Rendition – “A Big Boy Did It and Ran Away”

The Commons Security and Intelligence committee has decided that British aid to the US in rendering two British resident businessmen, Bisher al-Rawi and Jamil el-Banna, from the Gambia to Guantanamo Bay was….nor criminal, not negligent, but ‘inadvertent’. Oops.

Shorter UK: “Not us guv, it was all those mean Americans!”

“We are satisfied that the (domestic) Security Service (MI5) did not intend for the men to be arrested or for a ‘rendition to detention’ (extra-judicial transfer for detention outside the normal legal system) operation to take place,” the committee said.

“Indeed when sharing the intelligence they used caveats specifically prohibiting any action being taken.

“The Security Service did not foresee that the US authorities would disregard the caveats, given that they had honoured the caveat system for the past 20 years.

“This case shows a lack of regard on the part of the US for UK concerns — despite strong protests — and that has serious implications for the intelligence relationship…

“In international law, it is clear that the US will take whatever action it deems necessary, within US law, to protect its national security,” it said, noting that British concerns “do not materially affect” their strategy.

Just so we’re clear, what the committee appear to be saying is tnat US intelligence is doing what the hell it likes and there’s nothing we can do to stop them because they just don’t give a fuck. The ‘within US law’ is just a figleaf put there to avoid a nasty letter from the US Ambassador..

What wry understatement they continue:

The intelligence and security committee said Britain’s overseas intelligence service MI6 and MI5 had been slow to appreciate the change in US policy and should have exercised greater caution earlier.

Personally I’d translate that as ”they knew the Yanks had gone batshit crazy but were too scared to do anything about it’.