Forging Ahead?

Or forging a Head?

When I last visited a school classroom, nearing five months ago, I found the experience to be somewhat unnerving. It wasn't that I found the children difficult to relate with, or that I was uncomfortable with the subject matter being taught, or that the teaching staff were in any way hostile to my presence. No, there was something else.

Many of the staff members I already knew. I had known several of them for years, one or two of the longer-serving teachers I'd known for decades; I should by rights have felt more at ease with the surroundings. Other members of the staff that I had known had moved on, a few to new and different challenges. A healthy turnover of the ongoing workforce? Maybe so. 

Over the years it has become increasingly difficult for me to relate to just how committed are most of those in the teaching profession. During previous visits to the afore-alluded-to school I had sometimes stayed on, after the staff had already undertaken a six-and-a-half hour day, simply to take on the role of a second adult during an additional hour's commitment to the cause of education. Members of staff already harbouring several hours of preparation and marking were, frequently at this juncture, preparing to voluntarily further-extend their working days.



Knowing that my day was already complete I would sometimes then opt to also enjoy the shared experience of relating to children who were, entirely through personal choice, simply soaking up knowledge and immersing themselves in the problem-solving experience that this extracurricular time had secured for them. It additionally afforded me the time to catch up with old acquaintances. Naturally the school in question received an absolutely glowing Ofsted report, naturally.

But, my most recent visit fell somewhat (and sadly) short of expectation. Although even this- the 'expectation'- had of late become increasingly tempered. And I traced that 'increased temperedness' to the arrival of the New Executive Head. I think that I had first met 'Him' in a corridor as He swept along the narrow spaces with his entourage of newly-appointed non-teaching staff. He stopped and 'smiled' in my direction and then introduced Himself. We conversed briefly before He was on his important way.

Nothing to see here, folks. He was a PR man, neat and tidy and with the requisite full and colourful pallet of newspeak-educational phrases, ready triggered to roll off the tongue like so much cheap honey, that of the very sweetest nature. I doubt He would have stood out in any of a thousand offices up and down the country. Maybe not such a surprising thing in today's crisis that has substituted for normality. It was more the manner in which the children had viewed the man that I found to be most unsettling. Those children who had clocked his presence seemed unsure, curious but not curious enough to approach or to even speak to the man. I doubt He would have noticed.

After He had glided on to his required destination I heard the nearest classroom teacher reassure the children that He was indeed the New Executive Head, although she wasn't quite so scathing. The tone was decidedly more a reverential one than one of shared outlook. There was a sense that both teacher and pupil were rather on the outside looking in, somehow excluded from something entirely more elevated, pedesterial even.



The deck had, at my last visit, been shuffled, several of the longer-serving members of staff had been ushered towards the exits. A secretary had gone, as had a caretaker, another cleaner, support staff, a teacher. After I had returned, several times under the new regime, I became curious as to why the children remained quite so remote from the man. Did He never teach, could He not find the time to address the school, via an assembly for example? I asked questions of the members of staff that I knew best, obviously not the children, that would have been most unprofessional. The answers were as revealing as they were vague.

Upon leaving the school, after my most recent visit, I pondered briefly as to why a visitor to the school (myself) should not have been questioned by the New Executive Head about additional voluntary hours worked, or maybe thanked for so doing, or perhaps even have been acknowledged as having done so. But I only pondered this conundrum very briefly, because I think I already knew the answers.

I have since learned that the New Executive Head has recently informed teaching staff that they are not being paid to sit and to drink tea, thus that the morning break for members of staff had been effectively cancelled, and that the teachers would henceforth be expected to find things to do in respective classrooms whilst the children played. I guessed that a New Executive Head wasn't the sort of busy person to notice that staff also used these times to discuss ongoing educational issues, such as curriculum and even the welfare of certain children. Truth be told, it was difficult to gauge what He may have thought, as He importantly spread his time about the various schools under his 'caring' wing, or perhaps did something else more becoming of his New Executive Head's salary. I doubt He would have made any comment upon the numerous unpaid hours worked prior to the scheduled start of the teaching day, after the scheduled end of the teaching day, or during the scheduled midday lunch break.



When I last visited the aforementioned school it had been bandaged within several hundreds of metres of chain-link fencing, the inadequate car-park had been further inadequately armed with a regiment of particularly unforgiving speed bumps, the curriculum suitably scoured of the more creative subjects, instead tweaked for tommorrow's successful linguists and mathematicians, also those of a lesser linguistic and mathematical bent and those of a linguistic and mathematical ineptitude- at least they would now be fully armed with an awareness of this ineptitude, fully.

The New Executive Head's office door- no longer set invitingly ajar- had been closed and emblazoned with something newspeak-educational-one-liner, inviting the children to go away and to solve their own crises. I think that it had read, "Don't come to me with problems, come to me with solutions." I believe that suchlike has become something of a management and 'leadership' mantra in thenewUK.com. Perhaps Philip Green had once hidden behind something very similar? The office in question was now that of a New-Executive-Head-busyness, except that it was empty, devoid of life, because the New Executive Head was non-specifically elsewhere; perhaps not quite yachting, but certainly not pulling at the oars.

The school had reeked of those newspeak educational values: Extra unacknowledged unpaid hours worked had seriously trumped work-breaks, working relationship with pupils had been well-and-truly trumped by application of relationship with government values, Ofsted had trumped humanity. Humanity's worth was in serious decline.

'Forging Ahead' or 'Forging a Head?' Very much more of the latter, I fear.

The Culpable Cull

Cull: to reduce by selective removal or slaughter. Ultimately it's a means of rebalancing or maybe even a sort of stocktaking, a recalibration of things if you like. To elect to cull is to make a choice, to take a decision as to which living things to prioritise over which other living things.

Should we happen to witness packs of hounds racing across the countryside in pursuit of Fantastic Mr Fox, then that's a form of culling. Oh, I know that we've 'legislated' against such barbaric acts, excepting in the event of 'accidental killings,' but we all know what this really means don't we? Those beagles aren't going to exercise themselves you know. Aniseed trail, my aunt! 

The thing is though, even if we accept that culling may be a necessary tool of tidy 'bookkeeping'- obviously not in the case of the hunting gentry- it's always the book-owners who get to decide what's to be taken stock of, where the recalibrating is to be done. And one of the key questions has surely got to be, 'Are the bookkeepers always going to be in the best positions to judge?'

A few months ago I was given, by a friend, the site of some delightful orchids. Greater Butterfly Orchids, they were, and they did sort of look like the generic butterflies after which they were named. They were small and of a snowy hue that seemed to radiate almost their own peculiar light, standing diminutive and almost completely shielded from any potential sunlight. My pictures do not do them justice, but there's something about pictures one takes for oneself; they still seem to resonate differently to those taken by others, even if they do often end up being woefully inferior.

So I've also included a photograph taken by another friend, taken when we revisited the site a week or so later. His are far better but then so was his camera, as was his patience. I watched him kneeling in the damp soil to better approach the flowers, even laying down at one point. At the time I suspected that I might struggle with extracting myself from the undergrowth were I to follow suit. So I declined to kneel.


Greater Butterfly Orchid.

I am not really a plant enthusiast, but I do very much appreciate some of the larger and/or more spectacular ones, the almost mythical beasts like the Giant Hogweed, Hemlock and some of the more zoomorphically-named species. So, less driven and instead of lying flat upon the damp earth, I crouched in the narrow clearing and snapped away, trying to best capture the blooms against the darker surrounding woodlands.

As have already stated I would not number myself amongst the more driven of plant enthusiasts, but once I know that I am within a certain reasonable mileage of a particular species I'll usually make the effort. So when I found myself parked and knowingly within just a few strides of the plants I was quite set upon seeing the things. I had been given very specific instructions but, as so often when I am left to my own devices, I began to doubt myself, consequently spending a great deal longer upon the search than was strictly necessary.

This ability to self-doubt, that I have nurtured over the years, resulted instead in a systematic search of the surrounding area, whereby other equally spectacular orchids were also seen and duly photographed. I had prepared myself for the variable and damp footing by wearing shorts, a t-shirt and sandals, as I would again- I currently possess no wellies.

I should explain that the Greater Butterfly Orchids were found within a couple of hours- nearly two hours longer than was strictly necessary- and that my feet and legs especially became quite sodden. It was extremely humid and it rained lightly and briefly whilst I was there.


Greater Butterfly Orchid.

Still, I was more than happy with my expedition. I had targeted one plant species and I had easily exceeded this. Additionally the site transpired to have several purring Turtle Doves, a real bonus. I never gave the day a great deal of thought beyond this, that is until some time later that I happened to notice a small foreign body attached to my arm just below the elbow.

I knew straight away that it was a deer tick, I'd removed a couple from my chest several decades ago in my youth. I knew that the woods I had visited were well populated by a variety of wild deer and I remembered that I had spent almost the entirety of my visit wet from the knees down. My partner carefully tweezed out the offending tick- I learned later that this is not to be advised- and the rejected chappy was duly encased in sellotape.

I knew about such things as Lyme Disease and so visited a nurse on the morrow, who promptly misidentified the tick as a flea, but this mattered not. I was told to watch the area for inflammation, more specifically for a circle of redness around the site of the head-burrowing, and to return to the surgery should anything untoward occur.

There was a brief period of inflammation; I think that we may have left part of the head in situ, whereby the surrounding area did itch a bit. But I did not swell at the joints, experience any paralysis, limb pain, heart problems (at that time), meningitis, chronic fatigue syndrome, or experience any symptoms like those of fibromyalgia. So, good news!

This is actually a zoomorphically-named  Lizard Orchid.

During my second visit to the site I regularly searched my lower legs and I consequently found two more of the things. This time they were still unattached. I held one of the tiny creatures in the palm of my hand and we looked closely at the wee beastie. Without wishing to present as unduly cruel I did dispatch the thing. My first effort involved squeezing the creature between the thumb and first finger, as hard as I could manage. The tick merely flattened, re-inflated, and then carried on sauntering across my hand the moment that I released the pressure. But, as anyone who has ever removed fleas from a cat or dog will know, there was no such escaping the pressure of the two more-determined thumb nails.

That evening I removed a second tick from behind my left knee, but did not this time bother to trouble the nurse. This one (the tick, not the nurse) was considerably less well fed, less ravenously embedded and more easily removed.

I did not knowingly develop Lyme Disease, which was convenient as I had plans which would not easily have accommodated any of the recognisable symptoms. The worse case scenario, the very worst that one could hope (not) to expect from the disease is death, although known fatalities are extremely rare. The point that I am hoping to make here, however, is that this is a disease which might almost be overlooked as we swish our ways through this or that thicket, and that it is still a decidedly unpleasant affair once unleashed upon an unwitting host.

Deer ticks and Lyme's Disease are certainly no laughing matter for the poor soul who may be struck down, and what may further complicate the matter is the potential issue of said disease lying dormant in the host body for an age. Who amongst us goes to the doctor feeling absolutely knackered and is then routinely checked for traces of the Lyme Disease that's been harbouring in the bloodstream for the past ten months? I'm guessing that it's not going to be many of us.


Deer Tick haven.

So, back to the main thrust of this posing. When the Government recently set to with its rifles and some jolly eager sharp shooters, with the idea of saving a few quid in vaccinations against Tuberculosis in cattle, there was the immediate potential for one's local badger sett to be wiped out overnight. So what if it might cost the nation its badger populations? Those costs, you can be assured, had already been considered. Conservation of money versus conservation of species? No contest!

Well, I'm going to stick the ol' neck out and suggest some (not exactly identical) solutions with regards to Lyme Disease- I notice that the disease is rather in vogue at the present- with a tidy bit of additional culling. And I'm going to suggest this because your 'best' chance of picking up one of the zillions of ticks in your neck of the woods is going to be considerably enhanced should you happen to own a dog, or have regular contact with any such creature who also happens to spend much of his time in deer country. Dogs, I am sure you will have guessed, smothered as they are in all of that shaggy hair as well as operating far lower to the ground, are going to be considerably more likely to have picked up and brought home just such a deer tick. And once home said tick will be pretty much at leisure to investigate the potential 'donors' therein.

Wouldn't it be so much the easier if we all pulled together to undermine this unwelcome intruder? 'We're all in this together,' might serve as an appropriate slogan. Panic not, I am not going to suggest that we lay waste to the the nation's domesticated dogs, although there are undoubtedly a few out there for whom we could make a serious case, perhaps even for their owners. What I am prepared to propose however, is that we seriously consider culling the many beagle packs that have been lying idle, if the gentry are to be taken at their word, for some eleven years. Cull the beagles, remove a significant transit-host and reap the rewards!

Culling the dogs, especially those belonging to some of the more-landed gentleman-farmer types, in order to seriously undermine the threat of this dangerous disease, should be considered a small and easily affordable price. And what do you know, most of the population won't even be moderately inconvenienced.

Cull: to reduce by selective removal or slaughter. The most effective of culls being those that least inconvenience the proposed beneficiaries.

The Purge!

When nineteen Cabinet Members upped and resigned from Labour's front bench (26th June 2016)- dominoes toppling upon the hour- one could have concluded any from a multitude of things about the state of the Labour Party. The media- our 'bastions' of democracy- had been relentless in pursuit of the newly elected Leader, ever since the day of his popular victory on 12th September 2015. Hilary Benn- surely of questionable DNA- had immediately set to plotting to ride roughshod over the wishes of party members, cosying up instead to the BBC's Laura Kuenssberg. Was he perhaps defending democracy... no, not that democracy, 'this improved democracy?'

Apparently we should have surmised, way back in September, that he (Corbyn) wasn't up to the task, firstly because "he was an evil socialist," but then- when this didn't reap the desired rewards- instead because "he was a "thoroughly decent chap, just not quite up to the job." There were more than enough 'automatons' prepared to stand up and to be counted, in the narrower interests of the parliamentary monopoly. Surely then, this would work, it'd always wrought the 'right sort of rewards' in the past?

Watching PMQs at the time, one might have assumed that many in the freshly appointed Cabinet had been replaced whilst asleep, with just so many stuffed suits. Almost to the letter the policies were the same, almost, and yet those Cabinet faces appeared as if frozen in mute deference to forces far beyond their democratic remit.

Cometh the hour cometh the Benn (2nd Dec 2015). Or perhaps it was more a case of, anything you can do I can do better, as the nation prepared once again to play the part of the Vengeful God of International Affairs? How the puppets danced, and how the papers rustled, and how the muttering grew to a grumbling, and the grumbling grew to a mighty rumbling, and in the Houses the MPs and the Lords respect went a tumbling (yet further!). If Tony could wave that loaded gun about why then not also little Hilary? Lights, action, staged applause, cut, that's a wrap!

With the Chilcot Report due (6th July) the nation could have been forgiven for thinking that Teflon Tony would opt to stay put on the far side of the Atlantic, where rumour has it that he might still be welcomed in certain military circles. But no, this situation was far too pressing for such considerations, there was some serious undermining to be done. Was there nothing that this man would not sacrifice for his country? And here was a soul- assuming all the while that he actually has one of these- versed to perfection in the not-so-fine art of sacrifice (ref Chilcot).

The internationally reviled war criminal duly offered us his tarnished verdict. "If your heart's with Jeremy Corbyn get a transplant," he joshed to a certain carefully orchestrated response. An option that was sadly much too late for the hundreds of thousands slaughtered in consequence, in large part, of his unspeakable overseas record. Such was the sheer weight of darkness cast by this man's unholy shadow that even the UK's media were unable, or unprepared, to fully endorse his aspersions. Confound it, the fool might just as well have been conscripting new Corbynistas... or was it Trots? ... entryists? ... stormtroopers? Keeping abreast of the correct battle parlance was becoming almost an achievement in itself.

Time then to wheel out John Mann (28th April), a character who could shout and jab his finger along with the very best of them, just as long as he wasn't expected to think and walk at the same time. Wind him up, point him in the right direction, and watch him go. Even so, it might be an idea to brief the media first, to gather in the vultures for the show. Careful though, we didn't want them pointing out that 'anti-semite' and 'anti-zionist' were not one and the same thing, did we? Fortunately, the essential dumbing down of the UK's press, much of it, had already taken place decades ago.

It was thought then that some collateral damage might be in order, that the Party might at least bring down Ken Livingstone, assassination by association as 'twere. Plant that diseased seed and let the media nurture and grow it. Shame then that Shami Chakrabarti * should so swiftly have put a heel to those poisonous black shoots. John Mann was duly placed back in his box and again we moved on, He was going to take far too much effort to rewind.

Party numbers continued to rise, curiously both encouraging and yet not quite so encouraging at one and the same time. Just how was the Party to use that fighting fund to best effect? Would it be possible to have that proverbial cake and to eat it at one and the same time?

Cue the BBC comedy panel shows. Really, it mattered not in the slightest that the basis of the pun, any 'suitable' pun, was unfounded, it was vital get it out there before the latest BBC news headline was yet again to be discredited. The plan was to plant those seeds in the empty spaces where they might rattle the loudest.

If only it were possible to somehow emphasise the importance of the 172 incumbent MPs whilst at the same time diminishing that of  the 150,000 members. Wasn't that what statisticians were created for? John Humphreys, bless, had done his best. But by the time that the BBC's oft-dropped baton had been passed on to Andrew Marr, between the pair of them, the buffoons had almost worn the damned thing out! "Pick it up and run, Andrew Neil, go for Christ's sake!" was rumoured to have been heard, shouted from a tiny room somewhere in Victoria Street. For those with a mind for the banal there was a curious symmetry to the whole sordid affair; 172 ways to ask the still popular Leader of the Opposition about his disloyal MPs, all the while without once venturing further afield, and into the veritable quagmire of Party Policy. Best to keep the General Public in the dark, it was thought, about the 'origins' of those policies that still seemed so darned sensible to them. Spin faster please, Portland Communications!

Perhaps then, it was suggested, we might consider simply sweeping the current leader under the carpet, pretend that all this ugly democratisation had never happened? Maybe the law courts were going to be able to square that circle. If it wasn't going to be possible to scupper the popular leader's overwhelming support maybe instead the Party could discount 'some' of  those ballot papers? 'Some,' 'virtually all,' in the interests of power did it really matter? In for a penny... 

If only Cameron (29th June) had had the sense to bite his lip, to pretend once again that it was possible to slide a cigarette paper between the 'opposing' parties. But no! Do we think that many people noticed Gove and Mann high-fiving across the floor of The House? Was this to be another case of 'too many cooks spoiling the coup,' once again?

Tom Watson (1st July) could surely negotiate a full surrender, sorry compromise. But not that type of compromise, this type of 'superior compromise.' As long as the Party could prevent him from referring to the bulk of the membership as, "Trotskyists." Surely we weren't thinking about the same Tom Watson who had sat like a redundant motorway cone, during PMQs? Oops, too late anyway, many a slip betwixt the cup and the lip! The "Trot" word was already out there, floating free in the aether. The Party 'faithful' were now behaving like rabbits in the headlights.

Angela Eagle might have had the presence of wet tissue paper- it surely can't seriously have been thought that even she really believed what she was saying- but she could hold up a house brick (12th July) and cry a bit, couldn't she? That was until those awkward questions started to roll in yet again, questions like, "Whose office was it that was actually attacked?" So that ship was quickly abandoned, before further questions like, "Who actually threw the brick?" rose to the surface... what, no surely not! 

And then, like a phoenix rising from the ashes, Moses emerging from the wilderness, the light at the end of the long and dark tunnel- although many prefer to think of him as the embodiment of the oil slick that resulted when the SS Eagle hit the rocks- there arose Owen Smith (16th July). Owen who? He may not quite have had a Torch of Justice clutched in his fighting-fist, more a bottle of Pfizer prescription drugs, but here, after many false Gods, was the real deal! The final real deal! The realest real deal!


Owen "No, I never said that!" Smith. Owen, "No, I didn't mean that!" Smith. Owen, the Saviour of the Labour Party, Smith! He had the ringing endorsement of Lord Mayor Sadiq Khan, the invariably late endorsement (unofficially) of Sir Richard Branson. He had the ringing endorsement of the not-suspended Michael "Nazi Stormtrooper" Foster. He may have had the support of the not-suspended Lord Sainsbury, that was unless his £2 million donation to the LibDems was some kind of pointer. But, he never quite had the support of Ronnie Draper, suspended for a Twitter comment like... Well certainly, whatever it was it must have been 'far worse' than calling the bulk of the membership a "bunch of Nazi Stormtroopers!" The NEC, of course, could not comment on the whys or wherefores of their current bout of purgings. They were  far too busy going through a further 180,000 members, seeing if they couldn't purge the voting yet further.

With the taste still bitter in the mouth the Party opted for Blair's mate, Lord Justice Beatson, hoping to finally fix it (8th August), to consign those non-compliant new members to the dustbins en masse. But of course not those lovely subscriptions, the Party was still going to need those. Lord Falconer, presumably another ringing endorsement for Smith, could surely go on record stating his satisfaction with the verdict, the paid-for-with-new-members'-monies verdict. No, not that verdict... this 'perfected verdict.' How could this not help? 130,000 denied votes was surely going to be enough to win the day? 130,000 votes, plus whoever fitted the Corbyn-voter profile amongst the next 180,000 members then? Could the Party use lie detectors, did we think, was there enough time? Who was it that said, "We've got nothing to learn from tin pot dictatorships?" Anyway, the press seemed happy enough; the 'nation,' that part of it destined to rule, could always iron out the post election flack later, post election result as 'twere... no not that election result, this 'improved election result!'

British Virgin Isle tax exile Sir Richard Virgin Branson even broke off from his holidaying to try and derail the leadership election, poor man. If money wasn't going to buy one a leg up in the bought-and-paid-for media then what was the point of it all? That such a moment upon a crowded train should occupy the airtime, and for quite so very long, suggested that this leadership election result was most unlikely to be permitted to stand anyway. The 'remaining' Party Members were almost certainly going to be expected to re-vote. Not because much of the membership were likely to have voted upon a false premise, like they did in the Referendum (Brexit ref.), but instead because it currently seemed unlikely that they were going to be delivering the 'right kind of result.'

The Guardian's drip, drip, drip creation (oft fabrication?) of the Leadership Election news might, under any sort of democratic mandate, have suggested that things had become dreadfully skewed. Next thing you know and people were going to be be expecting news reportage to substitute for news creation. Had they no idea how much more expensive this was to do, especially in these times of austerity?  And, for heaven's sake, we didn't want the media to suddenly start delving overly deeply into the issue of the crowded train (11th August). Instead why couldn't they just default to believing Sir Richard's words, a knight of the realm, over the words of all of his minions, who were definitely not knights of the realm? We didn't want people to actually start wondering whether they could really could see into those seats, or fail to hear the protestations of quite so many people who were really on the train and could easily do just that, see into those questionable seats. 

Oil those politicians well... no, not those politicians, 'these better politicians.' But there would be no need to oil the hinges at those Constituency Labour Party Meets, because we couldn't have them discussing the leadership campaign whilst the Party were, err, discussing the, err, leadership campaign, could we? No, not that discussion, this 'more informed and cleansed discussion.' 

Did the General Public not understand just how much more magical the prime 53 was, how much more alluring it could be than the wholly ordinary 285? (Constituency Labour Party endorsements ref). Was there absolutely no way that the NEC could prevent the mis-voting, vaccinate, gerrymander? Gerrymander even further? Could they use lie-detectors, did they think, was there time?

So, the NEC are busily putting members' monies to 'valuable' use, in order to ensure that what we end up with is the 'correctly endorsed leader of the party,' decided with the trusty Pfizer-endorsed hand held firmly to the breast, that Michael Foster- he of the "Nazi stormtrooper," comment- may be proud to call his own, and all on the members' behalf of course.

When Michelangelo stood back and observed that mighty block of marble, brought his finest chisels to bear and began chipping away at his entombed 'David' (1501-1504), who could have imagined the artistry that would result? Then perhaps we should just conclude that of all those newly-enthused members are to be merely the 'necessary' dust upon the floor about the feet of the chosen one... no not that chosen one, 'this more-perfect chosen one.' Even if he doesn't carry the memory of his latest hustings comment as far as his next interview, who cares, he's our leader, our appointed leader! Am I purged yet?

You say a Corbyn victory will cost the nation how much in evaded taxes, Mr Balls? Put that wand away, Ms Rowling, that won't work here, remember? The Dalai Lama is rumoured to have said exactly what?

* Repeating an earlier post idea, I would suggest that this spoken record of what Shami Chakrobarti has to say about the current state of the Labour Party, specifically with regards to any racist happenings within, is far more worthy of attention than any of the above.

Around the Houses

'Around the houses?' The idiom that suggests that the subject of importance has been arrived at by a somewhat circuitous route. To 'go all around the houses,' meaning to perhaps procrastinate, maybe as a means of more carefully rounding upon a targeted subject before 'biting the bullet' and 'thrashing it out!' Idioms, are they not the curse of the modern language?

All manner of eventualities might have brought about such a state of affairs. There might be embarrassment, guilt, nervousness, anxiety, even fear, involved in 'going all around the houses' prior to getting to the appointed house as 'twere.

I'm not sure that it really is 'going all round the house' if the intention never was to get there in the first place. But in this particular instance, be very clear, it is still very much about 'the houses.'

I doubt that it will have come as any sort of surprise to have learned that the UK is facing a housing crisis. "What, another one?" we might question. More like, "What still? What, the very same one that started some time in the early 1980s and then just kept on morphing, writhing about like some sort of tail-grasped serpent, resurfacing in pretend clothing and disguise, presenting covertly from behind all manner of puppets, slipping and sliding and refusing to be pinned down, hiding behind another more in vogue crisis for a few years, but never actually being solved. Or even properly addressed? Or even seriously being acknowledged? That one?"

Yes, that one!



The UK has a housing crisis! The headline tells the story... but, as so often with the media, only a very selective and small part of the story. "Everything ticking along splendidly," might just as well have sufficed. Because every financial crisis has a flip side; in the world of the idiom every cloud has that silver lining. "The UK is a thriving housing investment opportunity!" That, quite obviously, is the desired and celebrated headline, but that can't be the one that's presented can it? Those 'in the know' already know and those that don't, some of them, will 'need' to be able to read the story entirely differently.

When 'Thatcher the everything snatcher' sold off council stock under the 'Right to Buy' facade of giving council house tenants a home of their own, the game plan was that of a far longer period of play. Uncle Sid and Auntie Hattie may well have bought and loved-to-pieces their council house, died and handed it on to whoever. It may still be a loved and cherished home...

... or it may now be one tiny unit in a significant property portfolio of some faceless or otherwise unscrupulous landlord, who is looking to exploit each and every turn in the economy. No tenant security, no guarantees, no freedom from the prepayment meter, no chance of escaping the dark economy of 'the housing crisis.' You may even have voted for your landlord, in either the General or the Regional Elections, quite conceivably both!



"Home ownership in England at lowest level in 30 years," reads just as honestly when phrased, "Privately rented homes at highest level in 30 years." Probably this could even more accurately be typed as "... highest level ever." To contest that, "private landlord occurrence is at its highest," is less certain, although quite possibly also true. Many of the most 'fortunate' private landlords will today be able to boast of considerably larger 'portfolios' than 30 years ago. So maybe there's a smaller percentage of landlords who now lay claim to a far higher proportion of properties? I couldn't say.

Already, as I sit typing this, the storyline has moved on. The following day it was something about the regulation of energy provision, the day after that the storyline had morphed again. "Home ownership in England at lowest level in 30 years," already like gossamer in the breeze. Whatever it might be, it might not be quite the same problem, but if it touches upon inequality it might be affecting entirely the same sections of the populace. I doubt that the desire to solve whatever it is will be that significant either.

The housing issue is tied in strongly with the growing disparity between highest earners (landlords) and lowest earners (tenants). Or quite possibly landlords (MPs) and tenants (voters). The issue is being reported upon by the BBC (Lord Birkenhead, salary £450,000), The Sun (Murdoch worth £7.6 billion), The Daily Mail (Paul Dacre 2015 take home £1.48 million), ITV (Adam Crozier £8 million take home in 2013), and other nefarious bods. And what do we think that they will be wanting, with regards to any sort of 'solution?'



Now, by 'solution,' I will suggest, we don't really mean solution, instead we mean 'a solution.' I'm going to suggest- because how could I possibly know what the MPs and the powerful elite will cobble together?- that any solution will not be looking to, say, build large numbers of council homes or invest considerably in social housing schemes. We already know this because the government are currently trying very hard to ensure that huge chunks of social housing quickly changes hands, in to the 'happy' control of private landlords. I would also contend that they will not be looking to narrow the income disparity, nor will they be looking to redefine mortgages as being calculated upon one salary (say 3.5 times salary). Nor will they be looking to address the serious issue of homes standing empty, nor ownership of acres of properties by foreign 'investors.' Of course they are not investing so that any wider community might benefit. Nor will they be looking to considerably strengthen tenants' rights, nor to regulate rents. Nor will they be looking to regulate building so that, for example, we no longer produced the smallest homes in Western Europe. Nor will they be looking to tax home ownership progressively, nor to take any other measure that might seriously restrict multiple home ownership.

Whatever the 'solution' is it's not going to be a solution, is it? Because, the problem isn't that we're deep in a crisis, it's because we're absolutely raking it in! Things have never been so good!

The trick is in making it look like it's a 'crisis' that we care about.  

The Green(er) Economy?

So, the Green debacle. And what exactly is it that we mean, when we say/write/think 'Green?'

There has been much talk and speculation, over recent decades, regarding the greener options for the economy. But, in terms of any effective application, it (green) has remained entirely that, 'talk and speculation,' almost as if it is some ethereal and otherworldly quality. Nothing has yet managed to nudge the economy away from the neoliberal nightmare in which we currently find ourselves, and into those greener pastures anew.

Of course, this posting is really nothing more than a ruse; it's intention is not actually to write about the environment and the wilder corporatised world, except by association. And it's not because all this stuff matters not. Of course it does, it matters a great deal and to a great many people, all people in reality, but currently these people and the avenues through which they channel their efforts, remain almost completely redundant to the people at the helm.

I will cite two incidents of such helpless impotency, in order to justify my generalisations, then I shall move on to the main thrust of the item. One incident involves a local(ish) woodland and the other a more remote one.



Theberton Wood is an idyllic place, not far from the RSPB Minsmere reserve in Suffolk. The wood has the sort of magical quality that so many more (since lost) woodlands once used to hold, before they were covertly earmarked for more financially 'viable' purposes. It is a restored, mixed woodland, currently under threat ("under management") from a Forestry Commission who are hoping to clear and 'optimise' the space.

The fact that the woodland contains a wide variety of birds such as Spotted Flycatchers, whose populations have taken a serious hit, is apparently unimportant in the drive for maximised profit. The fact that the woodlands contain populations of Silver-washed Fritillaries, Purple Hairstreaks and, more recently Purple Emperor butterflies, and that butterfly populations in general have plummeted in recent years, is also to be deemed as nothing more than a minor inconvenience. If there were such creatures as faeries, then this is the sort of place where they might still be hanging on by a fingernail. And yet, even this small sanctuary of peaceful and free escapism is not safe.

The second example cites Lodge Hill in Kent, a site of Special Scientific Interest upon the Hoo Peninsular. Lodge Hill currently holds 1.3% of the national population of breeding Nightingales. Just to flesh this out a tiny bit I should also here mention that any woodland that satisfies the breeding requirements of so many Nightingales will naturally be supporting a wide range of other scarcer plants and wildlife- bats, birds, badgers, amphibians, invertebrates- because that's how ecosystems actually work.

Medway Council's Planning Committee 'considered' all of this and voted to bulldoze the lot, for the construction of 5,000 houses, either the new smaller shoebox designs, or else more investment purchases waiting to be snapped up by investor landlords we might safely surmise.



Meanwhile the more imminently-unscrupulous Medway Council have attempted to placate the gullible with what is mistakenly referred to as 'Biodiversity Offsetting.' The name is probably self-evident, the purpose rather more darkly disingenuous. The misnomer, in this instant, involves offsetting 650 hectares of land for habitat restoration 'somewhere else.' My understanding is that this restoration could take up to twenty years, and that is assuming that Medway Council does not, some time in the near future, cite efficiency savings as a 'valid' reason to renege upon the 'deal.'

The average lifespan of the Nightingale is approximately two years, so that's an awful lot of bird-custom-and-tradition to hand down the years, by chirp of beak (word of mouth), ten generations no less. Is there something that Medway Council knows about the Nightingale that has otherwise escaped detection? Or are they just like so many other feasting parasites in the non-existent 'greener' economy?

Philip Green, the 'real' stucco facade of this post might care even less for any such consequences, should it afford him another yacht or perhaps even another meal. His £586 million-and-counting slight of hand, in addition to the uncertain future of 11,000 former employees and a £571 million pension funding vacuum, suggests that he would certainly more openly excrete upon all and sundry in his wake, should the rewards be deemed attractive enough.



He is estimated to be 'worth' £3.22 billion (and we might well quibble over the use of "worth" in this context) and in that calculated value alone I have already spotted a viable solution. But my suggestion will mean little to the bods who are currently pretending to deal with the issue. The Business, Innovation and Skills, and the Work and Pensions committees, working in tandem, compiled a report that didn't even stretch to stating that Green had done anything wrong. The current standing is that Green is able to claim that the sale of BHS, for £1, was done "in good faith." He remains a knight of the realm and is currently threatening to sue Frank Field for stating that Green "was much worse than Robert Maxwell (for plundering BHS)." Would I stand half as much chance of evading a single Council Tax payment? Did the sitting committees even dare to use the term Asset-stripping? Because that's certainly what it was.

Whether Green is eventually suitably backed into a corner that might result in him having to resolve the issues to an equivalent benefit to his former employees seems currently unlikely. I personally would be prepared to deal with the knighthood issue in a manner not dissimilar to knocking a coconut off its perch in a coconut shie; I might not hit the target first time, but I'd get there eventually, and such fun would be had along the way.

Which leads in 'nicely,' to the thrust of the posting, the far wider issue of Asset-stripping and the real reasons for this pussy-footing about the Philip Green issue. Why would any society openly and so readily condemn the act- because they are currently falling woefully short- when it is one of the absolute founding stones of that selfsame society? In reality he (Green) has stolen the futures of several tens of thousands of people, yet he has also taken the 'accepted and daily practised' tool of asset stripping, and then he has simply more-keenly sharpened its point.

There could be countless examples, both national and international, to here employ in my pretended prosecution, but I will settle for just the handful.



My first example ties in quite neatly with the Lodge Hill 'development'- such a misleading word in today's parlance, don't you think?- that of Britain's housing crisis, one and the same housing crisis that consecutive governments have been wringing their hands and bemoaning in mock concern now for approaching three decades. It's that very same crisis that sees tens of thousands of houses built every year, whilst at the very same time the number of souls who cannot access either a decent home of their own, or else an affordable rent, continues to multiply. Why, it's almost as if the building programme is actually designed to feed a very different 'need,' isn't it? And one wonders why it is that every day- I am in semi-retirement- one may witness the BBC et al chaperoning investment purchasers from property to property, why it is that homes built as 'starter homes' continue to still be snaffled up by the 'investor' landlords? "Hang on just a moment!" we might think, "Why, pray why, are we still selling off so much council stock and social housing?"

I'm going to put the proverbial neck upon the proverbial line and suggest that affordable-rents-en-masse, via council-type homes, are the last thing that private landlords with more money than scruples will be wanting. I'll go further and ask the question, "Haven't we been asset-stripping council and social housing for decades?"

A second example would be Blair et al's PFI 'initiatives' in the NHS, the creaming-off of all services deemed profitable by Private Health Care interests, and that would include you, Owen Smith, the Parliamentary Labour Party's choice for leader. The service doesn't improve but the new shareholders are invariably happy, and the CEO might not always be the best, but within a year his pension is sure looking more healthy than the average Philip Green former employee. Except, of course that the shareholders, and probably the CEO aren't new to this are they? Some of them will have become accustomed to creaming off the best bits for an age. Seriously, isn't this also just Asset-stripping by any other name?

We can see the same things happening in local councils, up and down the country. Hell, the water's already gone, as has the railway, and the rest of the utilities. Thatcher famously said that she wouldn't sell off the Post Office, "Not with the Queen's Head!" I think she may have uttered. What she didn't say was that this neoliberal nightmare wasn't just a single term, or a single Prime-Ministerial matter.



We might well cite education, chipped away at and sold off in large, small or medium-sized chunks, to whoever, everything must go! That student loan that you're repaying, well a significant chunk of that is going to the Vice Chancellor, or whoever, the one before the present figurehead maybe? Free Schools and Academies are now up there for grabs; the kids may well get something along the way, but the investors certainly will. Asset-stripping?

So many of those ageing citizens- those who last the duration- are currently being asset-stripped. The staff in the care homes are invariably working on or around the minimum wage, so somebody in the system's on to a jolly good thing. I know that my father spent the final years of his life wishing he was already dead. If he had spotted the subterfuge he wouldn't have admitted it; it was what his newspaper had always assured him was the right course of action. "No return to the bad old 1970s!" was an oft banged out headline in my parents' home. The Telegraph had replaced the Daily Mail years ago- less red-faced hatred being shouted out from the pages- longer words but the message was pretty much the same.

Several years ago the then Chancellor legislated to allow people to far sooner access their pensions. "Take control of your pension." Aviva are currently shouting from their Norwich-based towers. They would, but in the bustle they appear to have omitted the beginning of the sentence; "Let us take control of your pension." was what they meant to say. "Let us take your pension!" might have been more accurate. 'Pension flexibility' the Government prefer to label the action. The surge in pension scam losses trebled within a month of Osborne's access to pension reforms, £4.7 million in May 2015. Even if people are not to be scammed (Asset-stripped) they are still strongly advised to see 'their financial adviser.' He or she will be looking to sup deeply of those pension pots. Of course, you may well already have had your pension pot compulsorily 'purchased' (What, you've still not been paid?) by the former Chancellor Gordon Brown, when he chose to scrap tax relief on pension firms. But he was merely doing what the system 'told him to,' asset-stripping the funds to his own, and Blair's own means. £118 billion that move cost the people of the nation. But don't worry, had he not done this George Osborne would have been sure to have tried something very similar. In reality Osborne's Pension flexibility was a lot less of a coup for the neoliberals, but as many a boardroom CEO has undoubtedly stated, "You can only help yourself what's there to be taken."



I currently hold in my hand, a letter from Aviva- Aviva again!, would you credit it?- inviting me to indulge in a bit of equity release. The letter reads like an invite to a all-you-can-eat buffet banquet! It seems that the company are just falling over themselves to throw money at people. It won't even cost me anything, oh, except for my home... sorry their home... hang on, what's this small print? I can even be Asset-stripped with a smile on my face. Well, what do you know? Far from enough, apparently.

Isn't all of this just Asset-stripping UK.com? And, that's the wonderful thing about this neoliberal dream, nothing is sacred, everything that might be 'liberated' will be liberated. Let's get on that TTIP gravy train and have the ride of our lives! But will they still be our lives at the end of 'the journey, that's the thing?' The new liberation, it sounds so darn catchy, too! Those at the very top are hungry for more, so they're forever looking to liberate something else. Hang on to your hats! Or your children, your health, your tranquillity, your lungfuls of fresh air. That glass of water's already gone, I'm afraid sir! It sounds silly, the manner in which I've couched it, and true it might not be your air, your children at the present... but investigate the global economy to see just how far they're prepared to go!

And that, my friends, is why I have this sneaky suspicion that many of those who are currently berating Philip Green rather more secretly admire the chap. He looked into his toolbox, he rifled through the raw materials and he optimised his particular style of Asset-stripping. And many of the top bods just wish that they'd got there first. He was awarded a knighthood, after all.  

I could be wrong, but it's a thought, isn't it?

Opinions upon Protesting

Protest Votes and Political Opinion Polls!

Quite when was it, do you suppose, that we slipped so seamlessly from Opinion Polls asking us what we thought, to telling us what we ought to think?

Until round about two-hundred years ago even the merest concept of such a thing as an Opinion Poll was unheard of. And, judging by the first recorded use of these things it has been a downhill journey ever since. It would appear that their first known use was in predicting the outcomes of American Presidential Elections, and within another hundred years political opinion polls may well already have gained use as a means to 'push' a particular desired outcome. Only disingenuous individuals, or else those of extreme naivety, could these days claim that Opinion Polls in any way serve any form of aspirational democracy. And yet they're still being used, still being 'justified,' as somehow a tool of democratic enhancement, rather than as entirely a weapon in suppression of the same. I seriously doubt that there weren't some individuals present in 1936 who won't, even then, have recognised the 'great potential' there for the corruption of due process.

Now, far be it for me to state here that Political Opinion Polls are entirely unrepresentative- common sense may already have answered this question- although, as already made clear, I think it can be argued that their use may often be construed as being disingenuous.

To draw a comparison, we should accept that non-political opinion polls serve a somewhat clearer purpose, otherwise why would such expensive things happen at all? Allow me to elucidate further...

We could imagine a simple poll of public opinion, by any food manufacturer, say regarding the flavour of a new sample product. The results would enable the company to incorporate the popular choices and to ditch the ones deemed to be less so. In fact this would undeniably be to the benefit of most people, both the manufacturer and the consumer in general terms. Obviously there might be those individuals who would lose out, but they would always be those in the minority. It's hardly a serious issue is it, one 'lost' food item within a fully-rounded diet, for a small minority of people? They could always shop elsewhere.



Where the Political Poll would appear to differ could be traced back to several crucial points in the actual process. Initially, we could ask why it is that a particular person or organisation needs to know the mood of the nation? Then we might look at the timing of the release into the public arena of any 'findings.' "Why here, why now, why that particular set of polling questions, to which purpose?" we might reasonably question.

Along parallel lines, billboard political messages seem simply to anger most people that I know. "Why would you assume us stupid enough to be swayed by something as simplistic and clearly as partisan as that?" the public might respond. "The image is one of misinformation, and it soils the neighbourhood," they are quite likely thinking. Unless, of course, they're not thinking at all, in which case the message might simply serve to consolidate an absence of thought. And yet the imagery, the message, persists- '£350 million' springs to mind, albeit nailed to the side of a bus- so clearly there is a feeling that this method is working at some level.

For people who produce misinformation to political ends, especially if they label themselves as 'advertising agencies,' the rewards may be very handsome. So 'someone' thinks it's worthwhile. And that 'someone' has a lot more pertinent information to hand than do you or I. So this would suggest that, at at least a significant level, the production of misinformation works, or that it is deemed to do so. In tandem, the mis-message and the manufactured response have served up a real chimera. It may be presented as real, it may be perceived as being so, but it really isn't.

Instead, what is real is the fact that it offers some serious remuneration for certain individuals. In close comparison we could cite the control of all sports by the sponsors (advertisers) as an example of just how profitable the circulation of misinformation (lies, suggestion, selective information, 'positive' reinforcement, whatever) can be. Maybe, it could be argued, that, within sport, living with advertising misinformation is a price worth paying. But, if one fully considers the ongoing and rising (sometimes hidden) cost of watching the sport of your choice, one might well wish to reconsider. *

My contention is that the control of misinformation is not only prevalent in our society, but that it has disproportionately grown to become fully a 'life blood' of our nation, as with many other nations. It's really the neoliberal dream, a world where people may be endlessly manipulated to financial ends. And the political ends are now, we should accept, absolutely inseparable from financial ends; remove one and the other, in its current form, will die. If we consider the ownership of our national newspapers and other news outlets, then things really do seem to make a lot more sense... but not 'sense' in any sort of a good way. We might reasonably contend/accept that all information is now a potential commodity, and just like many other commodities it is there to be moulded, refined and repackaged, and sold on as the holder sees fit.



Following the spouting of a great deal of misinformation a vote upon Britain's role in the EU has just taken place. In considerable abundance much of the aforementioned preceded this National Referendum, the outcome of which appears also to have been swayed, in part, by a significant Protest Vote. And, I believe that it would be entirely fair to state that anyone who elected to use the referendum to cast a Protest Vote was entirely a victim, thus a consumer, albeit unwittingly, of misinformation. But, what exactly is a 'Protest Vote?' And, can we trace this particular political tool back so very far in our history?

I think that this is rather more difficult to fathom; the concept of a Protest Vote is, I think, far more nuanced, and quite possibly almost as old as the vote itself. It's desired purpose writhes about considerably, depending upon all manner of issues, and yet it has become so recognised by some that whole political parties have arisen about its potential power. Giving us savages a proper vote and then expecting us to know what to do with it, well, it's never going to work as planned is it? Would eating a vote instead of casting it count as a protest, do we think, even though it might offer a better nutritional return than would the broken promises of any given candidate? At least the latter dilemma properly weighs up the options.

In the UK, come the Local Elections, results are quite often 'dismissed' by our partisan media as those of a protest movement. Whether one has voted for Mickey Mouse, scrawled 'none of the above,'  or simply not bothered to register or turn up, all could be symptomatic of the same all-pervading sense of disenfranchisement and dread. It has been said that whereas Thatcher (Satan eternally feast upon her prostituted soul) polarised more voters, Blair (he's waiting for you too) simply discarded and disenfranchised them. If one does what one is 'required' to do as a 'responsible' citizen, and always exercises one's 'right' to vote, what actually happens when one is faced with a shortlist of proven liars and frauds? Surely, under such circumstances, any considered vote becomes by definition a Protest Vote, doesn't it? So, who's really generating the protest? Is it the voter or is it, in fact, the proven fraud who's standing yet again for re-election?

As an aside, and yet still highly pertinent, I have included here a link to an interview with Michael Moore, who speaks with far greater political and social insight and articulation than most. Given that politicians in the UK often seem almost to worship The States, his words may be seen as a chilling insight into what may still be to come. If time is of the essence I'd stop reading here and watch this instead. The interview is conducted by Piers Morgan; well, you can't have everything. **



In the UK electoral turnout has fallen to something a touch under 70% which is pretty damn good really; it's certainly a great deal higher than most of 'our' candidates deserve. But, even during the nation's proudest moments, the creation of the NHS for example, the turnout has seldom risen much above 80%. Going with the current figures (66%) this might suggest that as many as 34 in every hundred 'adults' feels so under-represented that voting has absolutely no perceived worth to them whatsoever. Going out upon a limb, I'm going to to suggest that these voting figures are still way way more supportive of the system, than the system is of the voters.

So, given that as many as 34 in every hundred of the electorate feels so disillusioned with what's on offer that they will not even bother to participate, it seems most unlikely that the remainder are going to feel that the system's working wholly to the optimum. Under these circumstances isn't it inevitable that a significant proportion of the voters will have participated with significantly diminished faith in any reward, therefore that they may well have voted, but that it will have been with a significant element of anti in this action?

There are copious scholarly papers written upon the subject of the Protest Vote, formulaically supported to boot. They 'speak' with some conviction, about the reasons for voting with such a mindset, whether it be upon a single issue or whether it be about a diminished conviction about a single candidate or political party. And most significant within many of the studies is the supported contention that any form of Protest Voting is far more likely to be effective if it is coordinated. Pluck out the observation and it suddenly rings as entirely obvious, "Of course a coordinated protest is going to be more effective than a random array of seemingly unfocused ballot papers," we might smilingly agree.

But, let's just flesh it out a bit, shall we, see where it may lead? What if an uncoordinated protest is then misrepresented in the media as being coordinated or vice versa? What then? Voters absolutely have to be right in fighting to redefine any given parameters, to extract the maximum value from their given vote- it really is such a minimal concession from the elite- but, will they always recognise the effort when they have thought, even fought, to do so?

When the fight has been routinely observed, considered and digested by the begrudging elite, isn't it highly likely that they will have attempted to divert any wishes that might be construed as counterproductive, that is against the wishes of those who believe that power is most effectively employed when it is not shared and 'worthlessly' diluted? The Parliamentary Labour Party certainly tries to take this line, supported most 'commendably' by the Guardian newspaper.



So to wind up this ramble, let's see if I can't attempt to pull this all into some sort of focus. I should start by reminding us that, far from what is presented, the media- its newspapers, its TV channels, many of its internet sites- is also to be regarded as a commodity. It may be bought, sold, bargained for and employed as best suits the market, not the electorate. At best we may hope that a multi-millionaire with a tiny conscience decides to invest in a newspaper- no much luck to date- as a hobby almost. But, at no point will the wider-market be bowing down to properly reference the electorate. So, once the media at large has 'caught up' with the concept of the Protest Vote, any public anger, any sense that all is not as it seems, may then be purchased as information, repackaged and re-sold to the general public.

You may well know that your vote was not one of mere protest, yet you may read about it in tomorrow's newspaper as one of mid-term cage rattling. Conversely, you may know that you are one of many souls hoping to chip away at government intransigence, and yet it may just as easily be sold back to you as a serious cry for political change at the helm. It will depend, of course, upon whatever the stipulated role of the bought-and-sold media is to be, whether to undermine or else to bolster.

In recent decades the likelihood of any serious undermining of 'standing government' has been considerably reduced. But, before we celebrate this as any sort of blow for democracy, we should understand that this is because the 'covert-state-machine' is now so dangerously powerful that the chances of any serious opposition gaining a foothold have been so reduced as to render General Elections approaching-redundant- at 'worst' an expensive inconvenience. In the event of the aforementioned 'serious opposition' looking likely to trouble the status quo we may be sure to see the state-machine swiftly pulling together to avert such inconvenience as a truly democratic happening.

You may well have felt anger at being so misrepresented and reacted accordingly and, if you are part of a large enough sub-section, the Political Party or candidate that you had hoped to relate to may next time pretend to care just that little bit more media-savvy, until just after the election. But, if you are hoping for real change, you may as well not have troubled to rock the boat, because you didn't.

Instead, use your vote 'responsibly,' as stipulated by the tabloid of 'your choice.' Is it any wonder that, given a referendum, so many of the disenfranchised opted instead to cast a Protest Vote?' At least the turnout was up, almost 72% we are 'consoled.' At least we gave voice to the people who "aren't racist, but..." Maybe we will opt to sanitise the oft-unspoken issue, but if we have to keep telling people that we're not racist, then we might do better to concentrate upon the outgoing message than the manner in which it is being (mis)received.

Opinion Polls, well they were never going to be to the benefit of the general public; almost from the outset they were doomed, but Protest Voting, well that's still salvageable- despite its recent mega-glitch- but beware always the neoliberal dream. Everything is up for grabs, your health, your education, your future, your children, 'your' MP, your policing, and that certainly would include your ability to effectively protest, especially if it rocks the boat.

By all means let's sail the Good Ship UK to a new location but you can be sure that the neoliberals will have landed well ahead of us, travelling tax-deductible first-class upon the best of the charter flights.

* I have assumed that we all recognise that advertising, even at it's least offensive, is merely nuanced lying.
** This denotes the Michael Moore link, probably the best aspect of this post, if one discounts Piers Morgan's presence.

Safe In Our Hands... or not?

Not!

Most definitely not!

Much has happened since the 23rd June Referendum and none of it to our collective benefits. I met a woman who said that she wanted to, "Give Cameron a bit of a kicking!" And then I met a man who said that he wanted to, "Take back control!" I encountered another couple of young men who wanted to, "Snatch back the country from the @%&$*s and the *&^%$s!" The latter party weren't overly interested in sharing this 'snatching' with the likes of this, "%*&&%ing old %&@£@ lover!" either. I beat a hasty retreat from the latter party, and kept well away from the subject of the England football team's sorry demise.

I spoke a while with the woman who didn't seem to have realised that this wasn't actually a General Election, and that Cameron had already booked his tickets to somewhere comfortable and free from the consequences of the Referendum. She was, she 'enlightened,' still anyway largely 'undecided' on the subject, and she sort of giggled helplessly when I attempted to suggest that the two aforementioned events were entirely different and that the Brexit vote might yet come back to haunt her... and her children... and quite possibly their children after that.

The man who growled about 'taking back control' was rather less inclined to discuss the 'result.' It would appear that he hadn't really thought much beyond the slogan, much like Boris. When the 'Human Rights Act' was mentioned, and the subject of a 'Working Time Directive' broached, in fairness the gentleman did mutter something about, "making up our own rules, instead of being dictated to." He declined to 'put his finger' upon any of the flaws in the current EU legislation, or to explain exactly how he thought Gove or IDS might 'better' this. Instead he clutched his Daily Mail so much the closer to his chest and started to shout and get red about the face. I really hadn't intended to 'chat' with the chap. Instead he rather, I think, assumed that we were in some sort of accordance. Perhaps he had always moved in those sorts of circles and had never actually considered the real consequences, or that anyone might have bothered to peer behind the shouted slogans?



Farage, of course, has surprised nobody with his schoolboy jeering and provocative rants. Johnson, now toxically bound in with the biggest of the lies, has hidden away, not wishing to be questioned upon the subject. His millions will anyway cushion him from the effects of his expensive games. As with the bankers' follies, it will be the mere 'plebs' who will be footing his bills. It would now appear that neither Johnson nor Gove had thought to plan for the eventuality of an exit vote. Because that's what the people 'needed,' not rational arguments and proper debate- or indeed a coherent exit strategy- they needed a slogan that they and their angry media could shout into the echo chambers of the empty-headed. Or perhaps they planned to stare, devoid of substance, into the pleading eyes of the undecided and to place there a hope that these terminal-liars might have, inexplicably developed some integrity. Paul McKenna would know, but not necessarily care.

The Labour Party could be having a field day; democracy could be royally flexing its muscles and knocking spots off the Tories. Instead it's one of those 'good day's to bury bad news' sort of occasions. As it is currently presented upon the TV news channels and in the UK's newspapers we have two mainstream political parties embroiled in a great deal of infighting. And we sort of do... except it's never quite as it's presented, is it?

Setting the Tories aside, let us concentrate upon the party that working people should be able to look to in such troubled times... the Labour Party. Indeed, were the electorate always presented with the fuller and impartial picture, it's hard to see why they might ever vote any other way. That is, unless and until a more representative option springs up... something decidedly Labour, as opposed to New Labour, we might just dare to hope.



The media would have us believe that the (New) Labour Party are so very fed up with Mr Corbyn that they are currently far more inclined to fall upon their swords, than they are to look up from their own navels and to notice the conflagration within the Tory camp. The media have conjured from the aether a scenario whereby certain factions of the Parliamentary Labour Party are struggling valiantly to bring the party back into the light. And this, of course, is entirely wrong. But it is actually far, far worse than this. Instead, we have before us, acted out almost in the shaming light of day, an ongoing Parliamentary Coup.

What we have is a parliamentary party wherein certain powers are blatantly attempting to wrestle control of the Labour Party away from the majority of its members, and into the soiled mits of a shadowy cabal working at the behest of an international war criminal. Alas the hopeful rumours of a wooden stake through the desiccated 'heart' of the beast were unfounded, instead the creature and his henchmen continue to claw away at each and every attempt to instill a modicum of decency into the Labour Party. New Labour, working through the Blaire-Fabian Society, are now so very desperate to kill the debate that they are almost operating fully in the open, barely now concealed at all.

We have discovered that the much written and talked about Labour Cabinet resignations- we already knew that they were orchestrated- were coordinated by Conor McGinn (Labour Whip), in order to cause maximum damage. Of those who obediently resigned, we know that at least fifteen of the Shadow Secretaries of State and nine other ministers were all deeply involved with the Fabian Society. "Resignations upon the hour!" For Heaven's sake, one might almost expect the puppets to sing and dance their exits for the cameras. Do the self-serving MPs even acknowledge that the Labour Party's membership has grown by over 100,000 in just the last week alone; do they think that this is to support the the drive towards ever-greater centralisation? And, not wishing to Labour the point, but, of those Constituency Labour Parties that have voted upon the media-and-PLP-dilemma, fully 72% have endorsed the current leader.



Eagle and Benn- his dad would have been so very proud- have been plotting from the start, briefing Kuenssberg (Cameron BBC appointee) and the Murdoch Press regularly, about each and every plotted deceit. So, it was little wonder that Hilary Benn's most Judas moment (Syria debate) was so 'beautifully' lit, his on-screen face so perfectly powdered. Whether it was Kuenssberg, Eagle or Benn who orchestrated the Tory applause is, of course, almost irrelevant. The role of the BBC presumably is to present each and every precision-timed attack as if it were an isolated incident, ever-reliant upon the electorate's compromised short-term memory- it has always worked a treat during General Elections.

When tainted Cameron shouted across the floor of the house, "Just go!" another piece of the jigsaw fell, as if by magic, into place. Go now and leave the Neocons to dilute the Chilcot Report, presumably? We must assume that the likes of Benn and muppets are hoping to 'view' the report with rather a different perspective to that of Mr Corbyn. Whatever Cameron may have said, or wished that he could have said, it was, in that shouted moment, quite clear that he shared some sort of allegiance or agenda with the Blairites.

The tangled web is quite shamefully extensive in its influences. We know that Murdoch was soon celebrating the demise of Britain's role in Europe. When he goes- surely now desperately overdue- we must be determined to insist upon a fully lead coffin, better still the price of a launching into the heart of the sun. His carcass will surely burn almost black!

As a minor source of news I had, until recently, persevered with 'Left Foot Forward,'- I used to link to the site- but was driven to drop this, when the site's relentless drive for a Blairite neoliberal agenda became just too much to stomach. I am forced to concede that I was overly naive in trusting its independence, even though the Will Straw (son), Jack Straw (rendition war criminal) link was always there. Is Will Straw's loyalty to his father's discredited ways better or worse than Hilary Benn's disloyalty to his father's far more honourable choices? Jack Straw is surely certain to shoulder some of the blame for New Labour's shameful covert ways, even if he will probably escape any form of justice for the consequently tortured.



But, back with the subject of Brexit, we are now probably saddled with the vote to leave, even though it was founded upon a lie. The vote has channelled the racists, the xenophobes, the Little Englanders and the most angry into one camp, albeit only briefly, and the reaction to a more honest reappraisal would perhaps not be one of mere banner waving. Johnson looks currently embarrassed- the fact that he had prepared two divergent declaration speeches shames him most of all- and Farage has gone (again!)- he had no plans beyond wrecking- and Blair has chosen this moment to attack- this one will generate no Chilcot Report- so we are where we are. We must now search for viable embers in amongst the ashes. And we must hope that more will not turn to ash before it can be plucked free from the angry flames.

I have never considered myself as an 'Englander,' always been more inclined towards 'British,' where any sort of stipulated label was required- although even this looks set to soon dramatically contract- and I was becoming evermore comfortable with the tag of 'European,' now snatched cruelly from my grasp through deceit and slight of hand on a massive scale.

I do not now feel inclined to despise half of the nation, I have watched and listened to numbers who voted to leave, to widen and to deepen The Channel, and I can understand their frustrations and their feelings of abandonment, some of them, but have yet to be convinced by anything that has been said. In truth, not much has been offered, a few vague and Sugar Candy mumblings about a world that does not and never did exist. Often there is already a sense of dawning betrayal in the eyes, the fire has already started to die. The Generals have ridden off and left the troops to a  country that is a lot smaller and a deal more isolated than it was just a few short days ago.



Should we ever manage to rebuild the bridge with Europe, I hope that whatever may have formed from the shunned EU at least listens to the confused voices of the Brexiters, because, if they do, there will be one undeniable truth that certainly deserves to be aired in those depleted Brussels chambers.  Whatever else we may have got wrong and misunderstood, or conflated so as to muddy the fact, the sense that the EU was serving, first and foremost, a monied elite of such unimaginable excess was surely somewhere deeply at the root of any angered sense of betrayal.

Shame then, that the selfsame monied elite already have a firm hold on this now far more isolated isle, and they're already drawing up plans to re-write the Human Rights Act.