tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-74699694872950490602024-03-13T10:10:18.306-07:00ThoughtmantleMy thoughts about life, politics, society and some of my arcane interests - all from the perspective of seven decades on this planet.Bryan Dunleavyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13550652628913169630noreply@blogger.comBlogger128125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7469969487295049060.post-48056035367608677482010-09-27T13:55:00.001-07:002010-09-27T13:55:43.206-07:001830 Pigot<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_1LyftEQq7T4/TKEEqxTKG0I/AAAAAAAAAc0/6I4NykioxC0/s1600/1830.1.jpeg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_1LyftEQq7T4/TKEEqxTKG0I/AAAAAAAAAc0/6I4NykioxC0/s320/1830.1.jpeg" width="196" /></a></div>Bryan Dunleavyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13550652628913169630noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7469969487295049060.post-20394450645938577962010-02-21T23:36:00.000-08:002010-02-21T23:36:42.845-08:00Mugabe or TsvangereiIf you were to ask the average Briton if it was better for Zimbabwe to be under the governance of the experienced Robert Mugabe or the inexperienced Morgan Tsvangerei, I suspect I now what the answer would be. I imagine opinion is divided in Zimbabwe itself, although things got so desperate that many obviously plumped for Tsvangerei feeling they had nothing to lose.<br />
The narrowing of the polls in the UK is beginning to indicate that British voters are prepared to re-elect Brown, either with a Labour majority or a Lib-Lab coalition. Saints preserve us!<br />
It is astonishing to me that the UK electorate is now contemplating another five years of this deeply unpleasant and inadequate leader but it has to be said that the Conservatives have only themselves to blame for this. In more comfortable times the electorate would be happy to throw the government out and take a chance on the new boys - as they did in 1997. Now they need to be told why they must change. better the devil you know. . . . . .Bryan Dunleavyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13550652628913169630noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7469969487295049060.post-22072234650438747822009-12-22T00:15:00.000-08:002009-12-22T00:15:03.535-08:00Go forth and nick somethingSome obscure priest of the Church of England has grabbed the headlines by asserting that shoplifting is morally defensible. If you are in need, the argument goes, and society has failed you, you can feel morally justified in helping yourself to something without paying for it. This he opined on behalf of God was a better option than breaking into someone's house or mugging some little old lady at knife point. And presumably the bigger the organization the less the crime - stealing from a company trading in a high rent shopping mall is much less reprehensible than shoplifting lower down the High Street.<br />
This moral relativism is not new to the church. My grandfather used to observe with some wry amusement that both sides in the First World War invoked the help of the same Christian God before going ahead and slaughtering each other. If you won the battle you could thank God for the victory; nobody stopped to explain why God abandoned the other side to defeat.<br />
Some historians might trace the beginning of the decline of the church in Europe to moments like these. Now, almost a century later, the pews are empty and the leadership is woolly-headed. The only time anyone pays attention to the church is when someone comes up with a vaccuous idea.Bryan Dunleavyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13550652628913169630noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7469969487295049060.post-82113544414068940642009-12-19T14:02:00.000-08:002009-12-19T14:02:06.384-08:00Clearing out the ChristiansTony Blair likes it to be known that he is a Christian now that it is politically expedient for him to be so. He was not overtly a Christian during the days when he was controlled by Alastair "We don't do God) Campbell. We will never know whether or not he was guided by his Christian principles when he decided to invade Iraq; nevertheless, the decision has been a dire one for Christians who have been living relatively unscathed for 2000 years.<br />
According to a Times news report this morning, Christians face extinction in the country that Bush and Blair tried to transform into a cradle of democracy. They are being persecuted and driven out of their ancient homeland by various factions. I wouldn't blame the various groups who are responsible for the persecution, but I would blame those who deliberately invaded Iraq for their own narrow purposes and de-stablized a society that was functioning well.<br />
I am not even sure that mr Blair even knew that he had fellow Christians living in Iraq, or if he knew he didn't care. He was probably far too self-absorbed to concern himself about such matters.<br />
He now has the advantage of secretly confessing his sins to God and being absolved.Bryan Dunleavyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13550652628913169630noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7469969487295049060.post-21898839530033586772009-12-19T00:05:00.000-08:002009-12-19T00:05:27.362-08:00Not worth the paper it's written onThe signs were there a few days ago when Gordon Brown decided to arrive early to present himself as a world saviour. At that moment the talks were doomed. It did give us moment of light relief when he self-importantly steered Al Gore into a cupboard.<br />
For presentational purposes we have a sort of deal which allows some money to flow to poorer countries - which probably would have happened under normal international aid programs.<br />
I am cynical of course. This expensive publicity stunt allows politician to go home and justify tax increases.Bryan Dunleavyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13550652628913169630noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7469969487295049060.post-13768635703099573532009-12-13T00:13:00.000-08:002009-12-13T00:13:51.636-08:00Blair on manoeuversWe can probably divide the world into three camps:<br />
1. Those of us who know exactly why and how Blair led us into the invasion of Iraq.<br />
2. Those who have a vested interest in defending their involvement in same.<br />
3. Those who don't give a toss.<br />
Groups 1 and 3 will probably greet Blair's latest venture onto the airwaves with a huge yawn. We have heard it all before and we know what he is up to. There is no denying that Blair is a skilled political communicator and he is clearly limbering up for the Chilcot enquiry. And judging from the reaction of the media (most of whom fall into Camp 2) he will succeed. The outcome of the Chilcot Enquiry is predestined and the exercise is a prelude to the application of the stockpiled whitewash.<br />
The problem is how to orchestrate the right words to present to the public. Enter Anthony Blair.Bryan Dunleavyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13550652628913169630noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7469969487295049060.post-18806778764151257102009-12-12T12:54:00.000-08:002009-12-12T12:54:40.852-08:00No hope left?On balance I have respect for Alastair Darling. Throughout his ministerial career he has been competent and as the Americans might say there is no "side" to him. So it was with some disappointment that I heard his ludicrous PBR on Wednesday. The hand of Brown was obviously upon it with heavy ink scratchings out and scrawled vote-catching insertions. Insider revelations of the last few days confirm that view and it is now clear that his attempt to produce a responsible budget was scuppered by the thuggery of Balls and Brown.<br />
I suppose it would take a stronger man than Alastair Darling to stand up to the menaces of that pair when they came round to hammer at his door late at night.<br />
The PBR is now a completely worthless document. Attempts by Darling to steer a moderate course have been strangled and in their place a ragbag of ill thought out and hastily implemented moves for short term political advantage.<br />
My wife say that the public are not stupid and will see through Brown's crass manoeuvers. I do wish I could believe that.Bryan Dunleavyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13550652628913169630noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7469969487295049060.post-91108786288393669692009-11-23T09:51:00.000-08:002009-11-23T09:51:28.089-08:00The Global Hot and Cold Mixing TapThere must be something in the air. Since I posted this morning Coffee House referenced an article by the FT which highlights some serious research that raises questions about the present orthodoxy.<br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;"></span><br />
<div style="color: black; font: normal normal normal 13px/normal Arial, Verdana, sans-serif;"><br />
</div><div style="color: black; font: normal normal normal 13px/normal Arial, Verdana, sans-serif;">But new research now seems to be backing up Svensmark’s theory. Dr. Svensmark and his team undertook an elaborate laboratory experiment in a reaction chamber the size of a small room. The team duplicated the chemistry of the lower atmosphere by injecting the gases found there in the same proportions, and adding ultraviolet rays to mimic the actions of the sun.<br />
</div><div style="color: black; font: normal normal normal 13px/normal Arial, Verdana, sans-serif;">Result: a huge number of floating microscopic droplets quickly filled the chamber. These were super-small clusters of sulphuric acid and water molecules – which are the building blocks for cloud condensation nuclei - that had been catalysed by the electrons released by cosmic rays.<br />
</div><div style="color: black; font: normal normal normal 13px/normal Arial, Verdana, sans-serif;">The point? The research experimentally identified a causal mechanism by which cosmic rays can facilitate the production of clouds in Earth's atmosphere. This does not disprove the existence of greenhouse gases and the greenhouse effect. But it does challenge the “man-only” theory, and suggests that the IPCC should consider the effect of cosmic particles in examining climate dynamics. Or, at least, accept that there is a long way to go before we fully understand climate dynamics and who plays what role.<br />
</div><div style="color: black; font: normal normal normal 13px/normal Arial, Verdana, sans-serif;"><br />
</div><div style="color: black; font: normal normal normal 13px/normal Arial, Verdana, sans-serif;"><span style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;">So the jury is out - as it should be, but we should make a careful assessment of the science before we allow our politicians to make bonehead decisions, such as Gordon Brown legislating for the compulsory use of bio-fuel at the very moment it became apparent that this is a social and environmental clanger.</span></span><br />
</div>Bryan Dunleavyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13550652628913169630noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7469969487295049060.post-40818203538654216092009-11-23T00:19:00.000-08:002009-11-23T00:19:50.694-08:00The corrosive impact of environmental dogmaGo over to Devil's Kitchen to read some truly astonishing stuff. <a href="http://www.devilskitchen.me.uk/search/label/CRU%20emails">HERE</a><br />
My bullshit detector has been signalling for a while now - probably triggered by Gordon Brown's discovery that green issues could be a great tax generator - but these leaked documents appear to show that the data is being manipulated to fit the theory, namely that Global Warming is man made.<br />
Like the majority of people I simply don't know enough to pretend to any serious knowledge on this subject. What I do know, however, is that there was a significant global warming during the Middle Ages and that there was global cooling during the ice age followed by global warming and so on. None of these were caused by human population. I also grew up during the years of the smoke stack economy when huge amounts of carbon were being pushed into the atmosphere. No global warming then.<br />
My own view now is that we should be responsible in our treatment of the environment. We can limit waste and air and water pollution and we should do everything we can in this regard. Talk to most people and they will find this reasonable. Ask them to wear a hair shirt, live in unheated homes, pay so-called "Green taxes" and you will get a different answer.<br />
And this is more likely to be the answer when zealots overstate the case. We are not saving the planet. The planet will save itself. What we want to do is to save our lifestyle - that is, we want warm and air-conditioned environments, personal transport, easy access to good and services, choice of family size. If that requires some adjustment, we will adjust. But don't expect us to adjust on the basis of fraudulent theories and dodgy data!Bryan Dunleavyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13550652628913169630noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7469969487295049060.post-78110548945733745452009-11-18T04:54:00.000-08:002009-11-18T04:54:11.383-08:00Out of AfghanistanThe withdrawal, retreat if you like, starts now. Brown on Sunday and Milliband yesterday came up with a form of words which they presumably hope will persuade us that they intend to get out of Afghanistan. All done in an atmosphere of electoral panic. The next step is to sit back and hope that the Americans will find some face-saving formula for withdrawal.<br />
I was in favour of going after Bin Laden. I was not in favour of staying in Afghanistan to establish democracy - whatever that means. The moment to have pulled out was after setting up Karzai's government. But we didn't. We forgot about our original objective, got sidetracked by Iraq, then came back to Afghanistan with a view to somehow "winning".<br />
Most people now seem to know the answer to that question. We can't win if we don't know what we are fighting for. Vague, warm and cuddly, politically correct objectives are not much use when you invade a country and try to impose a government on its citizens. Invasions only work when you intend to rule permanently.<br />
"One, two, three, four<br />
What are we fighting for?"<br />
Back, reluctantly, to the dismal Brown. He has spent several years trying not to take ownership of the Afghan situation, much as he did with Iraq, hoping, presumably, that it would just go away. Unfortunately for him, being Prime Minister requires that you take a leadership position. There are two choices here, both requiring courage:<br />
1. Bow to popular opinion and pull out. Distance ourselves from American foreign policy and throw out lot in with Europe.<br />
2. Stand one's ground. We are where we are. See the job through to the end.<br />
What we get instead is a non-decision which will end badly. Peace without honour.Bryan Dunleavyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13550652628913169630noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7469969487295049060.post-43119851164800443682009-11-13T08:51:00.000-08:002009-11-13T08:51:28.464-08:00They are all at it!I suppose the BBC employees got it right when they brought out the champagne on May 1 1997. They have benefited hugely from the change in culture that has allowed them to enjoy increased salaries and unlimited expenses. When Stephen Fry told us that everyone fiddles their expenses during the first week of the Telegraph exposure, I assume he was speaking from experience.<br />
This culture of entitlement must surely come to its inglorious end. I'm sure it's going to be painful.<br />
There are still some of us around who can remember when local government officials were modesttly but reasonably paid and when civil servants were slightly more modestly and slightly more reasonably paid. And indeed they spent entire careers in the job without abusing the system.<br />
I am disappointed that it has come to this. The system has been corrupted. Officials help themselves to high salaries and benefits while seeking all the time to cover their tracks. They never fear getting found out because spin and lies can usually get them out of a tight pocket. And nothing seemingly can be done!<br />
In 1824 Henry Fauntleroy, a banker, was tried for fraud and found guilty. His sentence - death!<br />
We may have to recover this rougher justice if we are to correct our societyBryan Dunleavyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13550652628913169630noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7469969487295049060.post-86600765333080779402009-11-12T12:36:00.000-08:002009-11-12T12:38:27.621-08:00Institutional takismAt lunchtime today I listened to a senior executive from the BBC confidently assert that licence fee payers would approve the idea of production staff spending their money on a llittle junket to celebrate the end of a successful program.<br />
What?<br />
What prompted this example of talking down to the masses was the information that the crew of The Apprentice had dipped into BBC funds for £260 to have a little party. Yes, I know the amount is trivial but it does convey this assumption of entitlement of just about anybody whose lifestyle is funded by the public purse.<br />
Should we now expect teachers to dip into school funds for a big bash after surviving an OFSTED inspection?<br />
Should the police budget allow for boozy parties every time a team solves a case?<br />
Should hospital teams anticipate a publicly-funded celebration every time someone survives a succesful heart operation?<br />
Our governing classes have set the morally bankrupt standard in these matters and it is perhaps no surprise that BBC executives expect to trough with the best of them.<br />
It won't do, and although the BBC believe they are teflon-coated there is a growing number of us who are fed up with this arrogance. I get better service from my local council - and they only collect bins every two weeks!Bryan Dunleavyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13550652628913169630noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7469969487295049060.post-27257635091835605752009-11-10T23:50:00.000-08:002009-11-10T23:50:29.847-08:00No apprenticeship for me m'lord!I am now bored with "The Apprentice". The first series was great fun and I bought into the idea that the contestants were all serious young(ish) business aspirants. The producers of the second show included some freak show contestants and in my view it has declined further with every series. So it is with no regret on my part to hear that the next show has been postponed until next June when I will have better things to do. Apparently the BBC has now started to worry about it "impartiality" - in other words not doing things which demonstrate it customary bias towards the government.<br />
There only remains the minor amusement of watching the contestants calling Alan Sugar "m'lord" instead of "Suralan". That will take two minutes, so I will not be adding to the show's ratings next year.Bryan Dunleavyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13550652628913169630noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7469969487295049060.post-52932650755100892762009-11-10T13:30:00.000-08:002009-11-10T13:57:46.611-08:00There are places where the sun don't shine!Suddenly we are all getting very sniffy about The Sun. Poor Gordon Brown, getting beaten up by a newspaper that was once counted as New Labour's friend. Remember when The Sun got access to scoops detailing Saddam's ability to annihilate us in 45 minutes?<br />
Short memories oil the wheels of the spinner's news machinery. The very same people (Whelan and Campbell for starters) who are aghast at The Sun's current crusade, were not the least flustered by the harrying of John Major 13 years ago. And it was only a few months ago that Damien McBride was dishing our all kinds of scurrilous dirt on behalf of his now-beleaguered master. What they really fear, as Guido pointed out earlier today, is that The Sun really does have influence. The spinning wheels of Downing Street must be in panic mode.<br />
We can note that opinion is divided:<br />
On Brown's scratchy letter to a mother who has lost her son -"Shockin', i'nit?"<br />
On The Sun's pounding of Brown - "Shockin', i'nit?"<br />
The middle classes, who don't buy or read The Sun appear to be equally divided amongst those who believe that Brown has brought all this on himself and deserves the opprobrium and those who are now feeling sorry for him.<br />
Next week, it will be out of the headlines. Next month we turn our attention to edible turkeys rather than the Prime Ministerial kind, and before too long this fuss will become a vague memory - to be filed with Gurkhas and clawing back awards to injured soldiers - and The Sun will be shining its laser in some place that we cannot see.Bryan Dunleavyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13550652628913169630noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7469969487295049060.post-184150183253856572009-11-10T11:42:00.000-08:002009-11-10T11:42:23.987-08:00Call Buckingham PalaceIt has occurred to me more than once during this latest furore over Brown's ineptitude that a call to HM would have been useful. After all she has had more experience than most in sending letters of sympathy to people she does not know and I have heard no complaints over the last 50 years.<br />
There is obviously a knack to this, getting the words right and the presentation right and not seeking any personal or political gain. I doubt if the palace guard would let anything out that was inappropriate or had not been double and triple checked, and I sense that the Queen is always open to advice.<br />
I'm afraid Gordon Brown is not in this camp. The letter, although sincerely intended no doubt, betrays haste and an absence of input from someone less impetuous. Is there anybody left in Downing Street who has the courage to say: "Er, excuse me Prime Minister.......Bryan Dunleavyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13550652628913169630noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7469969487295049060.post-9302106112899644942009-11-09T00:02:00.000-08:002009-11-09T00:02:06.050-08:00The fall of the wallWhen the Berlin wall came down 20 years ago we who lived on this side of it had freedom of expression and freedom of movement and, on the whole, governments that had some respect for the will of the people.<br />
Fast forward to today. We have a government that spies on us constantly, personal expression is restricted, parents are not trusted to bring up their children, fat people and smokers and old people are subject to discrimination, elections are rigged by the governing party where they can, mindless bureaucracy increasingly dominates our lives and corruption among the elite is commonplace.<br />
What really happened?Bryan Dunleavyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13550652628913169630noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7469969487295049060.post-33571374117169734922009-11-03T14:09:00.000-08:002009-11-03T14:09:28.031-08:00Beyond outrageI'm sure it was not that long ago when a billion pounds seemed like a lot of money. Today our government chucked another 30 billion into the open maws of two of our banks. I feel sure that this will not be the last handout.<br />
The real shock is that nobody appears to worry about any of these figures any more. Only lat year an annual deficit of £40 billion was thought to be about as much as this economy could handle. Now these numbers are treated like a £40 parking fine.<br />
Keep calm and carry on!Bryan Dunleavyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13550652628913169630noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7469969487295049060.post-5988293039798974992009-10-30T11:38:00.000-07:002009-10-30T11:38:52.422-07:00The New PapacyEverybody seems to be getting excited about Tony Blair becoming EU President. I think that possibility was torpedoed yesterday by Gordon Brown's clumsy support.<br />
But surely the real concern is the office itself. We are assured on one hand that this is merely a President of the Council - no more than a Chairman of the Board - while Blair's people are clearly campaigning for a bigger role closer to that of the President of the United States, and one thing we can all be certain about is that over time this will be the evolution of the European Presidency.<br />
Now I am not necessarily against this. I am no clinger to the pretensions of Britain's imperial past. I am not a little Englander. There are clear advantages to a federation of nations particularly in this so-called global economy. My concern is the evolution of a profoundly undemocratic system of governance. European nations have, after centuries of struggle, developed systems of government which take some account of the wishes of the governed whereas the EU has steadfastly set its face against consultation. Thus we end up with a constitution with no popular mandate, a European Parliament with no influence and now a President who is to be chosen by an effective College of Cardinals.<br />
Black smoke or white smoke a President will be imposed upon us. The mediaeval Papacy returns!Bryan Dunleavyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13550652628913169630noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7469969487295049060.post-39322861395306457502009-10-29T13:16:00.000-07:002009-10-29T13:16:05.398-07:00Time to move on indeedI listened to Tony McNulty try to explain himself at lunchtime. He convinced himself, although not me. Apparently he did everything within the rules, the investigating committee changed the rules, he was happy to comply with the committee's wish that he should pay the money back, he was sorry for whatever it was he should be sorry about, now was the time to "move on".<br />
I don't think my jaw was the only one to drop to the floor. Our present crop of politicians are oblivious to embarrassment and impervious to shame. And even more incredible, we are being subjected to arguments that if we don't offer good pay and perks to prospective MPs we will not attract the best candidates for the job! Words fail me! They really do! McNulty, let us remember, was a minister, presumably one of the best and brightest the current system can offer the voting public. And what does he represent? A certain skill in presenting himself to the Westminster media and an unshakeable belief that everything his party thinks up and does, however misconceived and benighted, is good for us.<br />
It is time to move on - to a new parliament and a new government.Bryan Dunleavyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13550652628913169630noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7469969487295049060.post-15385291037478601642009-10-23T08:00:00.000-07:002009-10-23T08:00:05.526-07:00Getting on yer bike!I listened to Digby Jones this morning observe that unemployed people in England are reluctant to move away from home to where the jobs are. Apparently this is never a problem in North America and may suggest why they recover from recessions more easily. Yesterday I was talking to a man from Yorkshire who had relocated in my home town - he was surprised to observe how many families he encountered who could illustrate three and four generations of residence in the area.<br />
Two random observations on the same phenomenon. However, in the case of Wolverton it was not always so. In 1838 the manor had a small rural population not much above 200. The new railway works was forced to, and di, reruit from all over the country.The early censuses illustrate this with many coming from Scotland and the North East together with representatives from all across the country. As the century moves on the second generation, those born in Wolverton, were able to find work in the expanding railway works, and so this went on for a third and fourth and fifth generation.<br />
Wolverton was fairly lucky in that the Council, anticipating the decline in the railways, made efforts to attract new companies and the later development of Milton Keynes meant that there was plenty of work. Men did move in the fifties and sixties to Coventry and Luton to take high paying jobs in the car industry, but in the main the population remained settled.<br />
There are however many parts of this country where work is scarce and, if Digby Jones is right, many parts where there is a shortage of workers. Government policy over the past decade or so has been to provide welfare for the unemployed in high unemployment areas and to bring in immigrants where there are labour shortages.<br />
Can this continue to make sense in a weak economy? Perhaps we need to reprise the circumstances which led many of our nineteenth forbears to leave their ancestral villages and find work in the new towns.Bryan Dunleavyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13550652628913169630noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7469969487295049060.post-40874387520340612912009-10-23T02:15:00.000-07:002009-10-23T02:15:40.165-07:00The public stoning of Nick GriffinGriffin is clearly an inadequate man and to my mind fits the profile of wannabee politicians who can't or won't make their way in the mainstream parties. Better, they believe, to be a big fish in a small pond than to be a small one in an ocean.<br />
Even so, last night's roasting on Question Time was hardly edifying. Dimbleby, all the panelists and the selected audience all lined up to take pot shots at Griffin and a kind of mob mentality prevailed. In a normal question time the news issues of the day (postal strike, Afghanistan) are the topics for questions and each panelist is invited to offer their views on the subject. In my view they should have stuck to that format. Instead all these issues were ignored so that the panelists and the audience could tell us what a venomous lot the BNP are.<br />
Let's calmly take stock of the situation. The BNP are picking up votes from (probably white) working class labour voters who have got tired of being taken for granted. They have been patronized for a decade or more, patted on the head and told not to worry about immigration because it was good for the economy. In the mean time they read tabloid stories about illegal immigrants, lost records, the inability to deport criminals, queue jumping for council accommodation and so on. Even if none of this is true (as we are told by government) there is a perception that it is. And perception is everything in politics.<br />
The BNP has the tiniest toe-hold in the body politic. It has taken the Liberal party 60 years to go from 6 seats to 60 and it took the labour Party a very long time to become the dominant party. British politics changes at a glacial pace.<br />
I know there is the example of Nazi germany, but both Germany and Italy were barely 50 years old as countries in 1920 and the instability of the post WWI period made them ripe for a struggle between the communists and the fascists. Both were fighting for a totalitarian state. The fascists won that round, but in the end the totalitarian state could not survive in Europe - a didn't. However, we all had a nasty scare and a lot of blood was shed. Too much to ever want to go through that again.<br />
I would agree that we need to be ever vigilant, but I am not sure that Nick Griffin is worth the effort that the establishment has expended in the last few days. he is nowhere near as powerful as Oswald Moseley was and is really a political pygmy, in my view.<br />
Did this public stoning do any good? I suspect that the Question Time viewers were never likely to consider a vote for the BNP. I for one have not even bothered to find out what their policies are. They are not going to represent me. I am simply not interested. However, the ones who do vote for them are unlikely to be Question Time viewers and all they will get out of this isthe reporting prior to the event and today's news stories. Will this change their mind?Bryan Dunleavyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13550652628913169630noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7469969487295049060.post-90217624749845919902009-10-16T08:54:00.000-07:002009-10-16T08:54:08.276-07:00A little learningBecause my birthday falls at the end of August I was always the youngest in my class. Fifty years later I learned that this had put me at some disadvantage and looking back I can see the truth of this. It took me until I was about 13 or 14 before I could fully compete with my peers.<br />
However I did not feel especially disadvantaged at the time; I probably tried harder and I suppose I have been rewarded for that in the long run. Neither my teachers nor my parents knew about this phenomenon. My parents talked from time-to-time about my being a "late developer" but I wasn't really. I just developed later than the older boys in my class - in other words, at a normal rate.<br />
My point here is that because nobody knew that there was a problem, there was no problem.<br />
This morning I listened to Ed Balls reject the idea of raising the school starting age to 6 because "we have to identify problems early and intervene early". This remark seems to encapsulate the problem and my intuition tells me that early intervention often creates problems where none might exist, if children were simply allowed to mature at their own rate.<br />
England leads the world in starting children at school early and it has to be said that the results are no better at the other end than other developed countries, and in some cases a lot worse. My children started school at the age of 6 in Canada and as adults they turned out just as well as if they had started at 5.<br />
I remember reading about 40 years ago about the theory of "learning readiness" put forward by some educational psychologists. The concept was that at certain ages you could easily accept learning that had been difficult at an earlier age. So, for example, a boy of 8 could start learning to read and in two months would be on par with those who had been reading for three years. And these observations were made from a time when some children started school later.<br />
We have become obsessed with add-on solutions rather than radical ones. We start our children in school too early, but rather than recognize the value of children being allowed to grow. There obvious difficulties with children coming into school at 4 or 5 so strategies that emphasize play over learning are developed. 40 years ago when infant school teachers discovered that children struggled with the letters of the alphabet developed the so-called Infant Teaching Alphabet so that children could learn vowels phonetically and then go on to learn the real alphabet when they were ready. I wonder what happened to that? Now there seems to be a movement to get children to start school earlier, give them piles of homework.<br />
And what are the results? The evidence would suggest that there are more children who come out of school functionally illiterate than at any time since public schooling was made compulsory in 1870. Government figures have been manipulated to demonstrate otherwise but the empirical evidence clearly shows that we have significant issues.<br />
I don't want to romanticize my schooling. In those days schools were poorly resourced and under-equipped. Lighting was only turned on in the afternoon in the darkest days of winter because to leave them on would be too costly. Paper was very scarce. However, we did learn. I remember learning multiplication tables by rote in infant school and learning to read but not much else. It was a stern establishment and play was only allowed in the yard at "playtime". We presumably consolidated this knowledge at Primary School for four years where we had no homework. Homework only began for me when I went to Grammar School and for my contemporaries who went to Secondary Modern not at all. If I were to judge by results none of this mattered. Of my friends and contemporaries who went to the Secondary Modern School, one had a career as a newspaper reporter, another became a senior police officer, another an insurance agent, another a hotel manager, another a printer and another a successful artist. Others took on apprenticeships and followed these with trade careers. Some filled ordinary unskilled jobs. I don't remember any of them unable to read and write at a functional level at the age of 11.<br />
Something, or perhaps many things, have gone wrong since those days. We should perhaps look at the intervention of well-meaning control-freaks. Children are now controlled and organized at school and at play. Parents are controlled at every level of activity. Schoolteachers are subject to controls that disallow any professional initiative. Cui bono?Bryan Dunleavyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13550652628913169630noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7469969487295049060.post-39536407765294636052009-10-13T10:16:00.000-07:002009-10-13T10:16:54.121-07:00Pay up AND resignThis would be my message to MPs who have abused and fiddled the system. The present (frankly unbelievable) outcry that the "rules" have now been changed by Sir Thomas Legg and that it's "unfair" to MPs just won't wash. I am fed up with them, and I suspect that I am one of millions. This is by far the worst, sleaziest, self-serving bunch of MPs in my memory. Don't forget we still have serving ministers who have fiddled their expenses and an Attorney-General who has broken the law and several Lords who have manipulated legislation for quite substantial under-the-table payments.<br />
I refuse to listen to any more whining. Pay back what you have filched from the taxpayer, then resign! That's my message to all MPs. And if they think they can get away with it by fillibustering until the next election I say go after them, just as HMRC resolutely pursues taxpayers who default. Give them no peace until they pay the money back. I hope then that this will be the last we hear of any of themBryan Dunleavyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13550652628913169630noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7469969487295049060.post-72811745115715666562009-10-12T13:15:00.000-07:002009-10-12T13:15:08.153-07:00Calling MPs to accountI just flew in from Amman this afternoon to discover headlines about MP's expenses. The committee that Gordon Brown has hurriedly set up has apparently called it as it is rather than find ways of excusing MPs. No further honours for Sir Thomas Legge then.<br />
What is astonsihing about today's story is that Labour MPs are going around complaining that they are not being treated fairly! Because they did everything within the so-called rules that they happily manipulated and are now being judged by a proper standard the word is that they now feel affronted.<br />
Expect some protests that everything they claimed was<span style="color: red;"> in good faith!</span>Bryan Dunleavyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13550652628913169630noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7469969487295049060.post-11724708601054687052009-10-09T21:44:00.000-07:002009-10-09T21:44:28.176-07:00The Wannabee Peace PrizeMy immediate reaction on hearing that Obama had won the Nobel Peace Prize was "What for?" It appears that everyone else has had the same reaction.<br />
The Nobel Peace Prize has had some pretty dubious recipients but most, if not all of them had done something in order to merit consideration and not always very nice things either.<br />
Obama has made some good speeches and has a good rhetorical style but his first few months in office suggest that he is still learning on the job. Give him time and there may be some worthy achievements but this award is premature and frankly debases the prize. Obviously the Nobel Committee are anxious (over-anxious?) to jump on the Obama bandwagon. However, it is very poor judgement. Expect the Nobel Prize for Economics to go to Gordon Brown.Bryan Dunleavyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13550652628913169630noreply@blogger.com0