Is Britain Corrupt?

People have been sending me this guy’s stuff for quite a while now but I have to admit 2 things – the first is that the one below is the first one I have really paid attention when I was watching, and the second is that he has a point.

It’s worth remembering that this is a character the guy plays but at the same time, he has been active in many political arenas too. He had an MP in the back of his taxi one time too.

I don’t think I agree with him on all points but in this one, more or less…

The George With A Point

 

In yesterday’s podcast I mentioned something that a certain George Orwell once said and thought it was publishing here at greater (thought not great or full) length.

It comes from an essay called Why Socialists Don’t Believe In Fun and the whole thing is well worth the read.

However, I particularly like the last part. It also particularly adaptable. With a couple or word and/or tense changes, there are many situations in the world of today that you could apply it to…

Socialist thought has to deal in prediction, but only in broad terms. One often has to aim at objectives which one can only very dimly see. At this moment, for instance, the world is at war and wants peace. Yet the world has no experience of peace, and never has had, unless the Noble Savage once existed. The world wants something which it is dimly aware could exist, but cannot accurately define. This Christmas Day, thousands of men will be bleeding to death in the Russian snows, or drowning in icy waters, or blowing one another to pieces on swampy islands of the Pacific; homeless children will be scrabbling for food among the wreckage of German cities. To make that kind of thing impossible is a good objective. But to say in detail what a peaceful world would be like is a different matter.

Nearly all creators of Utopia have resembled the man who has toothache, and therefore thinks happiness consists in not having toothache. They wanted to produce a perfect society by an endless continuation of something that had only been valuable because it was temporary. The wider course would be to say that there are certain lines along which humanity must move, the grand strategy is mapped out, but detailed prophecy is not our business. Whoever tries to imagine perfection simply reveals his own emptiness. This is the case even with a great writer like Swift, who can flay a bishop or a politician so neatly, but who, when he tries to create a superman, merely leaves one with the impression the very last he can have intended that the stinking Yahoos had in them more possibility of development than the enlightened Houyhnhnms. 

For A’ That 25 – Debating The Point

For episode 25 of For A’ That Andrew and I were joined by Kate Higgins of the Burdzeyeview blog and others.

It was unfortunately unavoidable to talk about Farage, so we did.

We also spoke about the recent TV debates. Entertainment or real debate? Enlightening or just sound and fury? BBC or STV?

Kate spoke about the new victims and witnesses bill that is coming up and this moved us on to topics apart from the referendum. Should we be doing that more? That’s “we” in the sense of the podcast and “we” as in the sense of the people.

Finally, it’s about time someone gave Walt Disney what for, the question is, should it have been me or should Alex Salmond be doing it?

(The documentary I referenced is called “Mickey Mouse Monopoly” and if you want to watch it, the full thing is HERE.)

Hope you enjoy…

As usual, this is the direct download link (right click and save as)

You can listen to the show online at its web page

Or you can subscribe with itunes

Enjoy

Michael Greenwell

Oh and in case you were wondering, the outro is in honour of our guest, who was tweeting about Eurovision the other night.

Bruce Supposedly Vacillated, Not Wallace

The power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one’s mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them.

(Orwell’s definition of “Doublethink”)

No, not that Wallace.

I couldn’t help being struck by the video that National Collective posted yesterday. It was a video from the run-up to the 1997 devolution referendum. It featured a firebrand who was arguing for more powers for Scotland and hope defeats despair and so on.

Here it is…

Do we or do we not want to bring power and decision-making closer to the people of Scotland? We believe that when you make decisions in Scotland that address Scotland’s needs and reflect Scotland’s circumstances, as well as taking account of the needs and concerns of the diverse communities that make up Scotland, there will be better decisions.

Trust. Trust ourselves to take decisions affecting our schools, our hospitals, our jobs, our housing and how we use the power to tax.

It sounds like a remarkably good speech in favour of independence. “Nothing much has changed” he said, except of course the fact that his party has (at least temporarily) a foot in the door at Westminster. Oh and of course he is Lord Wallace now, safely ensconced in the House of Lords, which of course would in no way affect his policy outlook.

Now I understand that an Independence debate is different from a devolution debate. Nevertheless, if the above is the principle on which he supported devolution, then it is rather difficult not to support independence on that exact same principle.

Wallace (not that one) however, has been less than forthcoming in his support for Scottish Independence. So much so in fact, that he was exceedingly quick to deny that the very Scottish Parliament for which he fought, had the power to hold a referendum at all…

The Scottish government risks flouting a “fundamental principle of democracy” if it stages an “unlawful” vote on independence, the Advocate General for Scotland said today.

Lord Wallace of Tankerness QC restated the UK government’s view that the “Scottish parliament has no power to deliver a referendum on independence”.

In other statements he has hardly welcomed the idea of more power moving to Scotland.

To repeat, I understand that we are talking about two different debates. However, if what he said above is the principle on which he supported devolution, then either he no longer holds that principle dear or he doesn’t understand his own reasoning.

 

 

Context Is Key

Reading the same story from two different sources often proves interesting, reading it from two different continents could almost be damning.

This is extremely evident when you read the different reporting surrounding the appearance of Jean Chrétien in the Scottish Independence debate. If you don’t know who he is, he used to be the Prime Minister of Canada. That is him in the photo strangling an anti-poverty protester, and there is a rather cute one of him holding hands with Hosni Mubarak further down the page.

I suppose I should start with the titles of the two articles involved…

The Globe & Mail went with

Chrétien plunges into Scottish independence debate

Whilst the Herald seemed to like the altogether scarier…

Ex-Canadian PM: indyref poll could tear families apart

Now let’s explain why he got involved because therein lies the problem.

The Globe & Mail, a Canadian newspaper, gave these reasons…

When the British government was looking for some advice on how to defeat Scottish separatists in a referendum next year, it turned to Canada and sought out none other than Jean Chrétien.

The former prime minister has held discussions with Michael Moore, Britain’s Secretary of State for Scotland and a leading figure in the No campaign in Scotland. And on Wednesday, Mr. Moore invited Mr. Chrétien to London to offer some insights to a small group of British members of Parliament and business people.

The Herald however, decided that less background to his visit was required, stating only that…

The former Liberal leader was speaking as part of a lecture series at the Scotland Office.

I think you might already be beginning to see a little problem here. The first statement gives some context as to what will follow, the second, not much. In fact, it is as if he is almost an impartial observer.

The body of the articles say much the same thing, quoting Chrétien, although the quotes do not match exactly. There is a little more information in the Canadian story but as I said, it follows the same lines.

However, without the correct context the tone of the two articles is remarkably different.

The Canadian story sounds like it is someone advising on how to deliver a no vote and make some general warnings about the process whilst he is about it, which is in fact exactly what it was.

The Herald version, without that bit of context, sounds like a list of general (possible but not certain) problems that anyone might be trying to grapple with.

I wonder what  the reasons for the difference in tone might be.

 

If You Keep Voting For Neoliberals, This Is What Happens – Part 5

A truly horrible event. This is from The Mirror today…

A desperate father doused himself in petrol and set himself on fire after being hounded by loan sharks over £1,600 of unpaid debt, an inquest heard.

Antony Jackson Breeze’s phone was “ringing day and night” with calls from debt collectors and pawnbroker in the weeks before his death.

In August last year, the 36-year-old told his girlfriend Amanda Lowe he was going out to buy petrol for the lawnmower.

Soon after, the dad-of-one walked to a secluded wood, near to the family’s home in Bolton, and set fire on himself.

He told a horrified onlooker who tried to put out the flames that he was in debt and had “had enough”.

Gordon Is Back In Town- Lest We Forget

I see a certain Mr Brown has reared his head again to add his particular nuances to the Independence debate. This reignites his old pal’s act with Mr Darling.

I wonder what other old friends he would bring along if he could.

And if you don’t remember how this story went, then it was with allegations of duplicity.

Gordon Brown and David Miliband were last night drawn directly into the furore over the release of the man convicted of the Lockerbie bombing when it emerged that Britain told Tripoli that the prime minister and foreign secretary did not want to see him die in prison.

In a major setback for Downing Street, which has insisted the release was entirely a matter for Edinburgh, it emerged that a Foreign Office minister intervened last February to make clear to Libya that Brown and Miliband hoped Abdelbaset al-Megrahi would not “pass away” in prison.

 

For A’ That 24 – Charade, Hope & Charity

For episode 24 of For A’ That Andrew and I had THREE guests for the first time, namely Natalie McGarry, Doug Daniel and Ruaridh Waddell.

It was a busy week in Scottish politics and that was reflected in the number of subjects we had to get through.

Firstly, we beavered away trying to answer as many of the 500 questions as we possibly could.

Then we got onto the voluntary sector as some stories have come out recently saying that some organisations in this sector have some concerns about what might happen in an independent Scotland. We asked several things about this line of thinking, the first of them being is it actually true?

This led us on nicely to another commitment that the UK government has reneged on. I am sure you can think of a few so you’ll have to listen to find out which one we talked about.

Finally, we explained why, in spite of some not so good recent polls, we are mostly still feeling optimistic for the referendum.

Strangely, during the recording this week some animals WERE harmed, but only by other animals (namely my cat). The now defunct bird has been buried with all due honours. Furthermore, a sheep that had recently become a mother created havoc in another place where recording was going on and in a third place a bee delayed our beginning. All of this will explain the outro.

Hope you enjoy…

As usual, this is the direct download link (right click and save as)

You can listen to the show online at its web page

Or you can subscribe with itunes

Enjoy

Michael Greenwell

Leading Questions

Jamie Maxwell has a nice piece up on Bella Caledonia regarding Ashdowns dubious statement that people are in favour of the trident nuclear missile system.

It put me in mind of this little sketch about polling…

Disaster Capitalism – The Old & New

The horrifying events in Ohio brought with them two shocking examples of profiteering from tragedy. They are both in this screengrab, which comes from this report. See if you can spot them…

Now the actions of Sylvia Browne have come under some fire. Probably not enough if you ask me. She has predictably trotted out some weak defences of her actions and shown the customary lack of shame that psychics, spiritualists and the like show when their claims are shown to be tripe.

Her kind of profiteering is as old as the hills. The one that seemed somewhat new to me is the third bullet point above.

Why do they want to contact him? This is speculation of course but could it be for the purposes of sticking him in an advert?

If so, that would be almost, but not quite as disgraceful as the profiteering behaviour of Browne and her ilk.