Tomaso Albinoni is most unusual among great composers in having been a man of independent means rather than a client of a royal or noble court or an employee of a church - he was the son of wealthy Venetian paper merchant.
In his own lifetime he was mostly known as a composer of operas and his music was admired by and influenced composers such as Bach and was favourably compared to that of Telemann and Vivaldi
Unfortunately most of the 50 operas he wrote, which were greatly praised in his own century, have not survived and he is mostly known today for his instrumental and orchestral works.
Most ironically, although there is little doubt that he genuinely deserves to be remembered as a great composer there is considerable doubt how much of the most famous piece associated with his name, the work usually referred to as the "Albinoni Adagio," was actually composed by him.
The circumstances around it's publication have been called the biggest fraud in music history.
After his death most of Albinoni's unpublished work was stored in the Saxon State Library in Dresden, which was subsequently wrecked by Allied bombing raids during World War II.
In 1945 the Milanese musicologist Remo Giazotto (1910 - 1998) set out to write a biography of Albinoni and catalogue his remaining works, mining what was left in the Dresden archives.
A few years later Giazotto published a work called Adagio in G minor, which he claimed at the time to have transcribed from a manuscript fragment of an Albinoni sonata that he had received from the Saxon State Library.
Giazotto asserted he had completed Albinoni’s single movement in tribute, copywriting and publishing it in 1958 under his own name with the catchy title,
"Adagio in G Minor for Strings and Organ on Two Thematic Ideas and on a Figured Bass by Tomaso Albinoni."
It was a massive hit and used in the soundtrack of a number of famous films, but many people found it easier to refer to this music just as the "Albinoni Adagio" - can't think why!
To this day, Albinoni’s fragment has never been produced and no official record of its presence has been found in the collection of the Saxon State Library - although it is entirely possible, of course, that the relevant records existed but were destroyed in the war.
But whatever the origins of the work, it is a fantastic piece of music.
Saturday, September 30, 2017
Shelter on Rent Controls
This is what the Shelter, the UK's largest housing charity, had to say about Labour's proposal to bring back rent controls ...
Here is some further elaboration on that view:
Friday, September 29, 2017
The cost of protest
Those who wish to protest peacefully outside either the Conservative party conference or any other party conference should be free to do so.
This should include the right to indicate robust disagreement provided it stops short of crossing the line between protest and intimidation, threats, or violence.
The behaviour of a significant minority - not all - of the left-wing protesters outside the 2015 Conservative conference in Manchester in 2015 towards people attending the conference; not just Conservative representatives but also journalists, cleaners, caterers and other staff of the conference centre; went way over that line.
Sadly one consequence of that has been that Greater Manchester Police (GMP) have had to mount an unprecedented operation to defend freedom of association - something that people on the left ought to understand as it is what the Tolpuddle martyrs were transported for fighting for - at this year's Conservative conference in Manchester at a cost to the Home office, which, of course, means the poor old taxpayer, of two million pounds.
The Manchester Evening News report on security at the conference can be read here.
A large part of that operation would have been necessary regardless of the 2015 protests and of who had been in power, to protect the conference of the governing party from the threat from terrorist groups like the swine who murdered 22 innocent people including children at a concern in the same city earlier this year.
However, there is little doubt that the security operation this year will be significantly more expensive because GMP are trying to overcome the problems created by intimidation from left-wing thugs protesting outside the 2015 conference.
That is money that will have to be raised in tax and will not be available for other important causes such as the NHS.
If I thought the kind of people whose conduct in 2015 was responsible for this, or those who are trying to organise similar intimidation next week, had working brains, I would suggest they ought to think about the consequences of their actions.
This should include the right to indicate robust disagreement provided it stops short of crossing the line between protest and intimidation, threats, or violence.
The behaviour of a significant minority - not all - of the left-wing protesters outside the 2015 Conservative conference in Manchester in 2015 towards people attending the conference; not just Conservative representatives but also journalists, cleaners, caterers and other staff of the conference centre; went way over that line.
Sadly one consequence of that has been that Greater Manchester Police (GMP) have had to mount an unprecedented operation to defend freedom of association - something that people on the left ought to understand as it is what the Tolpuddle martyrs were transported for fighting for - at this year's Conservative conference in Manchester at a cost to the Home office, which, of course, means the poor old taxpayer, of two million pounds.
The Manchester Evening News report on security at the conference can be read here.
A large part of that operation would have been necessary regardless of the 2015 protests and of who had been in power, to protect the conference of the governing party from the threat from terrorist groups like the swine who murdered 22 innocent people including children at a concern in the same city earlier this year.
However, there is little doubt that the security operation this year will be significantly more expensive because GMP are trying to overcome the problems created by intimidation from left-wing thugs protesting outside the 2015 conference.
That is money that will have to be raised in tax and will not be available for other important causes such as the NHS.
If I thought the kind of people whose conduct in 2015 was responsible for this, or those who are trying to organise similar intimidation next week, had working brains, I would suggest they ought to think about the consequences of their actions.
An Offal accident on the A66
The A66 reopened this afternoon after being closed for several hours between the Appleby and Temple Sowerby junctions when a lorry shed a load of offal on the road.
Traffic was diverted by local alternative routes. Fortunately nobody was hurt.
It might be argued that the headline above is an offal joke. The story is, however, the offal truth (and I think that's enough offal jokes for at least the rest of 2017 ...)
Traffic was diverted by local alternative routes. Fortunately nobody was hurt.
It might be argued that the headline above is an offal joke. The story is, however, the offal truth (and I think that's enough offal jokes for at least the rest of 2017 ...)
Thursday, September 28, 2017
1591: "Let's kill all the lawyers." The 2017 equivalent: get the journalists
What do Donald J Trump, Julian Assange, Corbyn supporters like Paul Mason and "The Canary" news website, Breitbart which is to the hard right what "the Canary" is to the hard left, Nigel Farage, many "Cybernat" hardline SNP supporters and Vladimir Putin all have in common?
Well, one thing is their attitude to the mainstream media in western democracies like Britain, which ranges from open contempt to making every attempt to discredit and undermine it.
In 1591, in his play Henry VI, Shakespeare put into the mouth of a rebel against the established order the words "The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers."
The equivalent target today for unfriendly foreign governments and domestic anti-establishment candidates of right or left is the mainstream media.
There is a good column on the subject in the Spectator by Nick Cohen,
"Fake news: the far-left's favourite new excuse,"
in which he describes how the Corbynista left was attacking the media at Labour conference this week but quite correctly points out that Donald J Trump does exactly the same. He writes:
"Admirers of violence and lies must go carefully. As true cowards they must leave themselves an escape hatch in case they are forced to retreat. They never quite commit to the suppression of rights, the rigged elections, the secret policemen and the torture chambers. Instead they tell us we are not hearing the full story, and switch the argument.
The real problem is not the oppressive state and its suffering citizens, they say. The problem is the fake media. Not media faked by government propagandists and controlled by censors, not countries where every TV station and mass circulation newspaper must follow the party line, but the free media in their own country.
As individual journalists and news organisations are often stupid or biased or both, few people notice that they have changed the subject. Their listeners respond with enthusiasm."
He adds that people do not know, and may realise that they don't know, what is really happening in a foreign country whose language they might not speak,
"whose cities they have never visited, but they do know that they hate Fox News or the New York Times, the Daily Mail or the Guardian."
As former BBC political editor Nick Robinson said in an interview in the Guardian,
“Our critics now see their attacks as a key part of their political strategy. In order to succeed they need to convince people not to believe ‘the news’.”
He added: “Attacks on the media are no longer a lazy clap line delivered to a party conference to raise morale. They are part of a guerrilla war being fought on social media day after day and hour after hour.”
The Guardian wrote this up with the headline
"Alternative news sites waging guerrilla war on the BBC says Nick Robinson,"
but his comments and their article cover a broader guerrilla war: it's not just alternative news sites and the target is not just the BBC, those throughout the political spectrum who are courting anti-establishment support are doing this and the target is the whole MSM.
And as Nick Robinson pointed out of the various different groups which have adopted this strategy
"They would all be horrified to be compared with one another, since what motivates them is the belief that the other lot are not just mistaken but an existential threat to the future of their country, but they often respond in similar ways.
"Their most shared and liked stories are attacks on the MSM and the BBC in particular. They share a certainty – fuelled by living in a social media bubble – that we reporters and presenters are at best craven, obeying some diktat from our bosses or the government, or at worst nakedly biased."
As the New Statesman - which is hardly part of the "Tory Press" has pointed out,
The Canary is running a sexist hate campaign against Laura Kuenssberg,
and I'm afraid I do not think it is a coincidence that the BBC felt the abuse she has been receiving included sufficiently credible threats that they had to give her a bodyguard at Labour conference.
Nick Robinson also pointed out that the worst way the BBC or other parts of the MSM could deal with this campaign of hostility is to silence voices of dissent: his interview was headlined
"If mainstream news wants to win back trust it cannot silence dissident voices."
Absolutely right. As Nick wrote
"Shockingly, Churchill’s pre-war warnings about the dangers of German rearmament were heard by radio listeners not in his own country but in the US. The BBC, influenced by the government, muzzled him.
"The way Churchill was handled is a powerful warning of the dangers of the BBC believing it is being balanced by silencing the voices of those who do not represent conventional wisdom. It is an answer to all those who complained that Nick Griffin – who is, let me stress, no modern-day Churchill – should never have been invited on to Question Time.
"It’s a riposte to Brexiters who fill my timeline with demands that we should not interview “that failed leader” Nick Clegg, to Remainers who say the same about Nigel Farage, and to those who argue Nigel Lawson should never be interviewed about climate change.
"They should be challenged and if, as Lawson did on Today recently, they get their facts wrong we should say so. But they should not be silenced."
Quite.
Well, one thing is their attitude to the mainstream media in western democracies like Britain, which ranges from open contempt to making every attempt to discredit and undermine it.
In 1591, in his play Henry VI, Shakespeare put into the mouth of a rebel against the established order the words "The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers."
The equivalent target today for unfriendly foreign governments and domestic anti-establishment candidates of right or left is the mainstream media.
There is a good column on the subject in the Spectator by Nick Cohen,
"Fake news: the far-left's favourite new excuse,"
in which he describes how the Corbynista left was attacking the media at Labour conference this week but quite correctly points out that Donald J Trump does exactly the same. He writes:
"Admirers of violence and lies must go carefully. As true cowards they must leave themselves an escape hatch in case they are forced to retreat. They never quite commit to the suppression of rights, the rigged elections, the secret policemen and the torture chambers. Instead they tell us we are not hearing the full story, and switch the argument.
The real problem is not the oppressive state and its suffering citizens, they say. The problem is the fake media. Not media faked by government propagandists and controlled by censors, not countries where every TV station and mass circulation newspaper must follow the party line, but the free media in their own country.
As individual journalists and news organisations are often stupid or biased or both, few people notice that they have changed the subject. Their listeners respond with enthusiasm."
He adds that people do not know, and may realise that they don't know, what is really happening in a foreign country whose language they might not speak,
"whose cities they have never visited, but they do know that they hate Fox News or the New York Times, the Daily Mail or the Guardian."
As former BBC political editor Nick Robinson said in an interview in the Guardian,
“Our critics now see their attacks as a key part of their political strategy. In order to succeed they need to convince people not to believe ‘the news’.”
He added: “Attacks on the media are no longer a lazy clap line delivered to a party conference to raise morale. They are part of a guerrilla war being fought on social media day after day and hour after hour.”
The Guardian wrote this up with the headline
"Alternative news sites waging guerrilla war on the BBC says Nick Robinson,"
but his comments and their article cover a broader guerrilla war: it's not just alternative news sites and the target is not just the BBC, those throughout the political spectrum who are courting anti-establishment support are doing this and the target is the whole MSM.
And as Nick Robinson pointed out of the various different groups which have adopted this strategy
"They would all be horrified to be compared with one another, since what motivates them is the belief that the other lot are not just mistaken but an existential threat to the future of their country, but they often respond in similar ways.
"Their most shared and liked stories are attacks on the MSM and the BBC in particular. They share a certainty – fuelled by living in a social media bubble – that we reporters and presenters are at best craven, obeying some diktat from our bosses or the government, or at worst nakedly biased."
As the New Statesman - which is hardly part of the "Tory Press" has pointed out,
The Canary is running a sexist hate campaign against Laura Kuenssberg,
and I'm afraid I do not think it is a coincidence that the BBC felt the abuse she has been receiving included sufficiently credible threats that they had to give her a bodyguard at Labour conference.
Nick Robinson also pointed out that the worst way the BBC or other parts of the MSM could deal with this campaign of hostility is to silence voices of dissent: his interview was headlined
"If mainstream news wants to win back trust it cannot silence dissident voices."
Absolutely right. As Nick wrote
"Shockingly, Churchill’s pre-war warnings about the dangers of German rearmament were heard by radio listeners not in his own country but in the US. The BBC, influenced by the government, muzzled him.
"The way Churchill was handled is a powerful warning of the dangers of the BBC believing it is being balanced by silencing the voices of those who do not represent conventional wisdom. It is an answer to all those who complained that Nick Griffin – who is, let me stress, no modern-day Churchill – should never have been invited on to Question Time.
"It’s a riposte to Brexiters who fill my timeline with demands that we should not interview “that failed leader” Nick Clegg, to Remainers who say the same about Nigel Farage, and to those who argue Nigel Lawson should never be interviewed about climate change.
"They should be challenged and if, as Lawson did on Today recently, they get their facts wrong we should say so. But they should not be silenced."
Quite.
The cost of Labour policies
If the policies set out by the Labour party at their conference this week were all enacted there would be a £312 billion hole in Britain's finances and for every citizen the state would incur thousands of pounds of extra debt - about £4750 per person. The interest on that debt would have to be paid by the taxpayer and would not be available for schools and hospitals:
Quote of the day 28th September 2017
Tom Harris (former Labour MP) writing in today's Daily Telegraph:
The article is called
"This was the coronation of Jeremy Corbyn as emperor of the Labour party."
(click on title to follow link to the whole piece)
The article is called
"This was the coronation of Jeremy Corbyn as emperor of the Labour party."
(click on title to follow link to the whole piece)
Wednesday, September 27, 2017
Copeland Local Committee meeting Tuesday 3rd October
The Copeland local committee of Cumbria County Council will meet at 10.15am at Cleator Moor Town Hall on Tuesday. The meeting is open to the public.
Agenda items include
* A public petition calling for resident's only parking in Meadow View, Whitehaven
* Report on secondary school provision in Copeland
* Parking services report
* Highways budget and Highways working group reports
and more controversially:
* Whether to confirm a series of Traffic Regulation orders for Whitehaven (e.g. amendments to parking restrictions in various parts of the town)
* The Beckermet Experimental Traffic Regulation Order
Full agenda and all papers for the meeting are available on the County Council website here.
Agenda items include
* A public petition calling for resident's only parking in Meadow View, Whitehaven
* Report on secondary school provision in Copeland
* Parking services report
* Highways budget and Highways working group reports
and more controversially:
* Whether to confirm a series of Traffic Regulation orders for Whitehaven (e.g. amendments to parking restrictions in various parts of the town)
* The Beckermet Experimental Traffic Regulation Order
Full agenda and all papers for the meeting are available on the County Council website here.
Quote of the day 27th September 2017
"Threatening to kill someone merely because their opinions annoy you is wrong.
"It doesn’t matter if those threats are against Diane Abbott, or Jess Phillips, or Anna Soubry, or Nigel Farage, it is never acceptable to settle a political argument by threatening to hang one’s opponent or harm their children. Belittling and refusing to believe those on the receiving end of such threats, or contriving lame excuses for them, is if anything almost more depressing, because it legitimises violence and emboldens the genuinely dangerous."
"It’s embarrassing even to have to spell out something so basic, but people have a right to enter politics without fear for their lives and journalists have a right to do their jobs – to challenge, question, hold people to account and sometimes doubtless annoy – without being bullied into silence."
"So stop asking who Laura Kuenssberg thinks she is, wandering around Brighton with her security detail; start asking what we have become as a country that she should need one."
(Gaby Hinsliffe, from an article in the Guardian about the fact that the BBC felt they had to provide their political editor Laura Kuenssberg with a bodyguard while she has been at Labour Party Conference this week.)
"It doesn’t matter if those threats are against Diane Abbott, or Jess Phillips, or Anna Soubry, or Nigel Farage, it is never acceptable to settle a political argument by threatening to hang one’s opponent or harm their children. Belittling and refusing to believe those on the receiving end of such threats, or contriving lame excuses for them, is if anything almost more depressing, because it legitimises violence and emboldens the genuinely dangerous."
"It’s embarrassing even to have to spell out something so basic, but people have a right to enter politics without fear for their lives and journalists have a right to do their jobs – to challenge, question, hold people to account and sometimes doubtless annoy – without being bullied into silence."
"So stop asking who Laura Kuenssberg thinks she is, wandering around Brighton with her security detail; start asking what we have become as a country that she should need one."
(Gaby Hinsliffe, from an article in the Guardian about the fact that the BBC felt they had to provide their political editor Laura Kuenssberg with a bodyguard while she has been at Labour Party Conference this week.)
Tuesday, September 26, 2017
Another fiscally incontinent "Free Unicorn" promise from Labour
Labour's party conference has produced a rich seam of daft or thoroughly nasty utterances, with Ken Livingston's suggestion that people who make "offensive comments" about Israel are not necessarily anti-semitic just being one among many eyebrow-raising comments.
The latest "free unicorn" promise is to nationalise PFI contracts, the vast majority of which were of course started under Labour governments.
I wrote a piece here which quoted an excellent short history of the origins of PFI. It seems like a very long time ago I posted that, but it was only about six months back during the Copeland by-election.
PFI - the Private Finance Initiative - was originally set up under Margaret Thatcher as a means of using tolls to pay for new and rebuilt river crossings at Dartford and get private industry to build it.
It worked brilliantly in that case: PFI was designed as a means of running revenue-raising projects like a toll crossing, and for that purpose it works.
Unfortunately Blair and Brown had the disastrous idea of extending this system to non-revenue raising facilities such as hospitals and fire stations, which it was not designed, and has been a financial disaster.
The first PFI hospital was the Cumberland Infirmary in Carlisle, opened by Tony Blair in 2000, which has cost the NHS in Cumbria upwards of £20 million a year, far more than the actual value of the hospital, with dire consequences for the finances of our local NHS.
We do need to do something about the cost of PFI, but unaffordable promises to nationalise the whole thing re not the answer.
The latest "free unicorn" promise is to nationalise PFI contracts, the vast majority of which were of course started under Labour governments.
I wrote a piece here which quoted an excellent short history of the origins of PFI. It seems like a very long time ago I posted that, but it was only about six months back during the Copeland by-election.
PFI - the Private Finance Initiative - was originally set up under Margaret Thatcher as a means of using tolls to pay for new and rebuilt river crossings at Dartford and get private industry to build it.
It worked brilliantly in that case: PFI was designed as a means of running revenue-raising projects like a toll crossing, and for that purpose it works.
Unfortunately Blair and Brown had the disastrous idea of extending this system to non-revenue raising facilities such as hospitals and fire stations, which it was not designed, and has been a financial disaster.
The first PFI hospital was the Cumberland Infirmary in Carlisle, opened by Tony Blair in 2000, which has cost the NHS in Cumbria upwards of £20 million a year, far more than the actual value of the hospital, with dire consequences for the finances of our local NHS.
We do need to do something about the cost of PFI, but unaffordable promises to nationalise the whole thing re not the answer.
On the case for a Brexit transition people
Letter published from a senior legal academic at Oxford about the need for a transition period while we are leaving the EU:
I think that is an extremely good point.
I think that is an extremely good point.
Monday, September 25, 2017
Monday music spot: the "I believe" song
A spoof Country and Western song from the "Not the Nine o'clock News" team which was broadcast shortly after the 1980 U.S. Presidential election.
I'm not going to explain exactly why I posted this to avoid a spoiler for those who have never heard this song but let's just say that to really appreciate the joke you have to listen to the very last line.
But now in 2017 I suspect many people who would have laughed at this in 1980 will be having thoughts along the lines of
"Someone really ought to bring out an updated version of this, the equivalent punchline would be even more appropriate today ..."
I'm not going to explain exactly why I posted this to avoid a spoiler for those who have never heard this song but let's just say that to really appreciate the joke you have to listen to the very last line.
But now in 2017 I suspect many people who would have laughed at this in 1980 will be having thoughts along the lines of
"Someone really ought to bring out an updated version of this, the equivalent punchline would be even more appropriate today ..."
The dying art of disagreement
Every head of a University in America or Britain, and probably much of the rest of the world, should be required to read The Dying art of Disagreement by Bret Stephens from which I took my quote of the day this morning.
It is an excellent summary of the power of positive disagreement and the damage being done because we are losing this skill, particularly and inexcusably in educational establishments where it should be strongest.
The speech was given at an Australian function by an American but the points he made are just as apposite in Britain and many other countries.
Here are a few of extracts which I think particularly bring out the argument Bret Stephens is making.
"I was raised on the old-fashioned view that sticks and stones could break my bones but words would never hurt me. But today there’s a belief that since words can cause stress, and stress can have physiological effects, stressful words are tantamount to a form of violence. This is the age of protected feelings purchased at the cost of permanent infantilization."
It is an excellent summary of the power of positive disagreement and the damage being done because we are losing this skill, particularly and inexcusably in educational establishments where it should be strongest.
The speech was given at an Australian function by an American but the points he made are just as apposite in Britain and many other countries.
Here are a few of extracts which I think particularly bring out the argument Bret Stephens is making.
"I was raised on the old-fashioned view that sticks and stones could break my bones but words would never hurt me. But today there’s a belief that since words can cause stress, and stress can have physiological effects, stressful words are tantamount to a form of violence. This is the age of protected feelings purchased at the cost of permanent infantilization."
"In recent years, identity politics have become the moated castles from which we safeguard our feelings from hurt and our opinions from challenge. It is our “safe space.” But it is a safe space of a uniquely pernicious kind — a safe space from thought, rather than a safe space for thought, to borrow a line I recently heard from Salman Rushdie."
"Another consequence of identity politics is that it has made the distance between making an argument and causing offense terrifyingly short. Any argument that can be cast as insensitive or offensive to a given group of people isn’t treated as being merely wrong. Instead it is seen as immoral, and therefore unworthy of discussion or rebuttal."
"The result is that the disagreements we need to have — and to have vigorously — are banished from the public square before they’re settled. People who might otherwise join a conversation to see where it might lead them choose instead to shrink from it, lest they say the “wrong” thing and be accused of some kind of political -ism or -phobia. For fear of causing offense, they forego the opportunity to be persuaded."
"Take the arguments over same-sex marriage, which you are now debating in Australia. My own views in favor of same-sex marriage are well known, and I hope the Yes’s win by a convincing margin."
"But if I had to guess, I suspect the No’s will exceed whatever they are currently polling. That’s because the case for same-sex marriage is too often advanced not by reason, but merely by branding every opponent of it as a “bigot” — just because they are sticking to an opinion that was shared across the entire political spectrum only a few years ago. Few people like outing themselves as someone’s idea of a bigot, so they keep their opinions to themselves even when speaking to pollsters. That’s just what happened last year in the Brexit vote and the U.S. presidential election, and look where we are now."
"If you want to make a winning argument for same-sex marriage, particularly against conservative opponents, make it on a conservative foundation: As a matter of individual freedom, and as an avenue toward moral responsibility and social respectability. The No’s will have a hard time arguing with that. But if you call them morons and Neanderthals, all you’ll get in return is their middle finger or their clenched fist."
Quote of the day 25th September 2017
"To disagree well you must first understand well. You have to read deeply, listen carefully, watch closely. You need to grant your adversary moral respect; give him the intellectual benefit of doubt; have sympathy for his motives and participate empathically with his line of reasoning.
And you need to allow for the possibility that you might yet be persuaded of what he has to say."
(Bret Stephen, from a lecture delivered at the Lowy Institute Media Award dinner in Sydney, Australia, on Saturday, Sept. 23 and also published in the New York Times. The award recognizes excellence in Australian foreign affairs journalism)
And you need to allow for the possibility that you might yet be persuaded of what he has to say."
(Bret Stephen, from a lecture delivered at the Lowy Institute Media Award dinner in Sydney, Australia, on Saturday, Sept. 23 and also published in the New York Times. The award recognizes excellence in Australian foreign affairs journalism)
Sunday, September 24, 2017
A595 Liason Group
The A595 Liason group which brings together Cumbria County Councillors and officers and Highways England meets tomorrow morning.
I am looking forward to using this meeting to hear proposals to improve the A595 and to press for them to take place as soon and effectively as possible.
I am looking forward to using this meeting to hear proposals to improve the A595 and to press for them to take place as soon and effectively as possible.
Of Brexit hardliners on both sides, and "Stab in the back" myths ...
The transition from Britain as a member of the European Union to being a country outside that union was always going to be a process, not a simple one-stop change and unwinding 40 years of shared legislation was never going to be simple or quick.
Whether they voted Remain or Leave, people who live in the real world always knew that this process would require messy compromises.
One of the more tiresome aspects of the debate about Brexit in the UK, is that anyone who actually tries to engage with those difficult challenges and compromises necessary to protect Britain's economy and ensure that our relations with the rest of the EU will continue to work properly after we leave the EU is likely to get a barage of mutually inconsistent criticism from the most hardline portion of each side.
First, from the most hardline faction among the Remainers, who don't want Britain to leave at all and for whom no possible set of arrangements under which we cease to be EU members could possibly be satisfactory.
And, at the same time, from the most hardline faction among "Leave" supporters for whom any attempt to maintain a working relationship with our neighbours in Europe is instantly identified as something that both they and a majority of those who took part in the referendum were voting against, any compromise is treachery to the 52% and any deal is a sellout.
This absolutely does not apply to all Remainers or all Leavers and indeed, despite the bile which has been poured on the PM's Florence speech by the ultras on both extremes it does seem to have set out a position which both most Remainers and most Brexit supporters in her own government can go along with.
I am particularly struck, however, by the absolutist positions being taken by some - not all - hardline Brexit supporters whose behaviour I can only describe as doing everything possible to facilitate a future narrative of sell-out and betrayal.
A ludicrous article on the Breitbart website by former UKIP leadership hopeful Raheem Kassam,
"How May plans to blame Trump for the failure of Brexit and why the Tory party needs to remove her now"
is an example of the depths of paranoid fantasy to which some of them are descending and the kind of daft accusations being peddled.
To find an equivalent similar example of someone working so hard to prepare the ground for an accusation of betrayal from before the alleged sell-out even took place you, you have to go back almost a hundred years to the behaviour of General Ludendorff in the closing stages of the First World War when he was Chief of Staff of the German army
Ludendorff, realising that Germany had lost the war, advised the German government to make peace while German armies still stood everywhere on foreign soil and before their own country had been invaded.
Yet within a year Ludendorff was denying that his army had been beaten and accusing politicians who had actually been followed his own advice to seek an immediate armistice of stabbing Germany's "undefeated" armies in the back.
He is usually attributed with being the principal author of the myth of the "Stab in the back," a legend which bore little relation to the facts but which many Germans found easier to bear than the truth, and which in due time was to be exploited to great effect with horrific results by a group of people even nastier than Ludendorff was.
(Ironically the term was first used in conversation with Ludendorff by a British general who asked him, "Do you mean, General, that you were stabbed in the back" but Ludendorff immediately seized on the expression, repeated it and popularised it.)
Britain's international trade with other EU countries amounts to about 44% of total British trade, give or take what the Office for National Statistics may be up to two percentage points for the so-called Rotterdam Effect. Hence both our trade with the EU and the 56% of our trade which we do with the rest of the world are vital to Britain's wealth, jobs and incomes.
Leaving the EU on terms which do not sabotage the trade position of either side is therefore vital to the interests of both Britain and the EU, and any British PM or Brexit negotiator would be incredibly foolish not to emphasise to the rest of the EU that we want to leave on terms which are in the interests of both.
Anyone who interprets comments from the British government like Theresa May's statement that
"The success of the EU is profoundly in our own national interest"
as an attempt to sabotage Brexit, as Kassim does, rather than something at any sane negotiator would say, is lost to reason, displaying a determination to promote a narrative of betrayal which is Ludendorff - like in proportion, or both.
Whether they voted Remain or Leave, people who live in the real world always knew that this process would require messy compromises.
One of the more tiresome aspects of the debate about Brexit in the UK, is that anyone who actually tries to engage with those difficult challenges and compromises necessary to protect Britain's economy and ensure that our relations with the rest of the EU will continue to work properly after we leave the EU is likely to get a barage of mutually inconsistent criticism from the most hardline portion of each side.
First, from the most hardline faction among the Remainers, who don't want Britain to leave at all and for whom no possible set of arrangements under which we cease to be EU members could possibly be satisfactory.
And, at the same time, from the most hardline faction among "Leave" supporters for whom any attempt to maintain a working relationship with our neighbours in Europe is instantly identified as something that both they and a majority of those who took part in the referendum were voting against, any compromise is treachery to the 52% and any deal is a sellout.
This absolutely does not apply to all Remainers or all Leavers and indeed, despite the bile which has been poured on the PM's Florence speech by the ultras on both extremes it does seem to have set out a position which both most Remainers and most Brexit supporters in her own government can go along with.
I am particularly struck, however, by the absolutist positions being taken by some - not all - hardline Brexit supporters whose behaviour I can only describe as doing everything possible to facilitate a future narrative of sell-out and betrayal.
A ludicrous article on the Breitbart website by former UKIP leadership hopeful Raheem Kassam,
"How May plans to blame Trump for the failure of Brexit and why the Tory party needs to remove her now"
is an example of the depths of paranoid fantasy to which some of them are descending and the kind of daft accusations being peddled.
To find an equivalent similar example of someone working so hard to prepare the ground for an accusation of betrayal from before the alleged sell-out even took place you, you have to go back almost a hundred years to the behaviour of General Ludendorff in the closing stages of the First World War when he was Chief of Staff of the German army
Ludendorff, realising that Germany had lost the war, advised the German government to make peace while German armies still stood everywhere on foreign soil and before their own country had been invaded.
Yet within a year Ludendorff was denying that his army had been beaten and accusing politicians who had actually been followed his own advice to seek an immediate armistice of stabbing Germany's "undefeated" armies in the back.
He is usually attributed with being the principal author of the myth of the "Stab in the back," a legend which bore little relation to the facts but which many Germans found easier to bear than the truth, and which in due time was to be exploited to great effect with horrific results by a group of people even nastier than Ludendorff was.
(Ironically the term was first used in conversation with Ludendorff by a British general who asked him, "Do you mean, General, that you were stabbed in the back" but Ludendorff immediately seized on the expression, repeated it and popularised it.)
Britain's international trade with other EU countries amounts to about 44% of total British trade, give or take what the Office for National Statistics may be up to two percentage points for the so-called Rotterdam Effect. Hence both our trade with the EU and the 56% of our trade which we do with the rest of the world are vital to Britain's wealth, jobs and incomes.
Leaving the EU on terms which do not sabotage the trade position of either side is therefore vital to the interests of both Britain and the EU, and any British PM or Brexit negotiator would be incredibly foolish not to emphasise to the rest of the EU that we want to leave on terms which are in the interests of both.
Anyone who interprets comments from the British government like Theresa May's statement that
"The success of the EU is profoundly in our own national interest"
as an attempt to sabotage Brexit, as Kassim does, rather than something at any sane negotiator would say, is lost to reason, displaying a determination to promote a narrative of betrayal which is Ludendorff - like in proportion, or both.
BBC study suggests well-informed people voted Conservative in 2017 ...
A study by academics commissioned by the BBC found two interesting correlations between sources and quality of people's political knowledge and how they voted in GE2017.
Interestingly, one of these is a message that Conservatives will not be happy about and the other is a message which people on the left won't like.
Both correlations applied to people WITHIN each age range as well as overall, which means that the an obvious explanation which will occur to most people for the first correlation and to people on the left for the second one - that older people are more likely to vote Conservative and use the internet less while younger people use the internet more and were more likely to vote Labour - is not sufficient to explain these results, or at least, cannot be used to dismiss these findings.
The study was commissioned by the BBC from Professors Harold Clarke, Matt Goodwin, Paul Whiteley and Marianne Stewart who are US and UK election experts. The BBC report of their findings is titled How the internet helped Labour at the General Election.
This title comes from their first finding, that people who said they mainly used the internet to learn about politics were more likely to vote Labour and less likely to vote Conservative.
That, obviously is the warning which Tories won't like, and suggests that we need to improve our internet campaigning.
The second finding which was that those who scored well above average in a quiz to test for political knowledge were more than twice as likely to vote Conservative and less likely to vote Labour, while those whose level of political knowledge was well below average were much more likely to vote Labour.
Cue everyone on the right of the political spectrum saying "no surprise there then" and everyone on the left doing a Richard Wilson ...
Back in the 19th century - when being a conservative with a small "c" tended to mean things like supporting "rotten boroughs" or that women should not have the right to vote - John Stuart Mill wrote that not all conservatives were stupid but most stupid people were conservatives.
If I wanted to tease my friends on the left - I do have some - I might quote this BBC study as evidence that in the second decade of the 21st century the boot is on the other foot.
In actual fact I have met many well informed and intelligent people on the right, centre and left of the political spectrum, and also many rather less well informed and intelligent people in all parts of that spectrum, and furthermore there is no single monolithic "Tory" or "Socialist" worldview which all the people who support the Conservatives or Labour believe - both garner support from people with an amazingly diverse coalition of ideas.
What this study does do is provide evidence that those people on the left who think they have a monopoly of wisdom are wrong.
Interestingly, one of these is a message that Conservatives will not be happy about and the other is a message which people on the left won't like.
Both correlations applied to people WITHIN each age range as well as overall, which means that the an obvious explanation which will occur to most people for the first correlation and to people on the left for the second one - that older people are more likely to vote Conservative and use the internet less while younger people use the internet more and were more likely to vote Labour - is not sufficient to explain these results, or at least, cannot be used to dismiss these findings.
The study was commissioned by the BBC from Professors Harold Clarke, Matt Goodwin, Paul Whiteley and Marianne Stewart who are US and UK election experts. The BBC report of their findings is titled How the internet helped Labour at the General Election.
This title comes from their first finding, that people who said they mainly used the internet to learn about politics were more likely to vote Labour and less likely to vote Conservative.
That, obviously is the warning which Tories won't like, and suggests that we need to improve our internet campaigning.
The second finding which was that those who scored well above average in a quiz to test for political knowledge were more than twice as likely to vote Conservative and less likely to vote Labour, while those whose level of political knowledge was well below average were much more likely to vote Labour.
Cue everyone on the right of the political spectrum saying "no surprise there then" and everyone on the left doing a Richard Wilson ...
Back in the 19th century - when being a conservative with a small "c" tended to mean things like supporting "rotten boroughs" or that women should not have the right to vote - John Stuart Mill wrote that not all conservatives were stupid but most stupid people were conservatives.
If I wanted to tease my friends on the left - I do have some - I might quote this BBC study as evidence that in the second decade of the 21st century the boot is on the other foot.
In actual fact I have met many well informed and intelligent people on the right, centre and left of the political spectrum, and also many rather less well informed and intelligent people in all parts of that spectrum, and furthermore there is no single monolithic "Tory" or "Socialist" worldview which all the people who support the Conservatives or Labour believe - both garner support from people with an amazingly diverse coalition of ideas.
What this study does do is provide evidence that those people on the left who think they have a monopoly of wisdom are wrong.
Saturday, September 23, 2017
A Corbyn victory is neither impossible nor inevitable
Lords Adonis and Finkelstein had an interesting debate a few days ago via the opinion and letters columns in The Times about whether Jeremy Corbyn could be elected Prime Minister.
To greatly simplify what they were saying, Lord Adonis argued that some leaders are unelectable, that Jeremy Corbyn is one of them, and that if Labour want to win they should replace him.
Danny Finkelstein argued that the most important driver of electoral success are the state of the economy and perceived economic competence, and that if the economy goes pear-shaped there is a good chance that the government will get the blame and Corbyn or whoever is then leading the Labour party will win by default.
I actually thought most of what they both said was right.
Although large numbers of people in the Labour party and the media seem to think otherwise, the 2017 election did not prove Jeremy Corbyn to be a great electoral asset. Admittedly he outperformed the very low expectations people had of him. Yes, he persuaded millions of people to turn out and vote for him.
However, he was also the main cause of even more millions of people turning out and voting Conservative.
If Labour had had a more credible and less extreme leader, and the Conservatives had still called the 2017 election and fought the same sort of campaign, Labour would have won.
That does not necessarily mean Labour will win whenever the next election comes. All parties will have learned lessons from the 2017 campaign,
There is a good piece in the Guardian which argues that Labour can't take winning the next election for granted.
As is so often the case, the safest rule is that no party can take the voters of Britain for granted.
To greatly simplify what they were saying, Lord Adonis argued that some leaders are unelectable, that Jeremy Corbyn is one of them, and that if Labour want to win they should replace him.
Danny Finkelstein argued that the most important driver of electoral success are the state of the economy and perceived economic competence, and that if the economy goes pear-shaped there is a good chance that the government will get the blame and Corbyn or whoever is then leading the Labour party will win by default.
I actually thought most of what they both said was right.
Although large numbers of people in the Labour party and the media seem to think otherwise, the 2017 election did not prove Jeremy Corbyn to be a great electoral asset. Admittedly he outperformed the very low expectations people had of him. Yes, he persuaded millions of people to turn out and vote for him.
However, he was also the main cause of even more millions of people turning out and voting Conservative.
If Labour had had a more credible and less extreme leader, and the Conservatives had still called the 2017 election and fought the same sort of campaign, Labour would have won.
That does not necessarily mean Labour will win whenever the next election comes. All parties will have learned lessons from the 2017 campaign,
There is a good piece in the Guardian which argues that Labour can't take winning the next election for granted.
As is so often the case, the safest rule is that no party can take the voters of Britain for granted.
Friday, September 22, 2017
Theresa May sets out Britain's negotiating position on Brexit
In a major speech in Florence the PM has set out Britain's negotiating position as week seek to build a new relationship with the EU as a neighbour rather than a member.
Here are five images which sum up major themes of the speech and a link to the full text here.
Here are five images which sum up major themes of the speech and a link to the full text here.
Richard Bannister RIP
Richard Bannister, who was the son of the former Rector of Whitehaven, Reverend John Bannister, died this month of oesophageal cancer at the age of 30. He had been diagnosed with the disease in April.
Richard was well-known throughout the town. He had strong associations with Whitehaven Rugby League Club, whom he continued to support, and where he undertook a placement whilst studying at Hull University for his degree in sport rehabilitation.
His parents, John and Anne Bannister, said:
“Richard was incredibly brave and courageous in the way in which he responded to his illness and its eventual outcome."
Richard was well-known throughout the town. He had strong associations with Whitehaven Rugby League Club, whom he continued to support, and where he undertook a placement whilst studying at Hull University for his degree in sport rehabilitation.
His parents, John and Anne Bannister, said:
“Richard was incredibly brave and courageous in the way in which he responded to his illness and its eventual outcome."
2017 "Pot calling the kettle black award"
There have been some strong candidates for this year's "pot calling the kettle black award."
Jeremy Corbyn had been the favourite after he said that Boris Johnson's article about Brexit was a "lapse of discipline" which would "not have happened" on his team.
This from a man who has lost 95 front benchers in sackings and waves of mass resignations, who was sacking people for voting to stay in the single market one week and threatening to sack others for supporting the Eu withdrawal bill the next.
But in the "Pot calling the kettle black" stakes nobody could possible top the accusation from North Korean president Kim Jong in when he President Kim called President Trump deranged.
Had that one come from almost any other world leader I suspect that not a few people would have agreed with it, but with the possible exception of Abu Bakr al Baghdadi, Kim is probably the head of government who comes nearest to making The Donald look like a great statesman by comparison ...
Jeremy Corbyn had been the favourite after he said that Boris Johnson's article about Brexit was a "lapse of discipline" which would "not have happened" on his team.
This from a man who has lost 95 front benchers in sackings and waves of mass resignations, who was sacking people for voting to stay in the single market one week and threatening to sack others for supporting the Eu withdrawal bill the next.
But in the "Pot calling the kettle black" stakes nobody could possible top the accusation from North Korean president Kim Jong in when he President Kim called President Trump deranged.
Had that one come from almost any other world leader I suspect that not a few people would have agreed with it, but with the possible exception of Abu Bakr al Baghdadi, Kim is probably the head of government who comes nearest to making The Donald look like a great statesman by comparison ...
Of double standards and Judicial murder of those who are different ..
There are two questions which should be asked of any newspaper or politician who has criticised the National Trust's William Bankes exhibition at Kingston Lacy.
1) What do you think about
* DA'ESH (the so-called "Islamic State" caliphate) throwing people off five-storey buildings for being gay in the fortunately rapidly diminishing area it controls,
* Other countries like Iran which still apply the death penalty for homosexuality, (there are about ten of them) and
* Islamist groups like the Taleban who urge that gays should be hanged from the nearest lamp-post?
2) If, like the vast majority of people, you think this is a revolting policy amounting to judicial murder when it is applied advocated elsewhere (especially by people you disapprove of) then
* should we not remember that this country also once had that policy and celebrate the fact that Britain has moved on from it?
During the 16th century I understand that the death penalty for homosexuality was passed into law, repealed and then reinstated several times before finally being on the statue book from 1563 to 1861.
According to the National Trust's historians, during the lifetime of William Bankes who owned Kingston Lacy but was forced to flee into exile for being gay, some fifty-one men were hanged in Britain under that statute during his lifetime.
I believe that people are entitled to privacy around their private lives and that what freely consenting adults do in their own bedrooms is nobody else's business and certainly not that of the state. I think most people in Britain today would agree with this, but it is important to remember that freedom from interference in people's private lives, like most other freedoms worth having, did not always exist and had to be fought for.
I do not wish to defend every aspect of the way the National Trust seems to have handled their actions to mark the 50th anniversary of the Sexual Offences Act - for example, under precisely the right to privacy which I referred to above, people should not have to answer questions about their sexual orientation if they find these intrusive or insensitive and the NT appears to have upset some of their own volunteers by not getting this right.
But where the history of a building or artistic collection which the NT is preserving for the nation is very much affected by Britain's past discriminatory laws - which is very much the case at Kingston Lacy - that history should be recorded whether the discrimination was on the grounds of race, religion, or sexuality. It is by remembering the errors of the past that we can best ensure we do not repeat them.
1) What do you think about
* DA'ESH (the so-called "Islamic State" caliphate) throwing people off five-storey buildings for being gay in the fortunately rapidly diminishing area it controls,
* Other countries like Iran which still apply the death penalty for homosexuality, (there are about ten of them) and
* Islamist groups like the Taleban who urge that gays should be hanged from the nearest lamp-post?
2) If, like the vast majority of people, you think this is a revolting policy amounting to judicial murder when it is applied advocated elsewhere (especially by people you disapprove of) then
* should we not remember that this country also once had that policy and celebrate the fact that Britain has moved on from it?
During the 16th century I understand that the death penalty for homosexuality was passed into law, repealed and then reinstated several times before finally being on the statue book from 1563 to 1861.
According to the National Trust's historians, during the lifetime of William Bankes who owned Kingston Lacy but was forced to flee into exile for being gay, some fifty-one men were hanged in Britain under that statute during his lifetime.
I believe that people are entitled to privacy around their private lives and that what freely consenting adults do in their own bedrooms is nobody else's business and certainly not that of the state. I think most people in Britain today would agree with this, but it is important to remember that freedom from interference in people's private lives, like most other freedoms worth having, did not always exist and had to be fought for.
I do not wish to defend every aspect of the way the National Trust seems to have handled their actions to mark the 50th anniversary of the Sexual Offences Act - for example, under precisely the right to privacy which I referred to above, people should not have to answer questions about their sexual orientation if they find these intrusive or insensitive and the NT appears to have upset some of their own volunteers by not getting this right.
But where the history of a building or artistic collection which the NT is preserving for the nation is very much affected by Britain's past discriminatory laws - which is very much the case at Kingston Lacy - that history should be recorded whether the discrimination was on the grounds of race, religion, or sexuality. It is by remembering the errors of the past that we can best ensure we do not repeat them.
Quote of the day 23rd September 2017
"As I have grown older, I have learned that pleasing everyone is impossible, but annoying everyone is a piece of cake."
(Bill Murray. Except that he used a slightly ruder expression than "annoying everyone.")
(Bill Murray. Except that he used a slightly ruder expression than "annoying everyone.")
Thursday, September 21, 2017
Minister for the Northern Powerhouse visits Copeland
Jake Berry MP, minister for the Northern Powerhouse and Local Growth, came to Whitehaven this week to meet Copeland MP Trudy Harrison and view ongoing work to redevelop the Harbour and Quay.
The £320,000 scheme, of which £272,000 comes from the government's Coastal Communities Fund, involves the demolition of the former Sea Cadets building, and the installation of contemporary seating.
(Jake Berry MP (second from right) at Whitehaven Harbour with Trudy Harrison MP (Second from left) and some of the local leaders they met this week.)
Mr Berry met Trudy and harbour commissioners to view the scheme and they discussed a potential second phase of the development, with plans including a Coastal Activity Centre. The minister also met Britain's Energy Coast chief executive Michael Pemberton to discuss town centre developments in Whitehaven before attending a meeting with members of the nuclear supply chain.
Jake Berry said: "The government since 2015 has committed £1.7 million to coastal community funding.
"I wanted to come here to see the fantastic development at Old New Quay, opening for the first time in over 70 years to the public, and have a chat with the local MP about reopening our coastal facilities and what further exciting things we can do for the town."
"This is a real example of how a relatively small government investment has gone a long way," he said. "New bids for the coastal fund open in January and I'm here with Trudy to see if we can get a really exciting bid coming forward from Whitehaven."
Trudy Harrison added:
"The port of Whitehaven has such a historical importance and it is right and proper it is getting this investment.
"This is essential infrastructure which will then enable further facilities, particularly around the tourism industry, to support our economy."
She said the meeting with Britain's Energy Coast, which hopes to transform Whitehaven's former bus depot site and the derelict bus station opposite into offices, a hotel and leisure and residential spaces, was to "learn about new projects happening in the area".
The supply chain meeting allowed Mr Berry to meet with nuclear industry representatives.
He said: "We are talking about how Cumbria, Whitehaven and Copeland, the true north, people at the heart of the northern powerhouse is absolutely vital.
"We are talking about the government's commitment to continue with the nuclear industry in this area. It is absolutely vital for Cumbria, which is putting the power into the northern powerhouse to know it has government support.
"It isn't just about tourism, it's ensuring this town remains at the heart of Cumbria's nuclear industry, which has an extremely bright future and is of vital importance to the northern powerhouse."
The £320,000 scheme, of which £272,000 comes from the government's Coastal Communities Fund, involves the demolition of the former Sea Cadets building, and the installation of contemporary seating.
(Jake Berry MP (second from right) at Whitehaven Harbour with Trudy Harrison MP (Second from left) and some of the local leaders they met this week.)
Mr Berry met Trudy and harbour commissioners to view the scheme and they discussed a potential second phase of the development, with plans including a Coastal Activity Centre. The minister also met Britain's Energy Coast chief executive Michael Pemberton to discuss town centre developments in Whitehaven before attending a meeting with members of the nuclear supply chain.
Jake Berry said: "The government since 2015 has committed £1.7 million to coastal community funding.
"I wanted to come here to see the fantastic development at Old New Quay, opening for the first time in over 70 years to the public, and have a chat with the local MP about reopening our coastal facilities and what further exciting things we can do for the town."
"This is a real example of how a relatively small government investment has gone a long way," he said. "New bids for the coastal fund open in January and I'm here with Trudy to see if we can get a really exciting bid coming forward from Whitehaven."
Trudy Harrison added:
"The port of Whitehaven has such a historical importance and it is right and proper it is getting this investment.
"This is essential infrastructure which will then enable further facilities, particularly around the tourism industry, to support our economy."
She said the meeting with Britain's Energy Coast, which hopes to transform Whitehaven's former bus depot site and the derelict bus station opposite into offices, a hotel and leisure and residential spaces, was to "learn about new projects happening in the area".
The supply chain meeting allowed Mr Berry to meet with nuclear industry representatives.
He said: "We are talking about how Cumbria, Whitehaven and Copeland, the true north, people at the heart of the northern powerhouse is absolutely vital.
"We are talking about the government's commitment to continue with the nuclear industry in this area. It is absolutely vital for Cumbria, which is putting the power into the northern powerhouse to know it has government support.
"It isn't just about tourism, it's ensuring this town remains at the heart of Cumbria's nuclear industry, which has an extremely bright future and is of vital importance to the northern powerhouse."
The joys of Cumbrian weather ...
The lady behind me in the checkout queue at Iceland this evening suggested that today's weather in Whitehaven had been like "All four seasons in one day."
She added that the variability of our weather was one of the "Joys of Cumbria."
For the avoidance of doubt, I don't think she meant it as an ironic comment and I am not repeating it as one.
Certainly one of the things about the fantastic scenery of Cumbria is that it has a different beauty in each of the very different weather conditions we can experience.
She added that the variability of our weather was one of the "Joys of Cumbria."
For the avoidance of doubt, I don't think she meant it as an ironic comment and I am not repeating it as one.
Certainly one of the things about the fantastic scenery of Cumbria is that it has a different beauty in each of the very different weather conditions we can experience.
British, Irish, or both
Fintan O'Toole has a piece in the New York review of Books on "Brexit's Irish Question" which can be read here.
I spent much of the EU referendum period as a floating voter, and when after weeks of careful consideration I came off the fence and decided to vote Remain, one of the three main reasons for that decision was the difficulty of finding a solution to the issue of Britain's border with Ireland after leaving the EU which does not undermine the agreement which brought peace to Ireland, sabotage the economy of both parts of the island, or create a massive loophole which may fatally undermine any attempt to "take back control" of Britain's borders.
O'Toole's article is extremely good about how dramatically Ireland has moved forward in the last thirty years, about how enabling communities in Northern Ireland to think of themselves as "Irish, British or both" was central to the peace process and about the enormous difficulty of policing any recreated "hard border" between the two parts of the island of Ireland.
As he rightly says, that border
"meanders for 310 miles and is not a natural boundary. It was never planned as a logical dividing line, still less the edge of a vast 27-state union"
but comprises the squiggly edges of a group of six Irish counties which had a protestant majority in 1921. And most important of all "It cannot be securely policed."
He is absolutely right about this.
Any attempt to put up a hard border in Ireland would fail unless you were daft enough to try to create something like the Berlin wall, but even a more proportionate attempt would have dire consequences for the economies and people on both sides of the border.
I would ask anyone who reads his article to pay attention to these parts of his article which richly deserve consideration and not to be too upset by his comments about England outside London - I do mean England, not Britain - and about "Leave" supporters in particular which are rather less well-founded.
Nor is he entirely fair to the present British government, which fully understands how difficult this question will be to resolve and is working with the Irish government and the EU to try to find a solution.
But most of the points he makes about Ireland are well made and deserve a hearing.
But it is utterly vital that Britain manages to agree a mutually acceptable deal with Ireland and the rest of the EU which protects the interests of those on both sides of the Irish border, and all parties will have to be prepared to compromise.
The people negotiating our exit from the EU have come under fire from "stop-the-world-I-want-to-get-off" headbangers" on both sides of the argument - extremist "Remain" supporters who think there is a chance that Britain might actually not leave and denounce anyone who is trying to make our exit work, and equally extreme Brexit supporters who are itching for the chance to denounce any compromise as a betrayal of the 52% of the electorate who voted Leave.
Ireland is only one of the difficult areas where the zealots on both sides of the debate are making it all the harder to get a sensible deal which works in the interests of all the people of Britain.
I spent much of the EU referendum period as a floating voter, and when after weeks of careful consideration I came off the fence and decided to vote Remain, one of the three main reasons for that decision was the difficulty of finding a solution to the issue of Britain's border with Ireland after leaving the EU which does not undermine the agreement which brought peace to Ireland, sabotage the economy of both parts of the island, or create a massive loophole which may fatally undermine any attempt to "take back control" of Britain's borders.
O'Toole's article is extremely good about how dramatically Ireland has moved forward in the last thirty years, about how enabling communities in Northern Ireland to think of themselves as "Irish, British or both" was central to the peace process and about the enormous difficulty of policing any recreated "hard border" between the two parts of the island of Ireland.
As he rightly says, that border
"meanders for 310 miles and is not a natural boundary. It was never planned as a logical dividing line, still less the edge of a vast 27-state union"
but comprises the squiggly edges of a group of six Irish counties which had a protestant majority in 1921. And most important of all "It cannot be securely policed."
He is absolutely right about this.
Any attempt to put up a hard border in Ireland would fail unless you were daft enough to try to create something like the Berlin wall, but even a more proportionate attempt would have dire consequences for the economies and people on both sides of the border.
I would ask anyone who reads his article to pay attention to these parts of his article which richly deserve consideration and not to be too upset by his comments about England outside London - I do mean England, not Britain - and about "Leave" supporters in particular which are rather less well-founded.
Nor is he entirely fair to the present British government, which fully understands how difficult this question will be to resolve and is working with the Irish government and the EU to try to find a solution.
But most of the points he makes about Ireland are well made and deserve a hearing.
But it is utterly vital that Britain manages to agree a mutually acceptable deal with Ireland and the rest of the EU which protects the interests of those on both sides of the Irish border, and all parties will have to be prepared to compromise.
The people negotiating our exit from the EU have come under fire from "stop-the-world-I-want-to-get-off" headbangers" on both sides of the argument - extremist "Remain" supporters who think there is a chance that Britain might actually not leave and denounce anyone who is trying to make our exit work, and equally extreme Brexit supporters who are itching for the chance to denounce any compromise as a betrayal of the 52% of the electorate who voted Leave.
Ireland is only one of the difficult areas where the zealots on both sides of the debate are making it all the harder to get a sensible deal which works in the interests of all the people of Britain.
Quote of the day 21st September 2017
I've just seen a post on Twitter to the effect that on this day in 1780 Benedict Arnold committed treason.
From the British perspective of course, 21st September 1780 was the day he stopped committing treasons. Although I am reminded of this excellent quote from John Harington ...
From the British perspective of course, 21st September 1780 was the day he stopped committing treasons. Although I am reminded of this excellent quote from John Harington ...
Wednesday, September 20, 2017
Maternity at West Cumberland Hospital referred to Independent Panel
Following the "call in" at the Cumbria Health Scrutiny committee, Secretary of State Jeremy Hunt has referred the "success regime" proposals for maternity services at West Cumberland Hospital to the Independent Reconfiguration Panel (IRP) asking them to conduct an initial review and report back to him by 4th October on whether a full review is needed.
The progress of the call-in had been discussed when "lead members" of the Cumbria Health Scrutiny committee (including myself) met the Clinical Commissioning Group last week.
At that stage the formal reference to the IRP had not been officially announced but the CCG did give us an assurance which we were allowed to repeat in the public domain that they have not started the clock on the 12 month assessment period referred to in the decision, that they will not do so until the call-in process has officially concluded, and that if that 12 month assessment happens after the review it will not be started without a public announcement to that effect.
This week Jeremy Hunt has written to Cllr Claire Driver, chair of the Cumbria Health Scrutiny Committee, with an update on the progress of the call-in..
He said in the letter: "I am today writing to the Independent Reconfiguration Panel (IRP) asking them to undertake an initial assessment of your referral.
"Should the IRP advise me that a full review is necessary, you will have your chance to present your case to them in full.
"I have asked the panel to report to me no later than Wednesday, October 4."
While the community and the NHS await news of the decision, so-called "co-production" meetings - set up as a platform for the community and health chiefs to collaborate on how to improve and protect services, have been taking place.
Stephen Eames, chief executive of North Cumbria University Hospitals NHS Trust, which runs both WCH and the Cumberland Infirmary in Carlisle, had been expecting news on the referral.
However he stressed that the trust have already made good progress on recruitment at WCH, particularly in paediatrics. This is a key area for consultant-led maternity services, as a paediatrician is needed on site in order to retain the Special Care Baby Unit - vital in dealing with babies born prematurely or with complications.
"We are almost up to full complement in paediatrics," said Mr Eames.
See News and Star article at
http://www.newsandstar.co.uk/news/Jeremy-Hunt-orders-maternity-review-4829e4b1-c0b3-448c-a585-b9e3bb6c34f9-ds
The progress of the call-in had been discussed when "lead members" of the Cumbria Health Scrutiny committee (including myself) met the Clinical Commissioning Group last week.
At that stage the formal reference to the IRP had not been officially announced but the CCG did give us an assurance which we were allowed to repeat in the public domain that they have not started the clock on the 12 month assessment period referred to in the decision, that they will not do so until the call-in process has officially concluded, and that if that 12 month assessment happens after the review it will not be started without a public announcement to that effect.
This week Jeremy Hunt has written to Cllr Claire Driver, chair of the Cumbria Health Scrutiny Committee, with an update on the progress of the call-in..
He said in the letter: "I am today writing to the Independent Reconfiguration Panel (IRP) asking them to undertake an initial assessment of your referral.
"Should the IRP advise me that a full review is necessary, you will have your chance to present your case to them in full.
"I have asked the panel to report to me no later than Wednesday, October 4."
While the community and the NHS await news of the decision, so-called "co-production" meetings - set up as a platform for the community and health chiefs to collaborate on how to improve and protect services, have been taking place.
Stephen Eames, chief executive of North Cumbria University Hospitals NHS Trust, which runs both WCH and the Cumberland Infirmary in Carlisle, had been expecting news on the referral.
However he stressed that the trust have already made good progress on recruitment at WCH, particularly in paediatrics. This is a key area for consultant-led maternity services, as a paediatrician is needed on site in order to retain the Special Care Baby Unit - vital in dealing with babies born prematurely or with complications.
"We are almost up to full complement in paediatrics," said Mr Eames.
See News and Star article at
http://www.newsandstar.co.uk/news/Jeremy-Hunt-orders-maternity-review-4829e4b1-c0b3-448c-a585-b9e3bb6c34f9-ds
Quote of the day 20th September 2017
I don't often agree with Donald J Trump, but this comment he has made about the role of Socialist policies in creating the current human and economic disaster in Venezuela is the exception that proves the rule:
"The problem in Venezuela is not that socialism has been badly implemented but that socialism has been faithfully implemented."
"The problem in Venezuela is not that socialism has been badly implemented but that socialism has been faithfully implemented."
Tuesday, September 19, 2017
Time to move on from silly claims made by both sides during the referendum
As I pointed out repeatedly at the time, with some honourable exceptions both sides talked an amazing amount of rubbish during the EU referendum.
The truth about most issues was available to find if you took the trouble, and there were some people both for and against leaving the EU who did make an effort to get their facts right, there were far too many on both sides who were far too ready to put out statements which were at best misleading or exaggerated and at worst complete rubbish.
This post about the nonsense from both sides includes an index of links to the "Worst of both worlds" series of posts I published here during the referendum campaign each of which called out one of the most egregious misleading or just plain wrong statements from each side.
Sadly the silly comments still continue. Today my twitter timeline has been full of tweets from "Leave" supporters quoting a study of UN manufacturing data which showed that the British economy has overtaken France to become the eighth largest manufacturing nation in the world, see article here.
Since we have not actually left the EU yet, this would not have provided conclusive evidence of the success of Brexit even if it had been based on post-referendum data. But in fact anyone who bothered to read more than three paragraphs into the press report they were all linking to should have noticed that the study was based on 2015 data - e.g. the year before the referendum.
Give me strength!
Some of the gloom-mongering by Remain supporters has been equally silly.
It really is time for both sides to move on, quietly drop the things they said during the campaign which anyone with a three-figure IQ knows was daft, and start making the real arguments.
Boris Johnson was ill-advised to repeat the £350 million figure and although the wording of his article was far more nuanced and closer to the truth than the words on the side of the Vote Leave red bus, it still wasn't quite right. His article said
Once we have settled our accounts, we will take back control of roughly £350 million per week. It would be a fine thing, as many of us have pointed out, if a lot of that money went on the NHS…”
People like Guido Fawkes who have been claiming that "Boris's article wasn't wrong" overlook that the amount actually paid to the EU is net of the Maggie Thatcher rebate. The figures for the UK contribution as at 2014 were as follows:
The "Gross contribution" line at the top of the above table is purely notional. The actual gross contribution Britain was really paying, before you take account of money coming back, was the second line because the rebate comes off first.
Hence £276 million a week is the figure which would accurately have slotted into the form of words Boris Johnson's article used.
I must confess that I would love to see the head of the UK statistical service start writing to other politicians who quote rubbish statistics and not just Boris Johnson.
Perhaps, for instance, he could write to Jeremy Corbyn pointing out that the number of students from underprivileged backgrounds going to University has increased and not, as JC said, decreased.
Quoting ridiculous numbers is not the preserve of any part of Britain's political culture but we really need to make more effort to get it right.
The truth about most issues was available to find if you took the trouble, and there were some people both for and against leaving the EU who did make an effort to get their facts right, there were far too many on both sides who were far too ready to put out statements which were at best misleading or exaggerated and at worst complete rubbish.
This post about the nonsense from both sides includes an index of links to the "Worst of both worlds" series of posts I published here during the referendum campaign each of which called out one of the most egregious misleading or just plain wrong statements from each side.
Sadly the silly comments still continue. Today my twitter timeline has been full of tweets from "Leave" supporters quoting a study of UN manufacturing data which showed that the British economy has overtaken France to become the eighth largest manufacturing nation in the world, see article here.
Since we have not actually left the EU yet, this would not have provided conclusive evidence of the success of Brexit even if it had been based on post-referendum data. But in fact anyone who bothered to read more than three paragraphs into the press report they were all linking to should have noticed that the study was based on 2015 data - e.g. the year before the referendum.
Give me strength!
Some of the gloom-mongering by Remain supporters has been equally silly.
It really is time for both sides to move on, quietly drop the things they said during the campaign which anyone with a three-figure IQ knows was daft, and start making the real arguments.
Boris Johnson was ill-advised to repeat the £350 million figure and although the wording of his article was far more nuanced and closer to the truth than the words on the side of the Vote Leave red bus, it still wasn't quite right. His article said
Once we have settled our accounts, we will take back control of roughly £350 million per week. It would be a fine thing, as many of us have pointed out, if a lot of that money went on the NHS…”
People like Guido Fawkes who have been claiming that "Boris's article wasn't wrong" overlook that the amount actually paid to the EU is net of the Maggie Thatcher rebate. The figures for the UK contribution as at 2014 were as follows:
The "Gross contribution" line at the top of the above table is purely notional. The actual gross contribution Britain was really paying, before you take account of money coming back, was the second line because the rebate comes off first.
Hence £276 million a week is the figure which would accurately have slotted into the form of words Boris Johnson's article used.
I must confess that I would love to see the head of the UK statistical service start writing to other politicians who quote rubbish statistics and not just Boris Johnson.
Perhaps, for instance, he could write to Jeremy Corbyn pointing out that the number of students from underprivileged backgrounds going to University has increased and not, as JC said, decreased.
Quoting ridiculous numbers is not the preserve of any part of Britain's political culture but we really need to make more effort to get it right.
Suffragette Millicent Fawcett statue gets planning approval.
I am pleased to learn that the proposed statue in parliament square of Millicent Fawcett, the suffragette leader, has been given planning approval this evening. (Link here.)
Fawcett was a truly remarkable lady who dedicated her life to campaigning through peaceful democratic means for women to get the vote, the right to own property and control over their own lives from 1866, when she was aged of 19, until women finally did get the vote sixty-two years later in 1928, the year before she died.
There is an excellent article which Lord Danny Finkelstein wrote in the Times on 4th April about this extraordinary woman and why she richly deserves to be remembered in this way, and it is still available on The Times website here.
Fawcett was a truly remarkable lady who dedicated her life to campaigning through peaceful democratic means for women to get the vote, the right to own property and control over their own lives from 1866, when she was aged of 19, until women finally did get the vote sixty-two years later in 1928, the year before she died.
There is an excellent article which Lord Danny Finkelstein wrote in the Times on 4th April about this extraordinary woman and why she richly deserves to be remembered in this way, and it is still available on The Times website here.
Monday, September 18, 2017
Hannah Flint on what it is like to be the child of a politician
It hasn't happened so much while my children were at secondary school, but while they were at primary school my son and daughter caught a certain amount of flak because I was the local Conservative parliamentary candidate.
At least that was from the other children, not the teachers. I was absolutely horrified when Colonel Bob Stewart MP said that one of the teachers at his son's school had told other children not to talk to young master Stewart because his dad was a Tory MP.
There is an excellent response to this troubling story in the Guardian - yes, they do sometimes print things I can strongly recommend and this is an example - by Hannah Flint, whose mother is a Labour MP.
You can read her piece,
"Yes, I'm the child of an MP. That's no reason to give me abuse"
by clicking here.
At least that was from the other children, not the teachers. I was absolutely horrified when Colonel Bob Stewart MP said that one of the teachers at his son's school had told other children not to talk to young master Stewart because his dad was a Tory MP.
There is an excellent response to this troubling story in the Guardian - yes, they do sometimes print things I can strongly recommend and this is an example - by Hannah Flint, whose mother is a Labour MP.
You can read her piece,
"Yes, I'm the child of an MP. That's no reason to give me abuse"
by clicking here.
St Bees Parish Council - September meeting
St Bees Parish council met this evening.
They have a slot on their agenda to discuss County Council & Highways matters which I always try to attend.
Constructive discussion this evening raising a number of points which I will take back to County Highways.
They have a slot on their agenda to discuss County Council & Highways matters which I always try to attend.
Constructive discussion this evening raising a number of points which I will take back to County Highways.
Sunday, September 17, 2017
Terror threat level dropped from "critical" to "severe"
Following the arrests in connection with the Parson's Green tube bombing home secretary Amber Rudd has announced that Britain's terror threat level has been dropped back from the highest level, "critical" to the second highest, "severe."
In the wake of the bombing the threat level had been raised to "critical." which meant that another attack could be imminent.
Today (Sunday 17th September), the Home Secretary confirmed the threat level has been lowered back down to severe - meaning that members of the military will return to their original postings.
Over the weekend, military personal were supporting the police - allowing more armed officers to patrol the streets.
Ms Rudd said: "Following the attack in Parsons Green last Friday the police have made good progress with what is an ongoing operation.
"The joint terrorist analysis centre, which reviews the threat level that the UK is under, has decided to lower that level from critical to severe.
"Severe still means that an attack is highly likely so I would urge everybody to continue to be vigilant but not alarmed."
In the wake of the bombing the threat level had been raised to "critical." which meant that another attack could be imminent.
Today (Sunday 17th September), the Home Secretary confirmed the threat level has been lowered back down to severe - meaning that members of the military will return to their original postings.
Over the weekend, military personal were supporting the police - allowing more armed officers to patrol the streets.
Ms Rudd said: "Following the attack in Parsons Green last Friday the police have made good progress with what is an ongoing operation.
"The joint terrorist analysis centre, which reviews the threat level that the UK is under, has decided to lower that level from critical to severe.
"Severe still means that an attack is highly likely so I would urge everybody to continue to be vigilant but not alarmed."
Sunday music spot for Battle of Britain Sunday
As a tribute to the brave men and women of the RAF, today's Sunday music spot is the theme from "633 squadron."
Battle of Britain memorial 2017
As previously posted today is "Battle of Britain Sunday" and there is a service of commemoration for the 76th anniversary of the campaign at Westminster Abbey at 11am this morning.
This commemoration takes place on the nearest Sunday to 15th September this year, because 15th September 1940 is regarded by many historians as the climax of the campaign - it was effectively the German's last major attempt to establish air superiority.
On 14 September, Hitler chaired a meeting of the German high command staff. Recognising that the Luftwaffe had not succeeded in gaining decisive air superiority over the RAF which would have been a necessary condition for a successful invasion of Britain, Hitler reportedly asked "Should we call it off altogether?"
General Hans Jeschonnek, Luftwaffe Chief of Staff, begged for a last chance to defeat the RAF.
The German high command agreed to try to break Britain's will to fight by destroying material infrastructure, the weapons industry, and stocks of fuel and food. On 15 September, two massive waves of German attacks were launched.
Both attacks were decisively repulsed by the RAF, and the Germans lost dozens of aircraft. The exact number given varies according to which source you check but there is no reasonable doubt that the Germans came off worse and lost a lot of aircraft - the consensus view is that about sixty German aircraft were shot down compared to about 26 RAF fighters.
More to the point, nobody on either side with the faintest grip on reality - which didn't include Hermann Göring but did include most of the other senior military commanders advising the Nazi dictator - could dispute that the fight put up by fighter command on 15th September proved that the RAF was very much still in the battle and therefore the crushing victory in the air which Hitler regarded as a necessary condition to attempt an invasion had not been achieved.
Two days after this German defeat Hitler postponed indefinitely preparations for the invasion of Britain. Hence 15 September is commemorated as Battle of Britain Day.
During the Battle of Britain the RAF fighter command which had up to about 700 operational fighters available at any one point in time during the campaign was defending Britain's skies against a Luftwaffe force of about 2,550 fighters and bombers.
When Churchill referred to "the few" he was specifically singling out the pilots, both British and foreign volunteers, who flew for the Royal Air force, of whom there are 2,939 on the RAF roll of honour between 10 July and 31 October 1940. About half of these survived the four-month campaign: 544 Fighter Command pilots were killed along with about a thousand pilots and aircrew from other parts of the RAF.
Volunteers from all over the world came to take part in the battle against fascism and the Royal Air Force roll of honour for the Battle of Britain recognises 595 non-British pilots (out of 2,936) as flying at least one authorised operational sortie with an eligible unit of the RAF or Fleet Air Arm during the period of the campaign. These included 145 Poles, 127 New Zealanders, 112 Canadians, 88 Czechoslovaks, 10 Irish, 32 Australians, 28 Belgians, 25 South Africans, 13 French, 9 Americans, 3 Rhodesians and one each from Jamaica and Palestine.
The War Cabinet created two Polish fighter squadrons, Nos. 302 and 303, in the summer of 1940. These were followed by other national units, including two Czech fighter squadrons. Many of the RAF’s aces were men from the Commonwealth and the highest scoring pilot of the campaign was Josef Frantisek, a Czech pilot flying with No. 303 (Polish) Fighter Squadron. No. 303 entered battle on 31 August, at the peak of the Battle of Britain, but quickly became Fighter Command’s highest claiming squadron with 126 kills.
The debt that Britain and the free world owes to the pilots of the RAF and all those who took part in the campaign - the observer corps, air defence gunners, air raid wardens, the plotters, radar and radio operators who guided the RAF planes to intercept the enemy and all the other RAF and other personnel who served in the campaign - is incalculable. We shall not forget them.
This commemoration takes place on the nearest Sunday to 15th September this year, because 15th September 1940 is regarded by many historians as the climax of the campaign - it was effectively the German's last major attempt to establish air superiority.
On 14 September, Hitler chaired a meeting of the German high command staff. Recognising that the Luftwaffe had not succeeded in gaining decisive air superiority over the RAF which would have been a necessary condition for a successful invasion of Britain, Hitler reportedly asked "Should we call it off altogether?"
General Hans Jeschonnek, Luftwaffe Chief of Staff, begged for a last chance to defeat the RAF.
The German high command agreed to try to break Britain's will to fight by destroying material infrastructure, the weapons industry, and stocks of fuel and food. On 15 September, two massive waves of German attacks were launched.
Both attacks were decisively repulsed by the RAF, and the Germans lost dozens of aircraft. The exact number given varies according to which source you check but there is no reasonable doubt that the Germans came off worse and lost a lot of aircraft - the consensus view is that about sixty German aircraft were shot down compared to about 26 RAF fighters.
More to the point, nobody on either side with the faintest grip on reality - which didn't include Hermann Göring but did include most of the other senior military commanders advising the Nazi dictator - could dispute that the fight put up by fighter command on 15th September proved that the RAF was very much still in the battle and therefore the crushing victory in the air which Hitler regarded as a necessary condition to attempt an invasion had not been achieved.
Two days after this German defeat Hitler postponed indefinitely preparations for the invasion of Britain. Hence 15 September is commemorated as Battle of Britain Day.
During the Battle of Britain the RAF fighter command which had up to about 700 operational fighters available at any one point in time during the campaign was defending Britain's skies against a Luftwaffe force of about 2,550 fighters and bombers.
When Churchill referred to "the few" he was specifically singling out the pilots, both British and foreign volunteers, who flew for the Royal Air force, of whom there are 2,939 on the RAF roll of honour between 10 July and 31 October 1940. About half of these survived the four-month campaign: 544 Fighter Command pilots were killed along with about a thousand pilots and aircrew from other parts of the RAF.
Volunteers from all over the world came to take part in the battle against fascism and the Royal Air Force roll of honour for the Battle of Britain recognises 595 non-British pilots (out of 2,936) as flying at least one authorised operational sortie with an eligible unit of the RAF or Fleet Air Arm during the period of the campaign. These included 145 Poles, 127 New Zealanders, 112 Canadians, 88 Czechoslovaks, 10 Irish, 32 Australians, 28 Belgians, 25 South Africans, 13 French, 9 Americans, 3 Rhodesians and one each from Jamaica and Palestine.
The War Cabinet created two Polish fighter squadrons, Nos. 302 and 303, in the summer of 1940. These were followed by other national units, including two Czech fighter squadrons. Many of the RAF’s aces were men from the Commonwealth and the highest scoring pilot of the campaign was Josef Frantisek, a Czech pilot flying with No. 303 (Polish) Fighter Squadron. No. 303 entered battle on 31 August, at the peak of the Battle of Britain, but quickly became Fighter Command’s highest claiming squadron with 126 kills.
The debt that Britain and the free world owes to the pilots of the RAF and all those who took part in the campaign - the observer corps, air defence gunners, air raid wardens, the plotters, radar and radio operators who guided the RAF planes to intercept the enemy and all the other RAF and other personnel who served in the campaign - is incalculable. We shall not forget them.
Battle of Britain Sunday
Today is Battle of Britain Sunday and it is right that we should remember those who took part in the Battle for Britain's freedom, and that of the world, particularly the RAF fighter pilots from all over the world who fought against four times their numbers.
As Winston Churchill told the House of Commons in perhaps the most famous phrase that master of the English language ever uttered:
Here is a recording of that speech
As Winston Churchill told the House of Commons in perhaps the most famous phrase that master of the English language ever uttered:
Here is a recording of that speech
Quote of the day 17th September 2017
"The most debilitating myth was that the state can perpetually provide a higher standard of living regardless of individual effort.
It can't and it never could."
(Margaret Thatcher)
It can't and it never could."
(Margaret Thatcher)
Saturday, September 16, 2017
Saturday music spot - "It might as well rain until September"
The sort of weather we have had this month has inevitably reminded me of this sixties classic written and sung by Carole King.
I gather that she originally wrote this for Bobby Vee, but the demo tape she wrote was Carole King's first big hit and made her a star in her own right.
Bobby Vee had notched up a major hit with Carole King’s and Gerry Goffin’s song "Take Good Care of My Baby" and "It Might As Well Rain Until September" was intended as a follow-up single for him. Carole recorded a demo version.
Bobby’s people turned down the song and Carole’s demo was released as a single on the Dimension label in 1962 and did very well. Bobby Vee eventually did record the song in 1963 and so did Helen Shapiro in 1964.
I gather that she originally wrote this for Bobby Vee, but the demo tape she wrote was Carole King's first big hit and made her a star in her own right.
Bobby Vee had notched up a major hit with Carole King’s and Gerry Goffin’s song "Take Good Care of My Baby" and "It Might As Well Rain Until September" was intended as a follow-up single for him. Carole recorded a demo version.
Bobby’s people turned down the song and Carole’s demo was released as a single on the Dimension label in 1962 and did very well. Bobby Vee eventually did record the song in 1963 and so did Helen Shapiro in 1964.
Beating the terrorists
Britain’s terror threat level has been raised from severe to critical, indicating a further attack may be imminent, following the Parsons Green tube bombing.
Police arrested an 18-year-old man in Dover this morning in connection with the attack.
This is the statement that the Prime Minister made yesterday following the attack and the decision to raise the terror threat level.
Police have asked people to be vigilant and report any information which might help thwart the terrorists.
Britain must and will rise to this challenge. The terrorists must not and will not win.
Police arrested an 18-year-old man in Dover this morning in connection with the attack.
This is the statement that the Prime Minister made yesterday following the attack and the decision to raise the terror threat level.
Police have asked people to be vigilant and report any information which might help thwart the terrorists.
Friday, September 15, 2017
Trudy Harrison;s surgeries.
Since being elected earlier this year Trudy Harrison, the MP for Copeland, has held 11 "surgery" sessions to meet constituents in various parts of Copeland constituency and had met with a further 47 constituents in their own homes or communities.
She carries out these engagements in accordance with the official security advice given to MPs for their protection and that of their staff.
It is most unfortunate that one of the local newspapers - a paper whose previous work I had often respected and from whom l would have hoped for better - published a headline this week which was very misleading.
Here is Trudy Harrison's response:
She carries out these engagements in accordance with the official security advice given to MPs for their protection and that of their staff.
It is most unfortunate that one of the local newspapers - a paper whose previous work I had often respected and from whom l would have hoped for better - published a headline this week which was very misleading.
Here is Trudy Harrison's response:
Time to crack down on abusive behaviour - in politics and in the home.
The level of abuse aimed at people in politics is getting worse and is having very damaging effects.
This week's Whitehaven News had a very unfortunate and unhelpful headline about the fact that the MP for Copeland wisely and responsibly follows the official security advice issued to MPs following the murder of Jo Cox to protect MPs and their staff from the possibility of being attacked while holding surgeries.
This does not mean, as anyone who reads the actual text of the article will realise but the headline did not make clear, that she does not hold surgeries or will not meet members of the public, it means that appointments have to be booked for those surgeries and constituents who do so will then be directed to the meeting place, rather than the general details of the events being published for any terrorist or dangerous nutter to read on the internet or in the paper.
It dos not matter what part of the political spectrum someone is on, or how strongly you or I may disagree with their views or what they are doing to the country, abuse and actual or threatened violence are not an acceptable means of expressing that disagreement. There is one legitimate means of trying to get rid of someone who you think should not hold an office and that is to vote against them at the next election.
Sadly MPs of all parties have been getting increasing levels of abuse and it is very apparent that this is particularly directed against women MPs.
As Tom Harris writes in today's Telegraph, " We tolerate a peculiarly nasty form of insult when it comes to -women in politics."
He writes:
The rules of this boys’ game are fairly straightforward. First, you wait until an opposing party has the temerity to elect a woman – a woman! – as its leader. Then, after you’ve finished with the obligatory tutting and rolling of the eyes, after you’ve made the inevitable (privately expressed) jokes about periods and shoes and make-up, you start throwing the insults.
This week's Whitehaven News had a very unfortunate and unhelpful headline about the fact that the MP for Copeland wisely and responsibly follows the official security advice issued to MPs following the murder of Jo Cox to protect MPs and their staff from the possibility of being attacked while holding surgeries.
This does not mean, as anyone who reads the actual text of the article will realise but the headline did not make clear, that she does not hold surgeries or will not meet members of the public, it means that appointments have to be booked for those surgeries and constituents who do so will then be directed to the meeting place, rather than the general details of the events being published for any terrorist or dangerous nutter to read on the internet or in the paper.
It dos not matter what part of the political spectrum someone is on, or how strongly you or I may disagree with their views or what they are doing to the country, abuse and actual or threatened violence are not an acceptable means of expressing that disagreement. There is one legitimate means of trying to get rid of someone who you think should not hold an office and that is to vote against them at the next election.
Sadly MPs of all parties have been getting increasing levels of abuse and it is very apparent that this is particularly directed against women MPs.
As Tom Harris writes in today's Telegraph, " We tolerate a peculiarly nasty form of insult when it comes to -women in politics."
He writes:
The rules of this boys’ game are fairly straightforward. First, you wait until an opposing party has the temerity to elect a woman – a woman! – as its leader. Then, after you’ve finished with the obligatory tutting and rolling of the eyes, after you’ve made the inevitable (privately expressed) jokes about periods and shoes and make-up, you start throwing the insults.
Now, here’s the tricky bit: like Just A Minute, the popular Radio 4 game show, you can be disqualified for repetition. The kind of insults you use against the incumbent must be of a different scale of ferocity, of violent imagery, than anything you’ve used on the woman’s predecessors. Current players of this game – Cable, George Osborne, Owen Smith – have really got the hang on this rule: Gordon Brown never had to sit at the dining table with his family and laugh off suggestions that he be murdered, cut up into portions and placed in freezer bags.
As Tom says,
"We need to stop using this kind of language, which is particularly damaging when it emanates from the mouths of those who claim to believe in the need to encourage more women into politics. Theresa May is not fair game for misogyny just because she happens to be doing things to the country with which you disagree."
It's happening to women of all parties and whether the person it is directed against is the present PM, Diane Abbott, Nicola Sturgeon or anyone else, it's got to stop. All parties must crack down on any of their own members who are caught doing it.
I don't of course mean that you cannot express disagreement with someone's policies, make fun of a aft argument they have produced or a failure to add up numbers correctly. But we should not be using violent or sexist imagery, let alone threats of violence.
As I mentioned in another post earlier today, the level of domestic abuse in Copeland is shocking. I don't believe that any other part of Britain should be complacent about this problem either. A single case of domestic assault is one too many.
It is hardly going to help stamp out domestic violence if we allow the language of violent abuse to be used to carry out political discourse.
As Tom says,
"We need to stop using this kind of language, which is particularly damaging when it emanates from the mouths of those who claim to believe in the need to encourage more women into politics. Theresa May is not fair game for misogyny just because she happens to be doing things to the country with which you disagree."
It's happening to women of all parties and whether the person it is directed against is the present PM, Diane Abbott, Nicola Sturgeon or anyone else, it's got to stop. All parties must crack down on any of their own members who are caught doing it.
I don't of course mean that you cannot express disagreement with someone's policies, make fun of a aft argument they have produced or a failure to add up numbers correctly. But we should not be using violent or sexist imagery, let alone threats of violence.
As I mentioned in another post earlier today, the level of domestic abuse in Copeland is shocking. I don't believe that any other part of Britain should be complacent about this problem either. A single case of domestic assault is one too many.
It is hardly going to help stamp out domestic violence if we allow the language of violent abuse to be used to carry out political discourse.
Report back on Health meetings this week
I attended three health meetings this week.
Lead members of the Cumbria Health Scrutiny committee met with the Clinical Commissioning Group in Carlisle on Wednesday and with the Morecombe Bay Universities Hospital Trust at Westmorland General Hospital yesterday (Thursday 14th September).
These are part of a series of regular meetings between Health Scrutiny councillors and the providers of NHS healthcare in Cumbria. These meetings are a valuable channel of communication.
To permit a frank exchange of views on both sides the meetings take place under what is sometimes known as "Chatham House Rules" - e.g. the health trusts can tell us what they really think about issues like how much money the NHS needs and how things are actually going - on the understanding that we won't go rushing to the press and use it to score political points. By the same token we can raise the health issues that we are most concerned about and the health trusts know that we are not just scoring points because there is no political mileage for us in doing so.
However this does not mean that the meetings are secret - I wouldn't be in a position to publish this post if they were - the fact that they take place is in the public domain and the list of issues discussed is published in due course.
I don't think I would be breaking any rules if I say that both this week's meetings were useful and constructive and there was a frank but positive exchange of views.
The other health meeting I attended this week was the Copeland Health and Wellbeing forum which brings together Cumbria County Council and Copeland Borough Council in their Public Health promotion roles with a large number of private sector and voluntary bodies.
There are far too many such initiatives going on to give full details of them all, but they include
* Well Whitehaven - an initiative centred on Mirehouse ward (though also including a large chunk of Harbour and with impact on neighbouring areas) to support local bottom-up community initiatives to develop more healthy lifestyles
* Stoptober - iff you smoke and are happy with the effect that this has on your body, that is your decision. But if you want to give up, there will be a promotion and support in October to help you to give up smoking in October.
* Alcohol Awareness - there are initiatives in place to encourage those who drink alcohol to do so safely and responsibly
* Falls prevention - an initiative to help people to look at reducing their risk of injury from falls. this will include a "slipper swap" at Whitehaven Library later this month - you can bring an old pair of slippers to Whitehaven Library and they will be replaced with a new pair which will reduce your risk of falling.
* Domestic Violence - review of the position the police statistics for domestic violence in Cumbria generally and in Copeland are absolutely horrifying. Given that most of those who do eventually go to the police say that they didn't do so until after there had been a large number of previous incidents (most often the problem is only reported when a pregnancy changes the situation,) the real incidence of domestic violence including unreported instances may be far worse. There is no "magic bullet" to solve this but it needs to be addressed.
Lead members of the Cumbria Health Scrutiny committee met with the Clinical Commissioning Group in Carlisle on Wednesday and with the Morecombe Bay Universities Hospital Trust at Westmorland General Hospital yesterday (Thursday 14th September).
These are part of a series of regular meetings between Health Scrutiny councillors and the providers of NHS healthcare in Cumbria. These meetings are a valuable channel of communication.
To permit a frank exchange of views on both sides the meetings take place under what is sometimes known as "Chatham House Rules" - e.g. the health trusts can tell us what they really think about issues like how much money the NHS needs and how things are actually going - on the understanding that we won't go rushing to the press and use it to score political points. By the same token we can raise the health issues that we are most concerned about and the health trusts know that we are not just scoring points because there is no political mileage for us in doing so.
However this does not mean that the meetings are secret - I wouldn't be in a position to publish this post if they were - the fact that they take place is in the public domain and the list of issues discussed is published in due course.
I don't think I would be breaking any rules if I say that both this week's meetings were useful and constructive and there was a frank but positive exchange of views.
The other health meeting I attended this week was the Copeland Health and Wellbeing forum which brings together Cumbria County Council and Copeland Borough Council in their Public Health promotion roles with a large number of private sector and voluntary bodies.
There are far too many such initiatives going on to give full details of them all, but they include
* Well Whitehaven - an initiative centred on Mirehouse ward (though also including a large chunk of Harbour and with impact on neighbouring areas) to support local bottom-up community initiatives to develop more healthy lifestyles
* Stoptober - iff you smoke and are happy with the effect that this has on your body, that is your decision. But if you want to give up, there will be a promotion and support in October to help you to give up smoking in October.
* Alcohol Awareness - there are initiatives in place to encourage those who drink alcohol to do so safely and responsibly
* Falls prevention - an initiative to help people to look at reducing their risk of injury from falls. this will include a "slipper swap" at Whitehaven Library later this month - you can bring an old pair of slippers to Whitehaven Library and they will be replaced with a new pair which will reduce your risk of falling.
* Domestic Violence - review of the position the police statistics for domestic violence in Cumbria generally and in Copeland are absolutely horrifying. Given that most of those who do eventually go to the police say that they didn't do so until after there had been a large number of previous incidents (most often the problem is only reported when a pregnancy changes the situation,) the real incidence of domestic violence including unreported instances may be far worse. There is no "magic bullet" to solve this but it needs to be addressed.
Thursday, September 14, 2017
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)