I was somewhat surprised by the lack of traffic this morning on certain social networking sites about the demotion of Sir Fred Goodwin to plain old Mr Goodwin. There was a certain rumble but nothing like the massed ranks of gloaters I’d expected. Perhaps, I thought, given the British public’s legendary propensity for justice and goodwill, people had decided, justice having been done, that it was best to leave the man to repent in peace.

I scrubbed that idea when I realised it was patently rubbish.

I suspect the quietude we are currently seeing on this particular front is down to neither side of the political debate being able to claim crowing rights in the matter.

The left can hardly bleat. It was under dear old Tony Blair that the lowly Mr Goodwin was elevated to the peerage for “Services to banking”. I toyed with the idea of putting together a novelty forfeiture committee certificate saying he’d been stripped of the accolade “For services exclusively to banking while ignoring the risks to the rest of us poor proles” but thought better of it.

The left, in this instant, stood by and did nothing while the bankers rose to fame. I can’t remember much in the way of vocal protest at the time and while the Labour Party basked in the kind of attention from business of which they had hitherto only guiltily dreamed it’s not all that surprising.

But while the left could be accused of sleeping on the watch, the right have little claim on the moral high ground either. I may have to plough through a slack handful of Hansards to prove my point but I don’t recall the great PMQ speeches of Messrs Hague, Duncan Smith, Howard or indeed Cameron decrying the level of fawning and sycophancy towards the financial elite during Labour’s terms. Neither can I remember any mass protests in the streets or indeed in the commons demanding tougher regulation for the multi-billion-pound casinos using the fabric of our economy for chips. Then again I don’t remember them saying much about spending too much and not saving for the future. Can’t bring a single speech to mind. The memory is such a fragile thing.

As for the current leadership of both the left and the right neither seem particularly keen to say much on the subject now the deed is done. Four years after the cataclysm, Mr Milliband might be asked why he hadn’t called for such a thing before or why he wasn’t now calling for the heads of other ennobled members of the board of RBS.

Likewise Mr Cameron seems reluctant to engage in the debate, perhaps for fear of exposing the truth, which is that rather than a Conservative party Röhm-Putsch to cleanse the organisation of it’s backstairs bastards and draw a line under the affair, the grandees have circled the wagons and thrown dear old Freddie out to face the Sioux with an archery target painted on his gingham shirt.

Her Majesty, I suspect has the best complaint but is restricted by noblesse oblige from complaining about being called upon by a former PR Executive to wield the sceptre against such a transparently sacrificial goat.

No. Whatever your political complexion there’s little schadenfreude to be gained from Mr Goodwin’s exit from the other place. The whole episode was a disgrace for us all.

Fear not though, there is one thing you can think of which will unite us all with a wry smile at Freddie’s descent back in to the the ranks.

No doubt when he was ennobled Mr Goodwin will have done what all those gaining a new title do. On gaining a PHD I understand the majority’s reaction is to change ones stationary and particulars to reflect the new letters before ones name. Of course being a diligent manager of RBS, Mr G will have taken out an account with his own company and had his cards changed in a heartbeat.

So we can all sit back now with a warm feeling in our hearts as we think of him finally getting a chance to see what it’s like to be a customer of a high street bank in Britain, the like of which he once commanded.

Imagine trying to explain to ‘Rebecca’, the hard pressed engineering graduate from Mumbai that you haven’t lost your plastic or had it stolen, you’ve simply fallen from grace. I suspect there isn’t a form for that.

He’ll presumably have to repeat the exercise with Adam & Company, who, I understand, now deal with his finances on a day to day basis.

When you tire of that image (as you may within a month or so), refresh the smile by imagining him explaining it all again to the DVLA in Swansea.

 

Revolution in suburbia A recent post by Fausty reminded me that I’d written this a while back, so… enjoy.

As many people have observed one of the best ways for an individual to very quietly combat the creeping power of the state is to “starve the beast”, don’t give it any money you don’t have to. Now this doesn’t need to mean doing anything illegal, in fact you could even say you’re just following their advice. Follow the example of those early radicals pictured at the top of this article and grow your own, and if you can’t do that just spend less ask yourself:
Do I need that enough to give this government 20% of the price?

If we buy less we reduce our carbon footprints, if we grow our own we reduce our food miles, if we do our own repairs and help each other out for free we’re taking part in the big society – see we’re just doing what the Government wants. We can kill it by just following it’s own advice. Though of course they already worrying about (though not yet for tax reasons) the radical actions of picking wild berries. Really annoy them and Brew your own not only do they not get their double hit of taxes but you screw up their statistics as well. By preparing more of your own food you might even be able to avoid the fat tax if it makes it over here.

No single huge act that raises any of us from the crowd or attracts unwelcome attention, just hundred of small acts of refusal, starving the Government by a thousand cuts.

Become a dissident:

“Say no to government in any way you can, in the workplace, among friends, on the internet. There are a hundred little soapboxes to climb onto. Don’t be quite so concerned that you think left-wing bloggers are chuckleheads or right-wing bloggers are evil Tories. If you are not an apparatchik, you’re little people and you’re all the same to the ruling class, who went from being public servants to being autocrats in a remarkably small space of time.”

Become part of a clever revolution, we only need to convince 10% of the people.

 

Despite all the fun and games happening in Europe I’ve been rather quite on the matter, and am actually going to continue with that with this post. So many other people are doing a much better job of commenting all I could really add is a “what they said”. I am however going to use the EU crisis and a post about it to pose a question that’s puzzled me for years and which The Snowolf just expressed in a far more eloquent fashion than I’d manage. What the Snowolf said was:

“Politicians get very sniffy about populist policy decisions, this is no surprise, because as far as they’re concerned, it is our job to accept their decisions, not their job to act on our wishes. But of course doing the popular thing makes you, well, popular.”

Which sums up rather what’s puzzled me for so long about politicians being “populist”, after all isn’t populism the whole basis of at least our electoral system if not democracy as a whole?* The theory is as I understand it that the wannabe politician makes loads of promises and the most popular or populist gets elected and then ignores those promises.

Then when they want to be elected again they do the whole popular thing again, and oddly we believe them. It’s just in between times both the politicians, the media and all sorts of activists seem to think that populism is a terrible terrible thing. Almost makes one suspect that they do view us as an inconvenience.

So what’s puzzling me is what exactly is the difference between bad evil “populism” and “representing the majority”? Or is it one of those irregular verbs, like:
I’m erotic
You’re kinky
They’re perverted
So:
I represent the silent majority
You’re populist
They’re a rabble rouser?

I do of course welcome both other explanations and improvements to my irregular verbs.

* Both populism and democracy have roots in words meaning the people? demos and populous?

 

Sorry to be posting so much in such a small space of time, rest assured this will not be kept up and normal lack of service will soon be resumed (not being on holiday will no doubt help). However this evening I actually remembered to watch some TV I’d seen trailers for, this is a bit of a calender event but the trailer had annoyed me which is a great motivation. If you didn’t watch it do make time to watch Channel 4′s “the flaw” it’s really rather good, even if not entirely convincing. The highlight of course being Alan Greenspan admitting he was wrong, but to look at a slight hint of the incoherence from the blurb:

“He’d placed too much faith in the self-correcting power of free markets. In a system based on the unsustainable lending necessary to fuel continued spending, the world found to its cost what happens when that credit bubble bursts.

Drawing on interviews with leading world economists, The Flaw attempts to explain – in unprecedented depth – the underlying causes of the global financial crisis.

Unless the root causes of the problem are addressed, the system may collapse again, and next time it may not be possible for governments to rescue it.”

As I’m going to mutter about most of that I’d just ask if anyone’s noticed the governments actually managing to rescue the system this time round?

But anyway onto my notes, this may not be entirely coherent as I’ll address things as they came up in the program. Apparently there’s been a total failure of markets, which seems odd as the idea of the markets I thought included the capacity for anything to fail so that prices can be corrected – that the various markets haven’t been allowed to collapse would seem to me tend to suggest that market forces haven’t actually been in play. The efficiency of markets only operating when prices are allowed to move downwards as well as up, which is something governments aren’t terribly keen on. Amusingly for me markets were described as the wisdom of the crowd reaching a consensus on prices, which seems a lot like the consensus wisdom of the crowds decision making the anti market occupy/anonymous groups use. So you’ve one consensus model saying a very similar consensus model has been proven to have failed.

Also on the amusement front was a New York Times economist, so one of the experts that’s telling us all how to fix it and what’s wrong, took out a mortgage based purely on his having a job with no regards for his income and is now hugely in debt and at risk of losing the house he couldn’t afford. He did at least admit he should have known better and that he was taking out a dodgy mortgage – one does have to wonder if he can screw that up so well why should we listen to anything else he has to say. He may of course be atypical of economic experts – I’ll enjoy the schadenfreude regardless. It does however highlight that whilst we all busy blaming the greed and short termism of the banks we’ve been behaving in exactly the same way (I am of course painting with a broad brush here). The lesson of the program for me was that a lot of the people that invested in the idea that property prices would keep rising ignoring the age old adage of:
“Don’t invest what you can’t afford to lose”

In that regards one thing I’d never considered was the difference between “goods” and “assets” – something I hadn’t to be fair given any thought to. “Goods” are apparently things we buy to use, “assets” we buy to sell on, people buying “goods” to treat them as “assets” screws up the market. So the popular trend of buying houses not to live in but as things to sell to make money, stops the usual supply and demand price correction. Of course once we were all buying to get rich Governments weren’t going to let the market operate and cause us all to expereince the fact that “prices can go down as well as up”.

Now onto to the fun bit of Greenspan saying he was wrong, this was obviously quite enjoyable – except he said he believed that markets were self correcting but then said he didn’t let the market self correct and this proved his model was wrong. The governments during his tenure of being wrong acting to prevent asset markets slowing down thus proving that markets didn’t self correct? Which as I may have mentioned does kind of make me think we’ve not seen free markets actually in action. A side effect of asset prices being supported by the Government is that the rich get richer as by and large the richer you are the more assets you own (after all you only need so many ipods, cars etc.). Which would seem again to suggest to me that the income inequality we hear so much about is less due to the deliberate evilness of the rich so much as the Government acting to make the rich richer whilst borrowing more from the rich to do so. Why the Government would do this is an interesting question, almost as interesting as why we let them.

The current inequality in incomes was last matched by the 1920′s, when there was the same debt based inflation of the value of “assets” (unless I misunderstood what was said). Then I got confused again as apparently until recently house prices have been quite static as have wages (both adjusted for inflation), at least until we all started borrowing to buy houses as investment. The idea of wages and house prices being fairly stable doesn’t seem a terrible thing to me – until we all decided we need to borrow money we can’t afford to lose to invest in property we’re complaining is too expensive. Once we were all borrowing to invest it became a lot more profitable to lend us the money than put it into factories, and banks and the “evil” rich being sensible sorts lent us the money so they could make more of it. Quite what would have happened if we hadn’t all wanted investment properties and easy credit is another good question, but once enough of us were demanding it there was no way our Governments would deny us our bread and circuses and so the bubbles had to keep inflating and the printing presses had to start running. Quite why stock holders followed the civil servant and governmental lead of paying bonuses for failure, is a mystery the program didn’t touch on.

The last take away message of the program, which is the bit which annoyed me in the first place, was that over the last 30 years living standards have decreased for all but the very top. A quick poll on the walk the other day suggests either we were all at the very top or that this is abject nonsense. Anna Raccoons recent article also seems to suggest it may not be quite true (Claiming benefits? There’s an app for that).

I’m sure I’ve made many foolish mistakes in the above, if someone could be so kind as to explain it to me.

 

hat mask and gloves Whilst it’s still the season for running around in silly masks and costumes, I thought I’d link to this rather excellent article by Leg Iron concerning the nature of Guy Fawkes masks. Leg Iron touches on something I’ll happily whinge about for ages in that the use of the Guy Fawkes symbolism for all manners of protest dilutes it’s meaning and power (much like there now being a ribbon for everything). I did say whilst on the walk with OH the other day that if anyone asks what I was protesting I’d claim I was for the restoration of the Catholic Monarchy, after all that’s what the Gun Powder conspirators were after. Equally valid to my mind would be to claim that I was recalling one of the most famous attempt at treason in our history and using that as a means to the ongoing treasonous acts being carried out in the houses of Parliament today. Sadly it would seem that many people running around in Guy Fawkes masks are ignorant of the history (and rhymes) behind it (The anarchists(tm) counter protesting at the rally against debt insisted they Gunpowder plotters were anarchists not papists). Whilst such ignorance would be understandable out in the colonies* it is less so here.

Maybe they view them as “V for vendetta” masks, which has a related but different symbolism**, but even there I have a suspicion they may have missed the point. Unless I very much misunderstood the film the main themes seemed to be that of personal vengeance and the over throw of an authoritarian government. Now in places they seem to have got the hang of the last theme, though in the UK a lot of them seemed quite quiet about the expenses scandals, and the amount of money being given to big business until Labour lost power (which might make the cynical amongst you wonder if they actually have the same problem with a controlling government that V potentially did). The protests today are mainly focussed on various Governments imposing more controls on all manner of people, , rather than fighting against a Government that has too much power they seem to be arguing endlessly for more Government power to do the sort of thing they approve of (what ever that may be). To borrow from the film they want to get rid of the current “Adam Sutler”s to put their own “Adam Sutler” in place. It is possible though that they take the imagery from the original book and are trying to create an anarchist state (though calling for more Government intervention would seem an odd way to do it). It rather leaves it s a symbol so diluted in much of it’s use that it’s become meaningless – meaning everything to everyone it ends up meaning nothing. Which is really rather a shame as it had a lot going for it. Scarlet Standard is far more generous to them, but highlights many of the problems I have and leaves me still with the question of if they don’t have any clear demands how will they know when they’re met and how will the politicians know what is actually being asked of them? A protest of “down with that sort of thing” will have difficulty achieving anything, except maybe helping the state get practised at how to deal with this sort of thing.

i almost forgot I can’t leave this without touching on the incoherent article on V-Masks from the BBC, which has this following classic bit of research:
“Early in the book V destroys the Houses of Parliament by blowing it up,”
Would would think maybe the researcher hasn’t watched the film to know it was the Old Bailey that was blown up near the start of the film ,but as they later went on to say:
“The film of V for Vendetta ends with an image of a crowd of Londoners all wearing Guy Fawkes masks, unarmed and marching on parliament.”

so no marks for the sub editors either, they do make the rather interesting comparison of the V-masks and Che t-shirts which is probably fair as neither has much to do with historical figures. I think I rather like the creator of the mask though as they observe that it’s a fundamentally violent image and even better for my money:
“The idea of the V mask being appropriated as a political symbol is inherently ridiculous”
though I’d argue that the same may not be quite so true of the imagery of Guy Fawkes, which maybe just indicates that it’s worth keeping the two separate (as much as such a thing is possible).

* I’m sure there may be better collective nouns but..
** The film really mangles the original Guy Fawkes motives:
“a great citizen wished to embed the fifth of November for ever in our memory. His hope was to remind the world that fairness, justice, and freedom are more than words, they are perspectives”
Quite frankly that’s nonsense, they didn’t really care about the date it was just when Parliament resumed and it had little to do with freedom, justice and fairness so much as the restoration of a Catholic power upon the throne. As long as it was a papist being unjust and unfair they were quite happy for things to carry on pretty much as was. Social campaigners they weren’t.

 

Due to having recently acquired a social life, previously lost behind the sofa, I’m rather light on blogging and even further behind the news. Sadly I will catch up and probably go back to a load of things that no one’s interested in any more – however in the mean time it seems the police would like us all to snitch on any anarchist sympathisers we might know though they apparently have already backed down

Captain Ranty as ever has is covered as does The nameless libertarian so there’s really nothing left to say it’s all done and dusted in less than a day – till the next time round.

However if you think I’m going to pass by an opportunity to link to the Sex pistols Anarchy in the UK? You’ve got to be out of your ever loving gourd.

Enjoy….

 

Yoinked directly from The Devils Kitchen from a rather excellent article by Bella Gerens, I think this really sums up a huge amount of what I find appealing and a good thing about the Libertarians:

Libertarians don’t fight with left-wingers, they fight with each other. It’s the only ‘mob’ you’ll ever see where the crowd hears a rousing speech and says to one another, ‘You know, I’m not sure I agree with him. He misses Friedman’s point about the fact that…’ and then argues all the way to the pub, where they’d all much rather be anyway.

 

Just because I think they’re terribly worth reading please let me point you towards the relatively new, under this name:
Traumaville Gazette
Their past blog was excellent, and now they’re dipping their toes into the morass of political blogging, it should be fun.

 

Just for a change I’m really behind all the cool kids in getting round to comment on the recent Libertarian party debacle. I don’t know any of the people involved, though having read Anna Raccoons blog for quite a while if the counter claims against her were true it would be as disappointing as if her claims were true. The entire situation was really enough to make one lose heart entirely, having held quiet this long though does mean that more information has crept out and LPUK have joined the ranks of the major parties in going for the whitewash approach of a limited, unpublished investigation that defends the indefensible. The alternative report put out unofficially by one of those involved does not make for happy reading, one is left in agreement with Katabasis that LPUK “has become nothing short of a full on liability to have anything to do with.” Which may not be an issue as the party may not exist much longer which is in some ways a shame, but perhaps better it die quickly and young than divert peoples energies away from trying to pursue the goals it claimed to stand for.

So what next for fledging Libertarians like myself*? Do we decamp to one of the larger parties and try and influence them? UKIP would certainly welcome us** and some people whose writing I respect have jumped to that ship. I’m not quite ready to do that yet, despite having voted that way previously.

So what next, as the Rally against debt proved (and was discussed afterwards) we need to be better at organising ourselves to get any sort of libertarian message across, and maybe that can be cross party and maybe a loser grouping might well be the way forward. It’s certainly something that appeals to be, a libertarian pressure group, after all look how much influence all those fake charities wield. There’s really no need to be a political party to influence the political agenda these days. If any non-party association type thing springs up I think I’d happy muck in, we don’t need to agree on everythign or have all the answers to start adding a much needed voice of opposition to the general trend towards decreasing liberty and larger state, and maybe by avoiding becoming a political party we might achieve more. 38Degrees and the like suggest it’s very far from the worst way to go – one thing is for sure we need to build and keep up momentum otherwise we’ll always just be a few hundred (or less) standing around Westminster.

* Well sort of I’m probably more old liberal but I think a libertarian voice is vital as a counter balance in current politics – or as facebook might put it “it’s complex”

** Not technically me as I never quite got round to joining LPUK

 

OK I promise not to say too much more about the AV referendum, I’ve been and voted, and really most everything that could be said has been. However I’m seeing loads of pro-AV articles at the moment, and there is a huge fallacy they’re promoting that is really starting to get on my nerves. The claim that to win in AV you have to have majority support is just nonsense, as a simplistic example can show (well simplistic examples are popular with Yes2AV so I don’t see why I can’t use them).

Let’s consider 10 voters just because it makes the maths easy, and they’re voting for a whole 5 parties. Voting as follows:

Parties
Voters Party 1 Party 2 Party 3 Party 4 Party 5
Voter A 1 2 3 4
Voter B 1 2 2 3
Voter C 1 2 4 3
Voter D 1 2 4 3
Voter E 3 2 4 1
Voter F 2 1 3
Voter G 2 3 1
Voter H 1 2 3
Voter I 1 2 3
Voter G 1 2 3

So with out hypothetical votes cast lest see what happens:

Round one Party 1 and Party 2 both have 3 first preference votes, so more than the other parties so they go through. The parties with the least first preference votes now get dropped, so goodbye to parties 3 and 4. Party 5 got 2 votes so they go through to round two.

In round two Party 1 picks up one second preference vote giving it 4 votes.

Party 2 doesn’t pick up any second preference votes so still has 3 votes.

Party 5 also doesn’t have any second preference votes so still has two votes.

So that ends the counting and Party 1 wins with 40% of the vote and so gets in on a minority of the votes, when the electorate would rather have been governed by someone else. In fact on the strength of second preference votes Party3 is by far the most popular choice with a stonking 80% os the second preference votes. Too bad they got knocked out on the first count.

So there you go, AV still not making sure that the winning party actually has any support from the majority of the population. Fantastic.

Yes I know this is contrived, but it makes the maths simpler and the various, cat Vs. dogs and pubs Vs. coffee were equally contrived so as a popular idiom would have it “bite me”. Oh sorry for the lack of graphics, they’re really not my strong point, if someone wants to make a flash movie then be my guest.

© 2011 Anonymong Suffusion theme by Sayontan Sinha