Boris Johnson - Top Cornflake ?

Delivering the annual Margaret Thatcher (Beyond Satire) Lecture to the Centre for Policy Studies last night, Alexander Boris de Pfeffel Johnson was apparently positioning himself to replace David Cameron as Tory leader, playing to the neglected right wing of the party as he mocked the 16% "of our species" with an IQ below 85, and called for more to be done to help that needy 2% of the population who have an IQ above 130. [1]

"Inequality is essential for the spirit of envy and keeping up with the Joneses that is, like greed, a valuable spur to economic activity." Said Boris.

"The harder you shake the pack the easier it will be for some cornflakes to get to the top." Said Boris.

Memorable and worrying sound bites - but what do they actually mean ?

A high IQ score is synonymous with a desire for material wealth ?

The larger the gap between rich and poor, the greater the chance of sustainable economic growth ?

 Most of the Royal family will have their state benefits withdrawn because they’re too thick ?

Johnson’s bravura performances frequently seem to involve a lot of smoke & mirrors to conceal his vicious and ruthless ambition, so it’s probably not worth too much effort in trying to unpick the detail of this latest display of lamp-post pissing.

What does seem clear though is that, between the Tories and UKIP, a major tranche of the Westminster political establishment is returning unashamedly to the right, which at least should reduce the disingenuous waffle that has prevailed from both sides of the arena over the last few years and, hopefully, make any up-coming referendum and election campaigns much more transparent. An interesting couple of years lie ahead.....

---

[1] From the context of Johnson’s speech it’s difficult to know whether he is referring here to the human species as a whole or specifically to ex-members of the Bullingdon Club.

Of bears and beavers

And so the Scottish government have produced their blueprint for independence. 

Amidst the all the clamour from scrutineers and nit-pickers, a refreshing piece by Simon Jenkins in the Guardian today makes the point that the goal of independence isn’t to get rich, it’s to become independent of the domineering neighbour, in the same way that some 30 other countries have done in the last 50 years.

There is an interesting, and only slightly tenuous, parallel with the growing appetite for re-wilding[1] the countryside which has finally reached even Britain. This is not so much to do with re-introducing bears and beavers as giving a place more freedom to achieve a natural equilibrium, with all the joyful diversity that results, instead of imposing an alien and destructive mono-culture. That freedom, of course, comes with uncertainty about what will evolve, but that is the fundamental point - the possibility of change. A liberated process, rather than a prescribed outcome. No wonder the paternalistic & backwards-looking elite are worried.

In Scotland, where currently more than half the land is owned by fewer than 500 people, few of whom live there (ref), and where barren deserts for shooting grouse & deer, the so-called sporting estates, amount to 5.2 million acres (ref), the time for political and ecological re-wilding is long overdue. (Apologies for repeating the stat about half the land owned by fewer than 500 people twice in a row - but it does beggar belief !)

---

[1] For more about rewilding, read George Monbiot’s slightly rambling but otherwise excellent Feral, and look at the fine work of Trees For Life

Bring on the bigots

The outcome of next year’s referendum on Scottish independence remains very uncertain, not made any clearer by the plethora of partisan opinion polls from both sides.

Independence would undoubtedly create the opportunity for a radically different future, free from sickening delusions of imperial grandeur, a future with greater ecological, social, and fiscal responsibility than seems otherwise likely if we remain tied to London.

On the other hand, many people in Scotland seem fearful of the unknown, or of the prospect of ending up with a magnified version of the less inspiring aspects of Scottish local authorities. Three hundred years of subjugation have successfully eroded the collective self-confidence. And half of the land remains in the private ownership of fewer than 500 people – most of whom are either Anglo-Scottish aristocracy or foreign investors (ref). Neither group is known for their progressive liberalism.

But nine months is a long time in politics. If, as seems likely, UKIP flourish in the European elections next May, then the prospect of the lovely Nigel Farage joining forces with Cameron, Osborne and Hunt could easily tip the balance for Scotland, as David Gow suggested in the Guardian this week. Even the uncertainties of independence would become attractive in comparison, and Farage might yet go down in history with Mel Gibson as a surreal poster-boy for Scottish independence.

Old age pensioners and other paupers

Charles, Prince of Wales, Duke of Rothesay, Duke of Cornwall, heir apparent to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom and the other Commonwealth Realms, turned 65 today, making him eligible for a free bus pass and a state pension. Fortunately, for him at least, he probably doesn’t need any further state hand-outs. Between the Royal Tax-Avoidance Team of accountants (ref) and the fact that much of the UK is unaccountably still locked into a ludicrously medieval mindset of feudalism, he can already look forward to a reasonably comfortable old age, courtesy of his loyal serfs and vassals.

Meanwhile, continuing another spectacularly outmoded tradition, the Right Honourable David Cameron, Prime Minister and First Lord of the Treasury, stood up on his hind legs this week to address the privileged assembly of lords, ladies and other dignitaries at the gilded tables of the Lord Mayor’s banquet, declaring grandly that the Age of Austerity will continue (ref).

Now, we have to be a little discerning here. After all, this materialist, class-obsessed society of ours could certainly benefit from some evenly distributed austerity. So, if he was flagging up the end of gross corporate profiteering, and tax-avoidance by the very rich, the end of government by a coterie of self-serving elitist idiots, the end of monarchy, then raise your glasses.

On the other hand, he was probably just paving the way for the next election, to show that increasing hardship for the least well-off is all part of his grand plan for the greater good of his chums (sorry – I meant to write for the greater good of society), using this particularly lavish occasion with his usual unerring judgement, to show his understanding of what it’s like with a tightened cummerbund.

To vote or not to vote

Writing at length in the Guardian, motley-coated jester Russell Brand has sparked a timely debate about the purpose of voting in a “mature” democracy such as we are alleged to have here in the UK.

In most societies the universal right to vote has been only achieved after a lengthy struggle, and is not to be discarded lightly. On the other hand, in our consumerist capitalist world, the real power no longer lies with our elected governments – it’s in the sticky hands of the multi-national corporations of food, fuel, weapons, banking, news media, et al, so the concept of meaningful democratic governance is wearing a little thin. On that basis, the relevance of which lickspittle government we vote for is also fading, although probably still better done than not.

What seems increasingly important though is how we respond to the insidious corporate pressures that bombard us on a daily basis to win our hearts, minds, and purses. And every choice we make, whether we reject or accept those pressures, is another form of voting – and one which has the capacity to be infinitely more liberating & affirming than the quinquennial fiasco of parliamentary elections. 

Human Rights & Wrongs

November 12^th is the date of elections to the UN Council on Human Rights. Amongst this year’s candidates are such luminaries of liberty as Russia, Saudi Arabia, Syria and China.

That is the Council set up to replace the previous UN Commission on Human Rights, which had lost credibility by extending membership to countries with poor human rights records, so it will be an interesting election.

To be fair, everybody’s new best friend and trading partner, China, has claimed unremitting efforts for promotion of Human Rights, although judging by their continuing repression of Tibet, Inner Mongolia and Xinjiang, they are being a wee bit selective in just which humans they mean. Their policy in Tibet continues to be particularly vicious, and this is an auspicious time to sign (and circulate) a petition to add to the pressure for them to back off.