The Bewilderness

Desperately seeking subsidy

There is a lot of confusion over the status of Scotland if the vote for independence were to achieve its goal. Scottish nationalists argue that Scotland and what dismissively is referred to as 'the rest' would both have equal rights as successor states. This is certainly a new one for me. Secession equals two new states: not an existing United Kingdom and an independent Scotland.

Such semantics and screwball definitions are par for the Scottish nationalists; their desperation to get European subventions to replace ours is cringeworthy. Scotland without Europe will leave the subsidy junkies without a fix. Not that the English are much better in supping from Nanny's teat.

The House of Lards

The process of constitutional vandalism will be completed under this nominally conservative government. Whilst questions of democratic validity are left unanswered, Nick Clegg demonstrates his contempt for the 'ancient constitution' by comparing us with Belize (our former colony) and Jordan. And the cure: senators on 15 year terms, giving certain parties a potential stranglehold over process, elected by single transferable vote. 

Here is the quid pro quo that underlies the coalition: the secret deal which will have to be whipped through Parliament. Tories gain a more equal distribution of seats in the Commons and Liberal Democrats gain a modicum of influence through the Upper House. 

And how will this play out?

Mark Harper, the Cabinet Office minister, said it would be possible for the powers to change organically over time, and there was no need to set out those powers in legal form at this stage. He said a 15 year timetable has been set out for the reform, with peers elected for 15 year terms introduced in three tranches, so there was no need to rush into decisions on Lords powers.

An elected body will challenge Commons supremacy; will try to amend finance bills and will create a constitutional crisis. Imagine a left-wing Upper Chamber challenging the Commons...Clegg's reforms will feed parasitism, jobbery and partisan politics.

We should thank ourselves that he did not achieve his ultimate wet dream: bringing all MEPs back to Westminster as a second chamber...on second thoughts, UKIP would have stronger representation in London. 

Autopsy on the proto-flash riots

Returning to a singular disruptive and essentially short-term event, the London riots (with their hyped air of ungovernability), how far has this thuggery been blamed on social networking?Articles at the time viewed social networking tools as an accelerant for a social process. Riots have always occurred: but twitter and BBM allowed the rioters to focus, co-ordinate, choose targets and avoid authority. Secondly, the social networks reinforced group norms of validation in unique circumstances: how many times did we hear looters state that they were stealing because everyone else was doing so. Crimes were committed by a far wider range of individuals than expected. Such validation was also spread by more traditional networks: the media, phones, gangs and so on.

The courts have sent down 1,000 criminals for their part in the disturbances: they were mostly white and black, none were over 40 and the government's determination for tough sentencing has been met. Most were prosecuted for burglary, violent disorder and theft. A disturbing trend was the number of juveniles arrested and charged. 

Will we see further opportunistic flash riots in future years?

Obviously not enough social workers or diversity officers

For years, they turned a blind eye to the development of gang mentalities in London. Ineffectual efforts to ameliorate gang difficulties were undermined by a criminal justice system that released criminals and penalised victims. No doubt any of the looters picked up will bleat their 'rights'. Armed with a redistributionist concept of retail, most will live off some form of state benefit or illicit activity.

A softly-softly approach was adopted yesterday, trading public safety for some insane theory that this would blow itself out. A complete and unmitigated disaster. When others saw that such actions were treated with impunity, it was a wildfire incentive. Now riots are leaping across the capital.

These riots are the outcome of a progressive consensus: a state that has inverted the value of work and fetishized consumption at the expense of others. These looters are the effect of a welfare state: exercising entitlements by breaking windows and seizing goods. Grab the playstation for deferred gratification and burn the shop to the ground, with no regard for life or limb, even their own.

You put riots down, like savage dogs. You take out the ringleaders. You ensure zero tolerance for all involved. Time to bring out the water cannon and the plastic bullets. Make sure short-term pain is high and long-term gain is non-existent. And how will our 'vote blue/red/yellow, get shit' politicians respond? Hand-wringing, check. Ample rhetoric of concern and cut holidays short, check. Increase number of social workers: coming down the line.

Courting the columnists

Trevor Phillips has asserted that Muslims are integrating better into society than Christians. His evidence: they are less likely to take up actions against discrimination than their Christian counterparts. From this omission or gap, Phillips leaps to the conclusion that,

"Muslim communities in this country are doing their damnedest to try to come to terms with their neighbours to try to integrate and they're doing their best to try to develop an idea of Islam that is compatible with living in a modern liberal democracy."

Perhaps Muslim communities are trying to integrate as much as possible, or perhaps Muslims as individuals are integrating. It would be nice to know.

The subtext of this approach is communalism. It is not Muslims as individuals who are cited, but Muslim communities. Again with Christians. You are not recognised without your church or your mosque.

This is the problem for Phillips. He can only infer certain trends from his legal evidence, but his bold assertion to bolster mosques and criticise churches. If an individual feel sdiscriminated against, they have been financed and motivated by their sect. If they are not doing this, then they must be better "integrated".

Instead of seeking to improve access and results from the Equalities Commission, Phillips prefers to pound his pulpit and seek public recognition. If that is his goal, then he can become a columnist, but tendentious arguments will bring his quango into disrepute.

I am always torn when I see this. Of course, the Equalities Commission achieves nothing in aggregate, although individual situatiosn of injustice are addressed. Any system will do some good. Within that schema, I prefer professional public servants who focus upon their service. A concept of public service does exist, though the argument that this is monopolised by the public sector is risible. One more virtuous motivation debased under Leviathan.

BNP dogwhistle is now highpitched and heard

There is little surprise. Yougov shows that overt support for the BNP has risen: the usual response to increased publicity. It has also given us a snapshot of its sympathetic constituency and the dividing line between two camps. Labels are difficult to devise for these though Labour would say 'racist' and 'non-racist', an inaccurate response to the poll.

The survey found that 22 per cent of voters would “seriously consider” voting for the BNP in a future local, general or European election. This included four per cent who said they would “definitely” consider voting for the party, three per cent who would “probably” consider it, and 15 per cent who said they were “possible” BNP voters....

More than half of those questioned said they agreed with the BNP, or thought that it “had a point” in wishing to “speak up for the interests of the indigenous, white British people ... which successive governments have done far too little to protect.”

This included 43 per cent who said that, while they shared some of its concerns, they had “no sympathy for the party itself”.

Arguments on what have caused the rise of the BNP are a blame game for the political class and an evasive tactic to avoid engagement. With such a wide constituency, the political party that can harness these sentiments with some authenticity will reap an electoral harvest and again sideline the dogwhistle role that the BNP has established for itself.

Labour will not be that party after a former policy adviser stated that it was a policy, without legitimacy, to use mass immigration as a tool for a diversifying Britain and creating a left-wing client bank for socialism.

Labour encouraged mass immigration to help socially engineer a “multicultural” country and to try to “rub the Right’s nose in diversity”, according to Andrew Neather, a former adviser to Tony Blair.

Le Pen or the road to Spode?

When watching the Question Time debacle last night, the whole disaster was a mistake. By concentrating on Griffin, the man was given a platform. Through continuous attacks by all other parties, his role as underdog and outsider was assured. Griffin may have appeared weird and Janus-faced in his dogwhistling, but his sentences were addressed to the television audience, not the left-liberal attack dogs.

Griffin was described as a “wolf in sheep's clothing”. Perhaps, but it was a pitch to mythically migrate to the mainstream: acknowledge the past and appeal to a wider audience. Will this work?

In 1984, the French National Front (FN) leader Jean-Marie Le Pen, below, appeared on the TV show L’Heure de Vérité (the Hour of Truth). At the time, the FN was largely boycotted by mainstream media, and electorally irrelevant.

Mr Le Pen’s appearance provoked intense opposition, but he later described it as “the hour that changed everything”.

He performed well, doing much to dispel his image as a drooling neo-Nazi: viewing figures were huge, and the FN claimed that its membership rose by 30,000.

In European elections later that year, the party won 2.2 million votes. Mr Griffin’s performance on Question Time and the public reaction to it, will determine whether, like Mr Le Pen, he joins “the big time”, or whether he goes down in history as just another Roderick Spode.

There are precedents, especially at a time when the whole political class is despised.

J'accuse abuse: homeschooling's days are numbered....

Under New Labour's centralised control, it was surprising how long homeschooling survived without scrutiny or supervision. No longer. With a fanfare of political flagwaving, Baroness Morgan, the Children's Minister, arranged a review with jacobinical j'accuse.

Ministers have launched a review of standards for up to 55,000 young people taught by mothers and fathers outside school.

It will investigate current procedures for monitoring home education – as well addressing concerns over the safety and welfare of children.

Baroness Morgan, the Children's Minister, said home teaching could be a "cover for abuse" in extreme cases.

The review will be carried out by Graham Badman (how apt!), former director of children's services at Kent County Council.

Mr Badman said: "Legislation affords every parent the right to choose to educate their child at home but with those rights go responsibilities, not least being to secure a suitable education.

"By the same token, local authorities are charged with ensuring that all children are safe, well and receiving an education that is both enjoyable and allows for the expression of all aptitudes and abilities.

We can see the results already: manufactured conclusions that children are unsocialised (they are not scared of knives or running with gangs!), hold unorthodox beliefs (faith!) and suffer from poor results compared with state schooling (because they take different exams or other qualifications).

Result: more regulation of home schooling or, if they can get away with it, destroying another small beacon of liberty an outright ban. We can't have potential liberals like John Stuart Mill under New Labour.

Media uncovers an unsavoury Muslim blog; government reacts...

There is little surprise that a civil servant, President of the Civil Service Islamic Society and an active member of the official Muslim community, has been caught writing extremist views on his weblog, Between the Lines. It does not appear to have been a very popular weblog, but did allow the civil servant to publicise and demonstrate some sympathy with statements that we associate with jihadist views. These views include praising the deaths of British soldiers and perceiving them to be occupiers in nations that form part of the historical span of Islamic civilisation.

Mr Ali, president of the Civil Service Islamic Society, attacked the British government and Foreign Secretary David Miliband over what he sees as support for Israel in its conflict with the Palestinians.

He went on to describe moderate Muslims engaging with the Government as 'self-serving vultures, feeding on the dead flesh of the Palestinians'.

The views expressed are popular amongst British Muslims and the civil servant has been suspended for activities that do appear to contravene the Civil Service Code. There is also a question in regard to the surprise with which these views were received, and one wonders if there is a wider issue of security here. Whilst this particular civil servant may just hold some unsavoury views, what safeguards are in place to ensure that committed jihadists cannot hold positions of authority and compromise the safety of the United Kingdom. One wishes that this would be raised in Parliament, as I suspect New Labour prizes political correctness above security. 

The "accident and emergency room" of Britain BC

The first excavation at Stonehenge for over forty years confirms some of the recent archaeology in Britain concerning the longevity of sites and the importance of ritual. The Bluestones were brought from North Wales and appear to have acted as the healing foci for rituals whilst the sarsen stones brought a later taste for monumentalism. The analogy with cathedrals and saints shrines is mentioned.

The length of our history comes into play when you consider that the first rituals can be traced to 7,000BC and festivals may have been carried out on the site right up to the seventeenth century.