The Bewilderness

Way to Go

Parliament bows to common sense and kicks out another of the Blairite attempts to curb our liberties. The government lost two votes on the Racial and Religious Hatred Bill, with opposition and Labour backbenchers uniting to maintain the House of Lords amendments.

The Commons confrontation followed a series of defeats inflicted on the bill by peers in a bid to safeguard freedom of speech.

The peers said only "threatening words" should be banned by the bill, not those which are only abusive or insulting.

They also called for the offence to be intentional and specified that proselytising, discussion, criticism, insult, abuse and ridicule of religion, belief or religious practice would not be an offence.

Ministers had urged MPs to reject the Lords' amendments and back instead a government compromise instead.

A marker for ID cards, one hopes.

The Flying Formula One

If, like me, you were vaguely annoyed that Livingstone acquired the Olympics, then you must hope that you are either away during the hell that will be the summer of 2012 (my holidays are accumulating now!), or you must campaign for new sports to appear in the Olympiad. The more violent, the more fast, the more dangerous the better. And free drugtaking, of course. Why not allow genetic modification for athletes. "It's at their own risk".

One candidate is the decidedly cool Rocket Racing League. This flying Formula One has not acquired lift as yet, but races are looked for in a year's time. The origins of this competition lie in the Ansari X Prize, with a nod to their barnstorming ancestors back in the early days of aircraft.

A debut exhibition race is planned for the X Prize Cup in September 2006. In the six months after that, the league expects to see races at an additional two air shows and two car racing events, with a championship event in New Mexico at the 2007 edition of the X Prize Cup.

The events will take a leaf from motor racing's book.

Rocket planes called X-Racers will compete on a sky 'track' in the design of a Grand Prix race, with long straights and the added dimenson of vertical ascents and deep banks. The race will run perpendicular to spectators and be about two miles long, one mile wide and 1,500m in the air. The X-Racers will be staggered upon take-off and fly their own 'tunnel' of space, each separated by a hundred metres or so.

Pilots will be guided by differential GPS (Global Positioning System) technology to help them avoid collisions.

Necessity may be the mother but thrillseeking is the father of invention: on second thoughts, the Olympics would ruin it. But I would still welcome a 'skytrack' in London, and you can submit your own idea for a rocker racer name on the website...

Superman is risen

Captain America is probably remembered as one of the worst films spun off the Marvel franchise. Whilst the film wrought untold damage to the origins of Steve Roger's alter ego, it did strike one historical chord. In the comic book, Steve Rogers is a sickly individual, denied the chance to demonstrate his patriotism, until he takes the serum that transforms him into a super soldier. In the film, Steve Rogers is a polio victim, perhaps the only plot device that provides some insight into the historical context of Captain America and the rise of the superhero.

The definition and origins of the superhero are traced back to the nineteen-thirties even though there are a number of forerunners in the pulps. The genre coalesced around costumed heroes with a variety of powers, often enhanced beyond human norms, who had strong moral codes, a secret identity and fought off evil in a variety of guises, usually the enemies of World War 2. The  cultures  that informed the origins of superheroes came from both contemporary sources and Judaeo-Christian narratives.

Superman's backstory was Biblical in tone. Richard Donner, director of Superman, recognised the parallels between the Man of Steel and Christ, as referenced by Anton Karl Kozlovic, in his paper, "Superman as Christ-Figure: The American Pop Culture Movie Messiah", published in the Journal of Religion and Film.

However, many       years later, Donner gladly admitted to the Christic subtext: “It’s a       motif I had done at the beginning when Brando sent Chris [Reeve] to Earth       and said, ‘I send them my only son.’ It was God sending Christ to       Earth.” It was a dramaturgical decision that made       good sense, for just as Superman was literally a super-man, Jesus was       “the ultimate Super Jew of his day,” the       “Christian super-hero,” the pop culture “God       with us” (Matt. 1:23). Indeed, many Jesus-Superman       parallels exist within S1 and S2 because both films were planned, scripted and partially shot       back-to-back.

Whilst Superman bundled biblical myth into a new package, Steve Rogers as Captain America transformed another demographic. We forget the large numbers of the debilitated and disabled who suffered from a young age with consumption or polio during the interwar period. The sickly Steve Rogers is a recognisable figure from the Depression, and his transformation acts as the inclusion of suffering invalids into the superhero myth and the war effort. Superman is an alien but Captain America is drawn as an everyman, and a patriot.

It is possible that superheroes would never have acquired their longlasting popularity without the war. The diverse backdrops that authors used to appeal to as many readers as possible proved an important innovation. Yet, just as the new pulp genre of science fiction showed that the horizons of plausibility were widening, the Macguffins deployed by the creators of superheroes hinted that such transformations were not too far away for humanity itself.

Dangerous Deliberations

Over the last few months, reading websites on European Union policy, the concept of deliberative democracy has begun to crop up with some regularity. This has acquired increased interest from the Commission after the negative referenda results in France and the Netherlands.

Deliberative democracy is a trend that is encouraged within the traditional structures of liberal democracy. It builds upon the franchise by including citizens within the policymaking process, deliberating their foundations and effects of policies. The following benefits have been claimed, according to the Deliberative Democracy Consortium:

            Public deliberation can have many benefits within society.             Among the most common claims are that public deliberation             results in better policies, superior public education,             increased public trust, and reduced conflict when policy moves             to  implementation.

The Consortium belongs to a movement that emphasizes how deliberative polling and discourse can reduce conflict and promote a greater understanding of policy impacts. Yet, Wikipedia also looks at how deliberative democracy has been adopted by left-wing activists as an alternative to representative systems. George Monbiot provides an example of how this approach has been adopted by the greens as a critique of our current democracy, in his attack on the Iraqi constitution:

When the US constitution was drafted, representative democracy was a radical and thrilling idea. Now it is an object of suspicion and even contempt, as people all over the world recognise that it allows us to change the management but not the firm. And one of the factors that have done most to engender public scepticism is the meaninglessness of the only questions we are ever asked. I read Labour’s manifesto before the last election, and found both good and bad in it. But whether I voted for or against, I had no means of explaining what I liked and what I didn’t.....

Deliberative democracy is not a panacea. You can have fake participatory processes just as you can have fake representative ones. But it is hard to see why representation cannot be tempered by participation. Why should we be forbidden to choose policies, rather than just parties or entire texts? Can we not be trusted? If not, then what is the point of elections? The age of purely representative democracy is surely over. It is time the people had their say.

When the European Union starts to investigate the benefits of this approach, this bears further investigation.

Endless Wars

It is not clear if Britain's military capability is permanently degraded. The 'overstretch' that is becoming ever more apparent will not have been helped by the extra deployment to Afghanistan. Yet, there is a need for the nascent political structure to protect itself from overthrow by the Taliban. Is this need one that the British should support?

Afghanistan presents the unusual interaction of two pet wars: terror and drugs. To avoid the resurgence of one, the British Army is focused upon fighting the other, in the southern part of the country. You may as well fight sand. Afghani peasants profit from opium crops, and alternatives are far less profitable. Why should they give up a profitable livelihood at the behest of the British government. The Blair administration, tuneless peeps to multinational shibboleths notwithstanding, are deploying British troops in a narco-state. It has been for two decades, and it will be after they are gone. If they wield a heavy hand in eradicating the poppies, terror will increase.

The task to build a 'stable and secure' Afghanistan would not be 'easy or small', added Reid.

He said while British troops were not on a 'counter-terrorism' mission, the additional support was needed to stop Afghanistan from falling back 'into the clutches of the Taleban and international terrorism.'

The operation would also be aimed at helping Afghanistan tackle its trade in opium, the raw material for heroin.

Reid stressed that the task to bring security to a 'fragile' country was being shared by all NATO states.

'This will be a truly multinational effort', he said.

This effort, and the one billion pounds that it costs, will be wasted unless new tactics are adopted. Afghanis will stop growing opium for export as drugs if you provide a more profitable use for their crops. The legal alternatives for such crops are restricted by regulation and zealous customs officials. The difficulties that the legal hemp industry afce are detailed here.

The most probable outcome is British involvement with the seasonal skirmishes that the Taliban foster with the aid of the Arabs, now appearing again along the borders. After some showcase examples, opium will be ignored to maintain peace amongst the tribes that govern these hazardous provinces. That still does not solve the problem of making the Afghani richer, the only route to a  stable and peaceful country.

The Mandelson from the Ministry

As befits his role as grand pylama person of external trade, Peter Mandelson has paid great attention to his image and position. There are a whole series of photographs of Peter meeting other responsible dignitaries as he promotes the European interest throughout the world. The jolly capers with the Chinese Minister of Commerce, Bo Xilai, are especially heartwarming.

Peter makes great play of his distinguished career at Westminster, detailing the achievements of his tenure at Trade and Industry and Northern Ireland. A mere snippet suffices...

In 1999 Peter Mandelson was appointed Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. Between 1999 and 2001 he negotiated the creation of Northern Ireland’s power sharing government and the IRA’s announcement that they planned to put their arms beyond use. He also introduced the radical overhaul of the police service in Northern Ireland.

A mere bagatelle of an omission and I am sure that it is unintentionally overlooked. But didn't he resign a couple of times?

New Members on the HGC

David Sainsbury, the Minister fot Science, has appointed new members to the Human Genetics Commission. All are broadly in line with the consensus of 'great and good', a pallid improvement upon the bioconservatives favoured by  America.

Dr Frances Flinter - Senior lecturer in clinical genetics at Kings College, London and Honorary Consultant in Clinical Genetics as well as Clinical Director of Children's Services and Genetics at Guy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust.

- Professor Christopher Higgins - Director of Medical Research Council Clinical Sciences Centre and Head of Division of Clinical Sciences at Imperial College, London

- Dr Rosemary Leonard - GP and resident GP on BBC1's Breakfast News, a contributor and weekly columnist with the Daily Express and a consultant medical editor of Woman and Home magazine.

- Ms Lola Oni OBE - Specialist nurse in the field of sickle cell, Thalassaemia and related genetic conditions who has held her current post as service director and lecturer for ten years.

- Ms Alice Maynard - Managing director of a company she founded to help organisations target people in traditionally hard to reach parts of the community.

- Professor Sarah Cunningham-Burley - Professor of Medical and Family Sociology and also a co-director at the Centre for Research on Families and Relationships, both at the University of Edinburgh.

- Mrs Ros Gardner - a self employed management consultant specialising in customer care and complaint policies.

The spread of skills leads one to worry about whether these advisors will champion individual choice at the expense of collective goals such as social justice or  unnecessary public health.

What shall we call the incapacity benefit?

John Hutton, Work and Pensions Minister, runs a department that has not improved either. Watching Andrew Marr's impartial televisual feast this morning, Hutton sat down following Fiona Millar's defence of comprehensive schools and Chris Huhne transferring his skillset from journalism to tax increases.  A green paper on welfare will be  published this week as a preparation for a new bill on the benefits system. Finding a gap between the latest revolution on  criminal justice and educational appeasement,  Hutton proposes radical measurements. Doctors will have to monitor and report on how many sicknotes they issue.

Doctors could be offered bonuses for cutting the numbers of long-term sick notes they issue as part of a radical plan to slash incapacity benefit claims,.

Work and Pensions Secretary John Hutton said that the proposal was under consideration as part of the Government's package of welfare reforms.

"It has been mooted and I think, again, this is something we would like to talk to the GPs about," he told the BBC1 Sunday AM programme.

No doubt league tables and auditing will follow; a harsh judgement but the micromanagement of benefit and dependency that is proposed will not work. Yet again, the response of the government to a perceived problem is measurement and management, in a centralised reporting structure. The policy is reported to have some teeth:

Ministers want to drastically cut the 2.7 million people claiming incapacity benefit (IB) at an annual cost of £12.5 billion, by getting those who are able to do some form of work back into jobs.

It is expected that the green paper will include proposals to cut IB payments by up to £10.93 a week for claimants who refuse to attend a job interview, rising to £21.86 for a second refusal.

The Government is also planning to install employment advisers in GPs surgeries - with claimants being assessed to see what work they are capable of doing before they can qualify for IB.

Even the name of the benefit is to change in order to underline the new approach.

"Incapacity benefit implies that you are incapable of doing anything, it is completely hopeless. I think we shouldn't take that view," Mr Hutton said.

Such teeth will be drawn in the face of Labour rebels, since many backbenchers will oppose taking money from those identified as incapacitated by the benefits system. Lo and behold! what remains: some spin as 'incapacity benefit' is rebranded, perhaps as 'Brown's munificence' or 'for the trouble you took to vote Labour'; and lots of shiny new part-time public sector positions to reduce the headline figures.

The real solution is more straightforward: privatise provision with incentives to reduce the figures and get those drawing benefits back to work. If you are filmed playing squash on a 'bad back', there may be some bad news: London Transport probably won't employ you but you can still join the RMT.

Bring back the letter of marque

The Joint Strike Fighter, developed by the United States with the UK as senior partner, has proved a controversial project due to the domestic decisions of the Ministry of Defence. Their wish to retire the Harriers early and deprive British flagships of air cover has been criticised for short-termism. The project has also raised critical questions about our defence partnership with and our dependence upon the United States. The war with Iraq has undermined the 'special relationship' and replaced the unstinting Atlanticism of the Cold War era with a more Europhile response amongst all of the major parties, as a recognition of new realities. As Thatcherism was an Indian summer fo the 'special relationship', the Iraqi war may prove a last hurrah.

If this were to be the case, the faultlines lie on both sides of the Atlantic.  The unthinking anti-Americanism and obliging love of 'soft power' by the Europhile appeasers will crumble at some crisis, probably Iran, where their policies prove deficient. The United States will find, that allies require respect, and that has been in short supply this century. No doubt the latest flare up will not prove too damaging. It was flagged by Flight International on the 3rd January 2006.

The future of the General Electric Rolls-Royce F136 alternate engine for the Lockheed Martin F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) appears to be once again under threat, following a US Navy proposal to remove funding for its development from the 2007 defence budget, writes Guy Norris.

Although neither the companies nor the US Department of Defense can comment on the budget request before it is published in February, Pentagon insiders say the threat is being taken seriously by the project’s senior partner, the UK, which is believed to be involved in “direct lobbying at the highest levels”.

However, most observers believe the GE R-R team’s receipt of a $2.4 billion system development and demonstration (SDD) contract for the F136 in August makes it unlikely that the threat will materialise to the extent proposed by the USN.

Yet, the threat has materialised and the lobby from a close ally has been rejected. Perhaps there are good reasons for this, but when political support for the alliance has thinned, it is not wise to allow lobbies from the highest quarters of your ally to be dismissed out of hand. Countries will turn elsewhere, especially when there is a question mark over whether they can utilise the Joint Strike Fighter to its full efficacy, depending upon the whims of the Pentagon. 

The Government has stayed tight-lipped about claims that Rolls Royce Group PLC and General Electric Co have lost out on a multi-billion dollar contract to supply engines for America's F-35 joint strike fighter.

The Ministry of Defence declined to comment on a story in The Business claiming that US president George Bush has rejected an appeal to the US from UK prime minister Tony Blair to refrain from scrapping a plan to develop a second engine for the F-35.


Dependence upon any other country in matters of defence is best avoided. Perhaps there is a Gaullist streak running through my backbone, but the United States has proved, from Suez to the present day, a partner that has no compunction in acting against our interests when it so desires. European nations are just as fickle, and also best avoided.

Now that the government has managed to hobble and rundown our forces, so that the 'last generation' of effective troops are currently fighting, our usefulness to the major powers of the world may be coming to an end. Perhaps we will be able to replace state mandated alliances with a free market securocracy adding force as another paid service which Britain excels at. Bring back the letter of marque!

Still Waiting

We are still awaiting the outcome of the De Menezes inquiry into the conduct of the Metropolitan police after he shooting. The conclusions: criminal offences for all concerned are a poor outcome for those directed to stop a suspected "suicide bomber". Who will be willing to volunteer for such a duty, knowing that you could face criminal charges, whilst those responsible for feeding you incorrect intelligence or setting procedures on shooting, remain untouched by the investigation.

The commission has refused to detail the nature of the alleged offences which the CPS could potentially have to consider, although it is believed they could be as serious as murder or manslaughter. It has also refused to comment on the number of officers interviewed, although reports have previously claimed it is around ten. However, it has confirmed that Sir Ian Blair, the Metropolitan Police Commissioner, was not among those interviewed by the investigators.

If future incidents show that security is compromised because officers and soldiers in the line of duty are too vulnerable to criminal charges, this willbe an unpromising turn. It is difficult to gauge how such cases should be handled but the government's zealous support for its  favoured  chambers (sorry, human rights agenda)  has  resulted in  an inappropriate application of the criminal justice system to the armed forces and, possibly, the police. Hopefully, one of its adherents may find that his actions have to be accounted for:

There are a total of 30 witnesses to the shooting and 600 statements have been taken during the course of the investigation. Mr de Menezes’s family have also complained about the conduct of Sir Ian and a second IPCC investigation into their allegations is under way.