Gaming Conferences And Golf

After the Liberal Democrat and Labour Party Conferences both of which have shown parties in disarray and uncertainty, the way is open for the Conservatives to take advantage.

This means clear thinking, coherent policies, broad agreement, a sense of team spirit, dignity, intelligence and dare I say it, a little style lacking in the other parties.

We are not going to have it.  Already Ken Euro-Clarke has got out of the attic demanding to bring back the much loved policies of Edward Heath and Listen With Mother on the radio.

We know how he incites other lesser beings. He has much to offer the Tories, notably from British American Tobacco, Unichem, assorted financial services interests and not least what he has learned from his friends in the Bilderberg.

The knives are already polished for the ritual back stabbing to take place in quiet corridors, corners of bars and expensive restaurants.  Rivals will seek to ruin reputations and tell tales of errors of personal judgement.

The debates about policy will leave us none the wiser as to what they are or why.  Excuses will be made for what went wrong, especially under Cameron.  Promises will be legion for things that can never be delivered.

It will all be a charade from which we will learn little and gain nothing.  Today, I would like to go to the peace, quiet and dignity of the Ryder Cup.  Unluckily, this is not possible, elements in the American crowd preventing this.

It is a grim irony that the Euro man the Americans hate is Rory McIlroy, the golfing great from Ulster and if I am not mistaken with a good smack of Scots Irish in the blood. American's  tend to know little of their history.

In recent decades they have forgotten that many of the USA ideas about democracy, freedom, rights and Independence etc. came with the Scots and Scots Irish migrants of the 17th and 18th Centuries.

See "The Scottish Invention of America, Democracy and Human Rights", University Press of America, Klieforth and Munro, 2004.

The immediate concern is whether we are going to have months of snow and ice, as forecast by weather people headed up by Piers Corbyn, yes one of the those Corbyns, which would do for the Tories, or the kind of milder winter of recent years.

Wait and see.

On The Move

History tells us of the constant movement of peoples and what happens when they do.  It is a complicated story and means that when discussing movements in our own time you are dealing with the past as well as the present and all the ideas, beliefs and views involved and their inherent conflicts.

Your migration can be my invasion. My expulsion of unwanted people will be your refugees. Our claim to land and authority is also our way of saying who will own and benefit from it. But often we will not agree and the disputes will trigger movements of people. Down the centuries it has often been a bloody business.

In the 1940's we knew numbers of refugees of different kinds.  These included the post war displaced persons, there being a number of places for them in the vicinity. In the 1950's, we have forgotten the upheavals in the East of Europe in 1953 that triggered added movement of people to The West, especially from East Germany and again, Poland and this continued.

In 1955 the winter going into 1956 was very bitter in Germany .  The rivers froze, I recall playing football on The Weser. It was possible to walk across The Elbe into West Germany.  Many did and sometimes even the patrols of the East who were supposed to prevent it. In 1956 there were further events and numbers of Hungarians and others arrived notably in London, to add to the displaced persons already with us.  Not long after the war there had been laws and regulations etc. aimed at closing the camps. Some did, but some were still mini-towns into the 1960's.

As well as the larger camps, some local authorities had patches that were used.  There were plenty of WW2 Nissen huts available.  But many then were housed in the cheaper rental areas and to the fury of many had priority for the envied council houses.  Those from the East of Europe were followed  by many from places in the former Empire where political freedom had not necessarily meant peace and tolerance of minorities.

There were divided views about this, not least between some people in the urban areas who were adversely affected and which took most of them and those in other places who could be generous to their small numbers and for whom the principles of free and open movement had little local impact.

Fifty years on we are in a different world.  Only now, instead of thousands the figures are in the hundreds of thousands with the potential to be millions.  Moreover, the arrivals do not come to a land in which they will have to adjust to local laws and lifestyles because there are few other options.

Instead of three channels of British TV then, now they can watch their own versions from their homeland. The internet can bring their place of origin into their own living space.  There is little they need to change in terms of eating or the other routines of life. In short they might be living in one place for convenience, income and housing etc. but their culture, lifestyle, etc. are those of another country.

If the new is more advantageous or generous than they could hope for in their homeland, it is not surprising many will want to come. Our problem is that some will have strict beliefs that are not just alien, or beyond our law but are in conflict with it.  Another, inevitably, is if the proportion of loose young men and the crimes and gangs that are often the core of their activities.

England is one of the most intensively populated pieces of land on the planet, the result of many migrations so just about all of us have migrant forebears to a greater or lesser degree. Back a few generations and all those forebears of mine moved around the Atlantic Isles, some by choice, some after having become unwelcome, some by famine and some by clearances.

The open borders and free movement ideals born out of mid 20th Century and later ideals and beliefs has been encouraged by the idea that the State has an unlimited capacity to provide either by taxation or by creating new money at will. It is obvious that if the population increases by millions then the circulation of state money provided plus extra spending required will have the effect of rising GDP.

The figures can be presented to suggest that this will be good.  But they do not take account of the opportunity costs and the many and substantial other real costs that come in train. In particular they do not allow for very many new migrants not seeing themselves as UK citizens but local communities of other jurisdictions.  Which may mean that the tax does not get paid, tax avoidance becomes common and their money goes somewhere else.

So given the costs of increasing world population there are other issues. What might happen with rising food costs? Or if the money tree stops growing or even sickens, or if some local communities or even nations become ruled by gangs of violent men and not either local or central government?

Currently, there are parts of the world with over a billion population.  If events, disruptions or crises trigger greater movement; say 5% of the population affected how many millions of migrants or refugees is that on the move?

And if up to 10%?  And what were the percentage figures for the Irish Famine and Highland Clearances?

Vizual Aides

The Labour Party Conference has finished in Liverpool, some would say the Labour Party has finished in Liverpool. The internal disputes and differences of philosophy are being described as "trench warfare".

To compare the petty rivalries, spites and student type politicking of the last few days to this is an insult to the men who fought in the First World War, notably those of the Kings Liverpool Regiment.

Given the antics and behaviour of many of the senior figures in the Labour movement today, if there is anything to compare it might be the characters in the Viz comic, see online, viz dot co dot uk.

Football Crackers

In the late 1940's, it was a puzzle to me that the players and the manager of our town's soccer team in The Football League managed to enjoy the lifestyle they did.

Despite having middling wages and liable for tax etc. at the same high levels that were imposed they could afford to spend a great deal of time enjoying themselves.  Money did not seem to be a problem, they could even afford whisky.

Also, finding a decent place to rent was very difficult but they were able to move straight in to nice houses. They had far better clothing and seemed untroubled by the food rationing that the rest of us had to accept.  I could go on.

Being an enquiring youngster I once asked someone close to the club how this could be.  All he would say was that the answer was what they found in their boots.  Quite what he meant I did not know until much later.

How things change.

Going To The Pictures

Over the weekend BBC4TV was given over to Keith Richards of The Rolling Stones. On Sunday he chose the film "The Man Who Would Be King", which was preceded by an episode of the cartoon "Captain Pugwash". The Stones were always keen on contrast and there has been an interesting one in the last few days.

The film, made in 1975 with Michael Caine and Sean Connery leading, was based on a short book by Rudyard Kipling written in 1888, towards the end of his time in India.  He had been born there, son of a Yorkshire artist cum Principal of a new Art College. Kipling, however, was sent to England for his education, returning in 1882.

Currently, in the media there is the story about actor Marc Anwar in the leading TV "soap", "Coronation Street", who has been sacked for making racist comments about Indians, he being of Pakistani origin. They relate to the recurrence of problems in Kashmir which  arise from differences and hostilities between local groups that go back centuries.

One irony is that the remarks tell us that some things have not changed since the time of Kipling.  The other is that the issues are now with us among the peoples of the sub-continent who have moved here in the last half century. The nature of Anwar's remarks were silly and childish but was it "racism" or was he simply expressing his cultural identity derived from centuries past?

In the film, which I suspect would not be made today, one of the elements of the plot relates to the continuing warfare in the period between tribes and villages whose cultural lifestyle involved killing their neighbours and stealing their women, cattle, and goats. It is set in the fictional territory of Kafiristan; that name would have to go today, to which two unprincipled rogues, likable unless you were stung by them, go to make their fortunes was placed beyond Afghanistan and the Hindu Kush mountains.

But given the period in which the book was written, it may well have drawn on what was happening in Kashmir at the time.  This territory is at the point where South East Asia, that means China, meets the Sub Continent, now Pakistan and India. Kashmir, see the Wikipedia article, has a long and full history of warfare, coming and going and changes in power.

In the film Danny Dravot and Peachey Carnehan, time served former soldiers and sergeants, enforce law and order with Martini-Henry rifles and British Army discipline, centralise power and create a tax gathering public sector authority, intending to make off with the loot to retire to England. Nowadays it would be one of our retired Prime Ministers and their ilk advising on financial services and banking structures for a fee paid into a tax haven.

But Danny then decides he wants to stay, retain power and found a dynasty. Among all this is Freemasonry, Alexander The Great and how Danny came to be regarded as a god.  Unluckily, Danny is bitten by an unwilling wife, the blood making it clear he is not a god and it all goes badly wrong.

Danny finishes up dead singing "The Minstrel Boy", Carnehan is captured and goes mad but makes it back to tell Kipling the story giving him Danny's head and the diadem of Alexander The Great to  prove it.  The lessons that can be drawn are various.  One may be that extensive cultural and ancestral differences and centralised high tax systems of government do not go together.

This would align with Kipling's own thinking. When the Fall of the Rupee was inflicting economic damage in India and the Treasury of India was faced with a serious deficit along with major famine, Auckland Colvin introduced income tax which Kipling satirised.

Upsetting Colvin could have been a sound reason for Kipling to leave India in 1889, returning only for a brief visit in 1891. Kipling, despite being a Nobel Prize Winner, is now off the shelves and an author those fame and popularity are now long past. He has become that relative whom we do not care to mention.  Yet at the time his style and ability to tell the tale made him readable by all classes.

His vision of imperialism, "The White Man's Burden" meant imposing peace and sound government for the benefit of all by self sacrifice. But Kaiser Bill in Germany, who Kipling disliked, had his own ideas and World War One saw the beginning of the end for Imperialism, especially with the USA determined to break the British Empire.

After Kipling's death in 1936 it was ironic that the Labour Party had among its intellectual leaders men whose families had been prominent in the Raj and derived their ideas on central control, planning and government from the way it became in India in Kipling's time and after.

This they thought was the vision for ruling the British working class command of the economy as well as dismantling the Empire.  One of the serious problems of this in the Sub-Continent in 1947 was who would rule Kashmir, the old enmities still not resolved but the British getting the blame.

Which is part of The Burden of The White Man.  We have never really forsaken this idea and indeed it has been taken up by the USA, who took over much of the Empire.  How many interventions, invasions and other warlike or peaceful forays into other nations and territories have been made in the last half century?

Then there is the home version of it, in that our rulers have imposed a regime where nothing may be said or done that gives offence to others or be construed as discriminatory.  It is another irony that one of those to be caught out and punished severely is moved to be rude by the latest conflicts in Kashmir.

There is another matter, it is that our rulers who carry The Burden today are not really persons of high noble ideals and beliefs living a dedicated life to benefit us all by their wisdom and abilities.

In fact, they are much more like Dravot and Carnehan.

Expert Predictions

With Jeremy Corbyn confirmed as Leader of the Labour Party by a convincing majority there is a lot of clatter in the media predicting a bad future for Labour.

Let me see now.

In the 1935 vote Herbert Morrison was assumed to be the man of the future, but Clement Attlee won despite Arthur Greenwood being favoured by many.  In 1945, this alleged nonentity beat Churchill by a large majority to become Prime Minister.

In 1955, Eden, the man for all seasons, took over from Churchill to be Conservative Prime Minister winning the 1955 Election.  Macmillan was but a party stalwart who at one time was thought to be only just Cabinet material.

In 1963 Harold Wilson was a man with a small following but not to be relied on, especially with his fetish for figures.  Gaitskell was a man of ideas with a long future ahead of him.

In 1963 Macmillan concluded it was time to go, especially with major figures such as  Butler to take over.  But Alec Douglas-Home became Prime Minister to the astonishment of all.

In 1976 Wilson suddenly left office for health reasons. Dennis Healey was expected to succeed, but Jim Callaghan, regarded as a useful workhorse, became Prime Minister.

In the late 1960's and early 1970's those listening wearily to Mrs. Thatcher turgidly turning over the pages of prepared speeches would have been rolling in the aisles with helpless laughter at the idea of her becoming a Prime Minister.

In 1994, John Smith, Labour Party leader, widely expected to beat John Major in the coming election, died suddenly to be succeeded by Tony Blair.

In 2005, the Conservatives were undecided as to who next might be Leader after the previous two had lost elections and divisions in the ranks.  David Cameron won on the second ballot and was thought to be the least worst option.

In 2007 Tony Blair resigned unexpectedly to spend more time with his bankers, meaning that Gordon Brown also unexpectedly became Prime Minister.

In 2016 Cameron went off in a sulk after being caught out in one of his major errors of judgement.  Theresa May, the girl from nowhere, became Prime Minister as the least worst option.

Also in 2016 Jeremy Corbyn won decisively to retain his position as Leader of the Labour Party, and the media and others tell us that he will never become Prime Minister.

Be careful what you wish for.

Election Fever?

With the party conference season on and hitting the remote control change channel to sport at the hint of a politician or report from these events, we know that between now and 2020 a general election should be held.  My reaction which long ago may have been that this is very important is now more muted and indeed wearied.

The young adult part of the electorate will have been born in the late 1980's and the 1990's.  Their early memories of politics would have been the Prime Ministers Blair, Brown, Cameron and May.  At the other end of the age scale my equivalent was Attlee, Churchill, Eden and Macmillan.  Hardly like with like.

The picture above is of Hugh Gaitskell, Leader of the Labour Party 1955-1963, one of Labour's intellectual Sons Of The Raj, who died young and lost the 1959 election, defeated not just by Macmillan's big spending but the divisions in the Labour Party which the electorate did not like, especially in the depths of the Cold War.  My view at the time that it was a pity that Gaitskell wasn't leading the Tories and Macmillan the Labour Party was unwelcome.

When an election occurred information was derived from cinema newsreels, newspapers, journals and people around me.  Some watched TV news, such as it was, but I did not have either the time or a TV.  These days we greatly exaggerate the influence of TV in this period, forgetting that for many, notably young adults, there were other things to do.

This time round, I like many of the young of today, will be tapping away at my gizmo with immediate access to a wide range of sources, which include some of the press, media and journal legacy of the past but now not the same at all. What politicians say or are reported to say belongs to the realm of another world, one where imagination rules rather than information.

There are great changes from the past.  Retailing was very different and entailed a wide range of contacts on a daily basis.  The ordinary business of life was not the same, again a range of other ways and means. Debt was no go and consumption was not remotely on today's scale.  Education was different etc. etc.  Our young adults of today have grown up on a different planet.

It is not surprising that the major political parties are becoming so fractured.  We live in a fractured world with age groups whose life experience and formative thinking are very different.  Labour cannot rebuild its working class vote because that class of the past have gone into the mists of time.  The lower paid etc. today are not the same and they are changing rapidly in any case.

The Lib Dem's rely on old ideas and structures than cannot be recovered.  The Tories play the media game better, at the moment, but lack the ability to make the hard decisions and apply them thoroughly.  Their shifts, devices, shallow thinking and attempts at making deals and compromises will catch up with them.

The question is when and how.  A major financial bust will mean sooner. So who will the various age groups turn to?

All bets are off.