I am the very model of a modern Tory Minister

 To Carole Cadwalladr with huge respect

I am the very model of a modern Tory Minister

The way we get our funding now is nothing short of sinister

We wallow in the millions donated by Temerko

Despite the murder that they carried out on Litvinenko.

We’re dancing to the policies that stream out from the Kremelin

Like rats who scamper to their deaths behind the pipe of Hamelin.

We tolerate the poisoning of poor old Sergei Skripal

To keep the Russian oligarchs from closing down their Paypal.

But so long as right wing editors will never put the boot in

The voters never know about the links we have with Putin.  [chorus repeats x3]

We know that it would only take the journalists to dig more

Before they found the truth about the links of Andy Wigmore

What drives dear Lubov Churnukhin to be so free with her stash

And understand the motivation of Dmytro Firtash.

If any journo questions why the Russians wanted Brexit

We know Security will lead them quickly to the Exit.

I am the very model of a modern Tory Minister

The way we get our funding now is nothing short of sinister

So long as right wing editors will never put the boot in

The voters never know about the links we have with Putin.  [Chorus repeats x3]

The Dodgy Dave Song

Brooks, Coulson, Cruddas and now Peter Green - it certainly seems that David Cameron has a weakness for dubious individuals. 

Here's a little song to celebrate Dave's charitable indulgences to the ethically challenged.

If you find you can't behave

Get a job with Dodgy Dave

If you give to Cruddas then

You can eat at Number Ten

If your papers done for hacking

Dodgy Dave gives you his backing

If you find you're in the sh*te

Dodgy Dave will see you right

If you find you can't behave

Get a job with Dodgy Dave

Theoden and Lovelock Related?

Lovelock

Theoden

Am I alone in noticing the remarkable and growing similarity between James Lovelock, the nuclear-obsessed inventor of Gaia, and King Theoden of Rohan during the time when he was under the influence of Saruman? Could their condition in any way be related?

Dave is Sure - are you?

Sure® Deodorant & Antiperspirant 

 Wetness Protection for Men & Women

Invisible - Unscented. Powerful all-day protection against wetness and odor 

Classic form, trusted protection

Tories are to be understood and pitied, not condemned

HT Owen Williams

Watching the news, in jaw-dropping horror, as the right wing politicians' mindless orgy of  rage smashes at the fabric of society, punishing feckless mums for the sins of their offspring, threatening councils with massive bills for re-housing problem families in hotels after they have been driven out of their council houses, committing untold millions of tax-payers' hard-earned money in self-defeating schemes like withdrawing benefits from rioters, it is easy to feel angry and upset with them.


But we mustn't.

We must try to understand them.

Remember that your average Tory politician was first wet-nursed then controlled by a nanny, turfed out of his family home at the tender age of 7, packed off to a stinking boarding school to be abused physically and possibly sexually by elder children, equally emotionally deprived, made to "fag" for them, living in a self absorbed bubble, isolated from society...

Is it any wonder that Tories have no understanding of what is going on in the real world?

We must try to understand more and condemn less. They are to be pitied, not treated with contempt.

What we really need to do is to make sure that never again are their well-manicured soft hands allowed to get near to the levers of power.

Marc Roberts for Cartoonist Laureate

This is from Marc Roberts who is a cartoonist genius and lives here.

He should in fact be made Cartoonist Laureate. But there is no point in petitioning No 10 for that to happen, as it is an Impossibility.

Gove, School milk, Pakistan diplomacy : the Tory Hokey Cokey

Some sober reflections on the recent flurry of readjustments on the part of the ConDem Government.

You put yer school cuts in, take the school cuts out, in out, in out & shake it all about, 
it's a #toryhokeycokey, so that's all right
That's what it's all about

ooOOOH the hokey cokey &c

You put yer free milk in, take the free milk out, in out, in out & shake it all about, it's a #toryhokeycokey, so that's all right &c


They look both ways, they're our best mates, best mates, both ways, shake it all about, 
it's a #toryhokeycokey, so that's all right &c

Cameron admits Ashcroft does not pay full British Tax on New Poster

 

Thanks to Andy Barefoot for the poster tool.

Further to my earlier posting, I thought it best to force the issue of the Conservative imbroglio over Ashcroft's non-dom status by producing the above poster. Due to the immense generosity of a millionaire donor domiciled in a tax haven, we will be able to flood the country with bill boards promoting the facts of the matter. (Not). The Tories will be obliged to sue us if they believe they have a case, but their attempt is doomed to failure because the Mabinogogiblog (see blog heading) has already engaged Messers Carter-Ruck to fight our corner. If they do not sue us, they will be either admitting guilt, or exercising de minimis non curantur lex. To avoid the latter, please tweet a link to this page.

[update 14 Feb: BBC report:

Shadow Chancellor George Osborne has insisted Lord Ashcroft's tax affairs are a matter for him and accused the media of bias in asking about them. He said similar questions should be asked about Labour donor Lord Paul, thought to be non-domiciled for tax.
No they should't George, because that would be a matter for them. Wouldn't it? In your estimation?

The report continues:
Tory chairman Eric Pickles told the BBC he did not know the peer's tax status but, if he did, he would say. 
So Eric is breaking omerta. Watch out for horse heads in the bed, Eric

In a forthcoming BBC Radio 4 documentary on party funding, Mr Pickles says he is "alarmed" by comments from the Information Commissioner, who accused the Conservatives of "obfuscatory" answers on Ashcroft. 
Obfuscatory is not wrong.
But he stops short of urging his deputy to be more open, telling presenter Ann McElvoy: "That's a matter for him to consider. Lord Aschcroft is entitled to his privacy." 
Eric is back singing from the Central Office hymn sheet. But it's a crap hymn, because it is not for him and the IR, there is a little matter of Electoral Law:

[Ashcroft's] donations [to the Tory Party] are the subject of an Electoral Commission investigation over claims the company through which they were made - Bearwood Corporate Services - is in breach of electoral law for not "carrying on business" in Britain.


As the poster says, it is perfectly clear to any non-politician that Ashcroft is not a British taxpayer, so the donations are illegitimate and the Tries must pay them back, as should Labour pay back the donations of Paul and Mittal, and the LibDems have a moral obligation to pay back their illegit donations from fraudster Michael Brown and arms dealer Sudir Choudhrie.

But with all 3 big parties up to their necks in nastiness, they are hoping to delay the day of reckoning until the election is in the bag for them.

There is a case for the Greens, Plaid Cymru, SNP, and any non-offensive other small parties to go twist arms at the Electoral Commission.

Blair, Steve Bell, Chilcot Inquiry, save money

Respec to Steve Bell.
Click on the pic to enlarge.

I have not been following the Chilcot Inquiry into the Iraq war in any great detail, except to mention Omand's important point that the war has stimulated world terrorism, not inhibited it.

Steve Bell done the job for us: the central message that will come from the Inquiry: in one line, he has encapsulated what Chilcot will take thousands of pages and millions of pounds of taxpayers' money.

The next Inquiry into the next bit of illegal and monstrous political foul-up should be chaired by Steve Bell, and should call a succession of cartoonists and comedians. Worth a try.

Tory Truss Rupture Leak Shock

From Wikipedia:
In October 2009, [Liz Truss] was selected for the Norfolk seat by members of the constituency Conservative Association, and won over 50% of the vote in the first round of the final against five other candidates, one of whom was local to the county.^[16] [17] However, shortly afterwards, some members of the constituency Association, dubbed the 'Turnip Taliban' and led by former High Sheriff of Norfolk Sir Jeremy Bagge, 7th Baronet,^[18] objected to Truss’s selection, claiming that information about her extramarital affair with Conservative MP Mark Field (reported to have taken place several years previously) had been withheld from the members.^[19][20][21] A motion was proposed to terminate Truss’s candidature, but this was defeated by 132 votes to 37 at a general meeting of the Association’s members three weeks later.^[22]

The Mabinogogiblog has received a leaked negative publicity heads-up briefing from Dave's office.


-------- Original Message --------
>Subject: Truss Rupture
>Date: Mon, 16 Nov 2009 13:01:25 -0500 (EST)
>From: Dave <>
>To: conservative list <>
>Reply to: No reply
>Deplorable fuss
>over Liz Truss.
>This unfortunate rupture
>must no longer capture
>the public attention.
>Please make no more mention.
>Draw line under affair.
>Remove it from glare
>of the press.
>It's a mess.
>Must move on
>and improve on
>procedures.
>The Media’s
>respect – we must earn it
>Clash between Turnip
>and Notting Hill Nobs
>is something that robs
>us of deference.
>So please, no more reference.
>Devoutly to be wished
>That this matter be squished.

>

>- Dave

Nutt Sacked: Why? What'd he say?

Is this ^ the man who sacked the good Professor? Thanks to yessirnigel.com

Alan Johnson Says that Prof Nutt was sacked for campaigning against the Home Office policy.

What exactly was the campaigning message that so offended the Mr Johnson and the Home Office officials?

I have pasted selections from Professor Nutt's position statement below, with commentary from Sir Humphrey. [You can read the whole paper here]






A Gloomy Day in the life of Alan Johnson

Scene: Home Office office of official officer, seated. Home Secretary Johnson is sitting uneasily opposite, looking brow beaten.

Sir Humphrey: Here is Nutt's paper, Home Secretary. I am sure you have read it and taken it in, so I just wish to draw your attention to some of the more interesting items relating to the present crisis: Nutt says:

...we need to improve the general understanding of relative harms. I think we need to educate people about drug harms in relation to the harms of other activities in life, so that it is possible for them to make sensible decisions about relative harms. One of the ways we are thinking of doing this is through using a technique called multicriteria decision-making...a proven technology, which I think could well be applied to something ... as difficult as ... drug harms.

Sir Humphrey: That seems sufficiently obscure, Home Secretary, to be safe from Mail readers, but all he has to do is to change it into an acronym, MCDM, and it could appear as the antidote to MDMA, thus giving people the impression that no harm would come from taking MDMA because they could always get some MCDM from A&E.

Next, we find this: Nutt says:

...we should gather evidence about the impact of change of classification – something we are not routinely doing at present. We do not know the effects of downgrading cannabis from B to C. There was a fall in use but we do not know whether this was related to reclassification.


Sir Humphrey: I am sure that you can see that this is dangerous stuff. As you know, information is power, and the kind of information that Nutt is seeking could lead to a total overthrow of law and order from Land's end to John O'Groats. Information is power, and so we Must control the information if we are to keep control of power in this country, to keep anarchy off the streets of London, of Manchester of Glasgow. Not to mention Belfast and Londonderry. You do not want to be responsible for a drug-fuelled sequel to the Troubles, so you home Secretary? I am bound to advise you that it would be a brave decision to go down the road of gathering data that might undermine the wishes of the Policing Agencies. Very brave indeed.

Now we come to the real deal, to the heart of the matter: Nutt says:

I think we have to accept young people like to experiment – with drugs and other potentially harmful activities – and what we should be doing in all of this is to protect them from harm at this stage of their lives. We therefore have to provide more accurate and credible information. If you think that scaring kids will stop them using, you’re probably wrong. They are often quite knowledgeable about drugs and the Internet has made access to information extremely simple. We have to tell them the truth, so that they use us as their preferred source of information.

A fully scientifically-based Misuse of Drugs Act where drug classification accurately reflects harms would be a powerful educational tool. Using the Act in a political way to give messages other than those relating to relative harms undermines the Act and does great damage to the educational message.

Sir Humphrey: This is pretty inflammatory stuff. This is the kind of thing that they talk about in the Green Gathering. "protect them from harm??" This is Nanny State material, Home Secretary. You don't want to have to face that accusation across the floor of the house do you, Home Secretary?


But this is the most abhorrent part: Nutt dares to raise the question of morality. He, a Professor of psychiatry, dares to raise an ethical question. He is clearly off his manor here, Home Secretary. Listen. Listen to this:

Another key question we have to address as a society is whether our attitude to drugs is driven because of their harms or are we engaging in a moral debate?

What does he, a scientist, know about morality. It is we, we in the Home Office, who decide what is moral in this country! This is our remit! This is what we have been doing for hundreds of years!

And here's the sting in the tail:

I think [evidence based change] should happen because, while I’m not a moral philosopher, it seems to me difficult to defend a moral argument in relation to drugs if you don’t apply it to other equally harmful activities.

Sir Humphrey: Difficult to defend!? It will take months of bluster, obfuscation and economies with the truth if that question is let out of the bag. This man wants evidence based change. For 600 years the Home Office has been funcitoning perfectly well with making official judgments, and now this scienist, this psychiatrist, this loony doctor, this dare I say it, this Nutter thinks he can walz in and start ramming evidence based change down our thorats. Well, he's got another think coming, Home Secretary. He's got another think coming.

You must rid yourself of this turbulent scientist!

I have here a paper for his immediate removal from office.
Sign here... and here. Thank you Home Secretary.
You may go now.

[Alan Johnson leaves the office, shutting the door behind him]

Sir Humphrey: [whispers to himself] ...you may go and face the music. You have got 2 weeks trying to clean the political shit off the walls, and then you'll probably have to resign, which puts paid to your leadership bid and your dangerous dalliance with Proportional Representation. Yess...soon I will have a new Home Secretary.. hahahahahahahah [fade Sir humphrey]

Feeling sorry for Gordon Brown

Poor Gordon Brown. PoorGord.

I am back to feeling sorry for the man, and have to keep reminding myself of all his wrong decisions (10% tax, economic divergence, not seeing the Credit Crunch coming, endorsing the Iraq War, add your own grouches in the Comment slot). And I have to remember that he is capable (if the Americans let him, since our "deterrent" is not in fact independent at all) of giving the order to blast, crush, burn, immolate, irradiate and immiserate untold numbers of fellow human beings by actually firing Trident.

I do not hate him (unlike, it seems, most conservatives, who seem to cherish almost the same passionate feelings about Gordon that the left felt about Maggie. (Mme. Tacheur** as the French called her).

I just have to keep myself from feeling sorry for him. It must be grim to be Gordon. Once a week he has to go for his weekly ritual, the bear in the green padded cell of Westminster yapped at by all the other dogs and bitches in the kennel.

And he hasn't even got his Moral Compass. It's either mislaid, or when it does turn up it alternates between spinning wildly, or waving asthenically like the boom of an abandoned yacht in a windless Caribbean swell.

Still, it will soon be over, Gordon. Come June 2010 you will be free to write your memoirs, and in the light of catastrophic Tory economic mismanagement people will look back at you and think you were not so bad after all...


** Tache, n. Fr = Eng. stain.

Banksy in the Bristol Museum - on the Side of the Underdog.

Went to Bristol today to see the Banksy. Three hours 40 minutes queuing, rained on twice, but all worth it. Nice busker doing Pink Panther on one of those ?melodion things, keyboard that you blow into. Got talking with the neighbours in the queue. No problem with the wait, Three hours well spent.

Plunge into the Bristol Museum vs Banksy . Brilliant. First the triolith of Portaloos, suitably defaced with tags and scribble.

Then the Shock Jock. A radio programme on graffiti. Deeply disturbing piece. Was it real? I tend to believe it was. I tried to ring the number they gave, but it was discontinued.

Then the statues. David. Michaelangelo brought forward into the century that kicked off with this absurd "war on terror".
The Lion Tamer.

Classical works desecrated, not by Banksy, but by the way in which we are governed. Banksy is a satirist. Maybe the critis who diss him should ask themselves whether they would also have found Hogarth not quite to their taste.

After the statues, the Zoo.
Leopard poised on a branch, tail twitching, simian artist painting a beach in the certain knowledge that he would never be on a beach again unless someone unlocks his damned cage.
Nuggety chicks.
Sausages (so realistically represented that you could almost imagine they were alive). Tweety Pie.
(A bird within a guilded cage
Sets all Heaven in a Rage.
But not the Contented Twit.
He doesn't mind a bit. - Milligan)

The Riot Policeman theme. We as a society seem as if we don't mind a bit either, as shades of the prison house close about us. But it would be infinitely better world if Riot Policemen were running free in the meadow instead of running amok in the City.

The paintings. My favourite was the House of Commons. The MP Expenses scandal must have put millions onto the value of that painting.


After the Exhibition we all milled up into the normal Bristol Museum, looking for anomalies. Looking hard at all the stuff, getting drawn into it, looking into deep time, pondering the meaning of the Ordovician period, and then your consciousness is suddently dragged into 2009 by the a piece by The Unknown Vandal - the Trolley. And the Stalagmite. I found a Rat among the Chinese Dynastic pieces.

This is art without snobs on. There were no loud proclamations by art critics, self-appointed or otherwise, about the concept that lies within this piece, what notion the artist is exploring. Banksy needs no interpretation. He is interpreting 2009 to us with enormous clarity. A child can understand it - though a banker might not get it.

The critics who disrespect Banksy have to come to terms with the collaboration with Damien Hirst. Nice one Damien.

It follows from Banksy that the Law on graffiti has to be amended. Off the top of my head:

Let's start with sites.
Rule 1 - preferred sites should be hoardings, concrete expanses and bricked up windows. Owner's permission is preferable also.
Rule 2 - content: must be judged to be of artistic merit. By...er...by um...a jury of citizens? The Honourable Guild of Graffiti artists? Help needed here.

Rule 1 is easy to apply. Rule 2 is a bit more difficult.

Anyway Rule 3 is easy - graffiti art can lift our spirits, and deepen our appreciation of our visual environment. It should be encouraged, in a way that lifts our spirits by being part of a general uplift in the quality of our visual environment. Well painted street furniture is better than dirty, rusty, rotting street furniture. There is such a thing as aesthetic, just as there is such a thing as society.

Congratulations to whoever in the Bristol Museum saw this one through. Bloody amazing. We live in topsy turvy times. The respected classes have earned our profound disrespect, but the once-vilified graffiti artists are getting the recognition they deserve - a breakthrough movement like all the previous art revolutions.

No, not a breakthrough. Banksy is leading a Break-Out Movement.

Reg Hunter on Nick Griffin and the Queen

Here is a piece of wisdom from the great Reg Hunter, who is possibly one of the greatest of great comedians of all time in the known universe, along with Chris Rock. And Billy Connolly. Oh, and Tommy Cooper. And...oh, well, never mind.

They are discussing the invitation of Nazi Griffin to the Queens Garden Party. Go here, and push the slider along to 24.57. "Discrimination is Bad - even against recists. Gotta let him go, man, gotta let him go".

I know that this is a complex issue, and Johnsons Darren and Boris are both doing their best to pull the iron out of the fire, but as an afro-american, Reg Hunter's views carry weight. He has experience in the matter.

What if Griffin meets the Queen?

"Hillew, end what do yew dew?"
"I am trying to make meaningless all the sacrifices that Britons made in the Second World War, ma'am".
"..."

Mervyn King the Financial Wizard. Not.

Dead Sheep>

< Another Dead Sheep

Have any other readers noticed the similarity between Mervyn King and Geoffrey Howe the Thatcher Slayer? I wonder if they are somehow related?





Not for the first time this year, things do not look good on the financial department. Quite apart from the fact that other governments are beginning to disagree with the Keynesian policies of Obama and Brown, in addition to the fact that Obama is having to slow down his Green New Deal because of opposition in Congress, as well as the news that Brown's sale of Government bonds has not sold out, indicating that investors are not all that sure the UK will not go bankrupt sometime in the next 40 years, we have to read the dismal news that Mervyn "Dead Sheep II" King, Governor of the Bank of England, is beginning to close the door on further Government spending.

Obviously this blog can not solve all these problems before the coffee break, so I will just focus on Mr King (or should that be Lord King of Dead Sheep the Second?). Lord King, you have tossed uncounted billions into the swirling vomit-worthy cesspool that is the financial services industry. You have put £250 billions of taxpayers' money at risk in insuring the uninsurable, in betting that somehow the demented chickens of the black market Ponzi derivatives will somehow not come home to roost in the banks that bought them in a poke, thinking that they were nice fat pigs. You have chucked money in a spirit of insouisance and gay abandon at the unreal economy, and

• now that it is time for the Treasury to stimulate the real economy, to give people the Right to Rent, to buy up at a fair price the mortgages that were so foolishly handed out by manic money makers;

• now that it is time to put real insulation into real houses so as to save real people from real illnesses and real high fuel bills;

• now that it is time to get really big schemes rolling to generate real energy for real people without damaging the real ecosphere on which our real lives really depend;

Now you tell us there is no bleedin money! Because it has all gone in saving the banks!!

(Pause while descriptive expletives subside from the speech centres of the brain, and tufts of hair are removed from my already depleted scalp).

Mr King. Mervyn. Lord Sheep of Dead the Second. Governor. Guv. Listen:

Have you ever heard of the term "Investment?"
Definition: "A placement of capital in expectation of deriving income or profit from its use".

Mervyn, Mervyn. Merv. Out here in the real world, we need jobs, we need insulation in our roofs, and we need energy sources that do not wreck the planet's heat exchange system. I could go on, but I have other things to do, but if you need more information on this subject, I am sure the tea lady or perhaps your secretary can explain it to you. Or ask the man who runs your bath for you. Ask him whether he puts the plug in before he turns on the hot water. I am sure you will find he does. Living in an uninsulated house is like running a bath without the plug in. Putting the plug in can be seen as an investment. It may seem like a lot of trouble, but the bath fills up much better as a result.

Things have come to a pretty pass when we have to explain "investment" to the Governor of the Bank of England.

Yes, I know. It's not his fault. I blame the parents. Or in his case the nanny. Maybe she was a nanny goat. Or maybe he is Mervyn the Black Sheep of Dead.

Maybe we should get a new Governor of the Bank of England, and put Mervyn out to grass.

Maybe we will all wake up and find that this was all a dream.

Maybe.

PS Mervyn is a variant of Merlin. Just thought I'd mention it. Mistletoe, anyone?

The Noble Lord, Lord Lawlor lauds the law.

The Noble Lord, Lord Lawlor lauds the law.
He holds it vastly better than the law that held before.
He likes the lift in income for the rich across the board.
In many ways a modest, almost trivial award,
And he likes the Lamborghini that his lad can now afford. (Haw haw)
The Noble Lord, Lord Lawlor lauds the law.


The Noble Lord, Lord Lawlor lauds the law.
In his view far superior than the laws that hold abroad
As for the lower orders, well he really was appalled
That anyone should cavil at what was after all
A just remuneration, not a licence to defraud.
The Noble Lord, Lord Lawlor lauds the law.

(c) R Lawson 24.3.09

PS To any non-English reading this, I have to explain, with a touch of embarrassment,that this is how the occupants of the House of lords, which, seriously, is a non-elected part of Government in the benighted United Kingdom (yes, why is that not United Queendom?). There should be a special name for democracy in Britain: Charade Democracy.

Brown: Iran can have nuclear power but no bombs, OK? Not like us.

Gordon Brown says to Iran that they can have civil nuclear power, but will face sanctions if they try to refine their uranium to weapons grade.

Fine. He has drawn a line in the sand. A fine line, defining refining, because uranium refining is all that lies between nuclear power and nuclear weapons. All it takes is a few years feeding mega amounts of megawatts of electricity into a few centrifuges, and lo! the base metal of atoms for peace is transformed into the gold of atoms for nuclear holocaust.

It's not rocket science to make a nuclear weapon, although rocket science does help with the delivery aspect.

At Hinkley Point, they used to have a short burn, taking the uranium out before it was exhausted, and that product was be used to sustain the British Government's political need to be able to destroy millions of people at a whim.

Or you can reprocess the spent fuel, that will do nicely to make a bomb, although of course only really rich countries with squillions of taxpayers money to fritter, like Britain, can afford to do reprocessing.

In being confined to "atoms for peace", poor countries like Iran would have to make do with making a "dirty bomb" - popping a load of TNT in a van, cover it with nuclear waste, drive it carefully (mind the potholes) into a neighbouring country, and set it off either with a mobile phone, or by getting the van driver to press a button while he is still in the van. The latter would only apply if the van driver happens to be fed up with his wife and would like to try his luck with 70 virgins*.

So its a fine line between nuclear power and nuclear weapons.

Logic drives Brown to accept the right of Iran to have nuclear power (NP). Brown wants NP, so how can he in all conscience insist that Iran cannot have NP? After all, Western politicians are not hypocrites, are they?

However, Iran absolutely must not follow the UK in having nuclear weapons.

Q: Why, Mr Brown, should Iran not have nuclear weapons but UK should have nuclear weapons? (This is the question that journalists dare not ask, which is one of the reasons that blogs are a threat to the corporate media).

The answer to the question is as follows:

Mr Brown is sane and responsible, and Mr Ahmedinajacket, Prime Minister of Iran, is not. He has a brown skin, for one thing, whereas all other nuclear weapons states have white skins (Chinese are honorary whites for nuclear weapons purposes). Also Mr Ahmedinnajab believes in the 70 virgin theory, and the other nuclear weapons states are 70 virgin sceptics.

So - no way must Iran be allowed to get nuclear weapons, because they might actually use them. Of course, we might actually use them too, otherwise they would not be credible as a deterrent. But the difference is that we would use them wisely, whereas Mr Armourdinnerjacket of Iran is the kind of man who would use them foolishly.
Yes, that's the reason.

I hope that is clear. If not, here is a piece on the logic of deterrence.

Hopeless idealist that I am, I worked out that if the West clubbed together and bought Iran some photo-voltaic panels, it would only need one square metre per Iranian to generate as much electricity as their nuclear power programme would supply. However, there was no point in putting this suggestion to the UK Governement, because they would simply object that the Iranians would immediately break up the panels, and use the sharp pointy bits to attack us in our beds.

So, nuclear power for Iran it is then. But no nuclear weapons.

It's makes you feel safe to know that our Government is run by really logical people.


*I wonder if there is some catch here. Maybe they are eternal virgins, so gets to be tempted but is unable to consummate. That would be hell...

Is the game up for climate change skeptics?

Sponsored by the free market fundamentalist Heartland Institute, up to 600 elderly men gathered at the 2009 International Conference on Climate Change to refresh their convictions that the International Panel on Climate Change is wrong, and that they are right.

The keynote address was delivered by "Lord" Christopher Monckton. He begins:

"Where are they all today, those bed-wetting moaning Minnies of the Apocalyptic Traffic-Light Tendency--those Greens too yellow to admit they’re really Reds?"

Such a well argued question clearly demands a response. They are to be found here, if it please your lordship, and their conclusions are here.

More to the point for the Noble Lord, Lord Monckton is, where are they today, those doughty sceptics of received scientific "wisdom", the Flat Earth Research Society? Their present location is not certain, but their arguments are set out as clearly as those of the climate change sckepticks, in this location here. The climate change denialists (preferable term, as some self-styled english speakers have such trouble spelling "sceptic") would be well advised to contact the rump of flat earthers as fertile recruiting ground since they are going to need recruits in a few years' time. Maybe they should contact the Immortalists while they are at it, given the advancing age of International Conference on Climate Change attendees...

The last few months have not been kind to the climate change sckepticks. "large corporations like Exxon Mobil, which in the past financed the Heartland Institute and other groups that challenged the climate consensus, have reduced support. Many such companies no longer dispute that the greenhouse gases produced by burning fossil fuels pose risks.

From 1998 to 2006, Exxon Mobil, for example, contributed more than $600,000 to Heartland, according to annual reports of charitable contributions from the company and company foundations.

Alan T. Jeffers, a spokesman for Exxon Mobil, said by e-mail that the company had ended support “to several public policy research groups whose position on climate change could divert attention from the important discussion about how the world will secure the energy required for economic growth in an environmentally responsible manner.”

To round off their unhappiness, Al Gore, still in control of his bladder despite months of name calling activities on the part of the AGW-septics, is delivering a non-moaning, up-beat message, arguing that a political tipping point is about to happen, with a massive global effort to decarbonise the economy.

This is not to say that we should not seek out and contradict influential septicks like Melanie Phillips and Christopher Hitchens.

Just copy and paste the following into their comment slots. It doesn't take more than a few seconds, and it can help save humanity:


In the end, this is not an academic debate, because we and our children are part of the experiment. The consensus among scientists (yes, with a few exceptions, as is always the case in science) that we should decarbonise our economy as a matter of urgency.

Say we decarbonise our economy, and it turns out that AGW theory is wrong? Well, we will have created hundreds of thousands of jobs in insulation and manufacturing and taken thousands out of fuel poverty. Not bad, but that's not all. We will also have reduced the shock of Peak Oil and Peak Gas. And addressed our energy security problems. And prosperity in hot countries. Not bad.

Say we go the way of the denialists/sceptics? We will have problems with energy security, Peak Oil, Peak Gas, fuel poverty, unemployment, poverty, civil unrest and finally, massive, catastrophic climate disruption from droughts, floods, crop failures, disease, and war. With massive migration caused by environmental collapse. Not good.

If I were a betting man, I would put my money on decarbonising the global economy.

I'm sure Pascal would agree.

The financial crisis made clear to all (except bankers of course)

Hat tip to a Mr Lynn Jones, recently of General Motors, for this wonderfully lucid explanation of the financial crisis.

Seanie is the proprietor of a bar in Dublin .

In order to increase sales, he decides to allow his
loyal customers - most of whom are unemployed
alcoholics - to drink now but pay later. He keeps
track of the drinks consumed on a ledger (thereby
granting the customers loans).

Word gets around and as a result increasing numbers of
customers flood into Seanie’s bar. Taking advantage of
his customers’ freedom from immediate payment
constraints, Seanie increases his prices for wine and
beer, the most-consumed beverages. His sales volume
increases massively.

A young and dynamic customer service consultant at the
local bank (Angola Irish Bank) recognizes these
customer debts as valuable future assets and increases
Seanie’s borrowing limit. He sees no reason for undue
concern since he has the debts of the alcoholics as
collateral.

At the bank’s corporate headquarters, expert bankers
transform these customer assets into DRINKBONDS,
ALKBONDS and PUKEBONDS. These securities are then
traded on markets worldwide. No one really understands
what these abbreviations mean and how the securities
are guaranteed. Nevertheless, as their prices
continuously climb, the securities become top-selling
items.

One day, although the prices are still climbing, a
risk manager (subsequently of course fired due to his
negativity), of the bank decides that slowly the time
has come to demand payment of the debts incurred by
the drinkers at Seanie’s bar.

However they cannot pay back the debts. Seanie cannot
fulfill his loan obligations and claims bankruptcy.
DRINKBOND and ALKBOND drop in price by 99 %. PUKEBOND
performs better, stabilizing in price after dropping
by 95 %.

The suppliers of Seanie’s bar, having granted him
generous payment due dates and having invested in the
securities are faced with a new situation. His wine
supplier claims bankruptcy, his beer supplier is taken
over by a competitor.

The bank is saved by the Government following dramatic
round-the-clock consultations by leaders from the
governing political parties. The funds required for
this purpose are obtained by a tax levied on the
non-drinkers.

RL:Brilliant. The nub (or one of the nubs) is here "Nevertheless, as their prices continuously climb, the securities become top-selling items."

The economist Hyman Minsky classified derivatives into hedge, futures and Ponzi. It is this Ponzi aspect that has created a "value" for these instruments which is an order of magnitude greater than the world's GDP. When they come home to roost, they will break the banks. Governments need to identify and neutralise these Ponzi derivatives, perhaps by making them the responsibility of the CEOs who negligently bought into them. This would be unfortunate for the CEOs because they would go bankrupt despite their bonuses and pensions, but hey, you cannot make an omelette without breaking eggs.

...And for those who remain confused despite this simplified explanation, here is a visual pictorialisation of the whole process of the bank rescue...

NHS computers - a record failure at the Royal Free?

BBC NEWS : NHS boss attacks e-records system: "A new NHS computerised medical records system on trial at a London hospital has been criticised by a hospital boss for causing 'heartache and hard work'.

Andrew Way, chief executive of London's Royal Free Hospital, said technical problems had cost the trust £10m and meant fewer patients could be seen."

This is not a unique failure. See here:

IT system failures continued to plague the U.K. government this week, when as many as 80,000 civil servants working for the Department of Work and Pensions (DWP) had to deal with what is being described in the local press as the biggest computer crash in government history. ..The IT failure was only the latest in a string of serious computer system problems experienced by the department. The DWP's Child Support Agency (CSA) has been struggling with a £456 million system from EDS that has made payments to only one in eight single parents awaiting them. Last week, Johnson told a House of Commons Parliamentary Select Committee that he is considering shutting down the child-support case management and telephony system, and Doug Smith, the chief executive of the CSA, resigned from his job.

Then there is the famous Wessex Ambulance Trust computer fiasco.

This all reminds me of my medical training, on the "Undhere Syndrome", where the patient says "I have a pain here, and here, and here and..." When you get that, be prepared to have a long consultation.

To avoid carrying on the list, they are all collected and docuented under the title of IT Project Mismanagement Disasters by Derek J. Smith, who is to be thanked most sincerely for his work.

Our GP practice was among the first to computerise (with a BBC computer), and we progressed to Vision, which is a good Windows based system, but a constant source of annoyance with unwanted time-wasting dialogue boxes, and a serious deficiency in the "Search" department.
If I wanted to know when a patient was first given SEROXAT (for instance) I would have to scroll down looking with my eyeballs. I mean, WHAAT!!? I asked IPS/Vision to fix it (how long would it have taken? two hours?) and they said they were too busy attending to new Government demands to meet the needs of the GPs.

We trialled the beta version of a GP email system called X400. It quickly (or should that be slowly?) became apparent that it took 13 key clicks to send an email. Not good. I phoned the local IT manager to tell him about it. With tears in his voice he said "I know, I know, please send in numerous reports, not just one, we have to kill this thing, I have told them but they
are trying to stay with it". In the end, we won, and X400 died, but it took a lot of work.

And another thing. If a patient moves from one computerised practice to another, all the records are printed off on reams of paper, and then copied out into the new system. The various GP systems cannot talk to each other. In fact, even identical GP systems cannot talk to each other. So vital data like drug allergies can be left off, or mis-copied in the transcription process.

GPs have led the way with computerisation, with the hospitals languishing about 20 years behind - understandably, because of the greater size and complexity for a hospital computer.

So what is the Government's response to all this? They have dreamed up a huge Supercomputer called "The Spine" where everything will be integrated (no doubt with the police records into the bargain). Though it may be foiled by the bank bailout.

The Spine is estimated to cost £30 billion.

What do we learn from all this? That Civil Servants are not good at purchasing good, effective mega computer systems.

I think the problem starts in the boardrooms of big software Companies, thusly:

Chair: Item 4: The Megatherian BallsUp software. Clearly a heap of dingoes kidneys, totally screwed up, we have to cut our losses and scrap it. All agreed? Yes, Smithers?
Smithers: Chair, I know a high up Civil Servant, and he has a budget of £30 billion for an new computer system. Shall I try him before we make a decision to to ditch this project?
Chair: Excellent, Smithers, well done, we will advance you £200 for a lunch with your Civil Servant friend. All agreed? Good. Next item...

Deep inside, I have a little voice screaming "B*ll*cks", but I am managing to stay calm on the surface. Medicine is hard work, but satisfying work, and I love medicine, but I do not love the managerialisationism that has dumped this heap of crud on the NHS. NHS workers are lions led by donkeys.