On Boris and Party Politics

So, Boris Johnson has been selected as the Conservative candidate for Uxbridge and South Ruislip. Parachuted into Parliament would be a fitting description as the Tories have won the last thirteen Parliamentary elections in Uxbridge. And now with Boris – arguably the nation's favourite politician – on the ticket, the Tories' winning run in this North West London constituency will almost certainly continue.

Boris' volte face

I used to be a big fan of the bumbling but equally charismatic Bojo. His seemingly unrehearsed soundbites and unguarded soliloquies are usually entertaining, often even rapturously funny. Boris seemed to stand in stark contrast to the Play Doh politicians dominating politics these days, those forked tongue politicos like Cameron and Blair, whose actions and policies are based on political expediency, rather than what's best for their electorates. Their kind are perhaps best described by Groucho Marx's famous quip that "those are my principles, and if you don't like them... well, I have others."

Alas, during the London Mayoral election, Boris promised, solemnly vowed and committed to not stand for Parliament should he be elected. Each statement, as of yesterday's news, he has now broken. This puts him firmly in the same group of charlatans as Cast Iron Dave or "When-it-Becomes-Serious-You-Have-to-Lie, Junker." Boris broke his explicit promises for personal, political gain. As a result, for the remainder of his term Londoners will be getting a part-time Mayor – which we did not vote for – while, if his candidacy succeeds, Uxbridgers will get a part-time MP (that, of course, would at this point be their own fault). The only ones to really benefit from his duplicity are Bojo himself and the Tories, who gain the gold dust that is brand Boris for their general election campaign.

But what I really wanted to write about here is not two-faced-Boris. Instead, I wanted to focus on our party political system of governance. My questions are: what makes Boris a suitable candidate for Uxbridge and South Ruislip in particular? Wouldn't he be better experienced to represent his home borough of Islington or even Oxford, where he spent his student days? Other than Heathrow, which is located in the Uxbridge constituency and of which he no doubt knows plenty (wanting to close it down in favour of his vision for an estuary airport, Boris Island), how invested is he in Uxbridge and South Ruislip? Moreover, what knowledge or experience does he have of life there, of the particular issues and challenges faced by its inhabitants, that make him the prime candidate to represent them at Parliament?

The incumbent MP, Sir John Randall, was born in Uxbridge, which surely classifies him as being au fait with the ins and outs of this corner of Greater London. Also, one of the candidates shortlisted by the Conservatives to replace Randall was Simon Dudley. Mr Dudley, currently councillor for Maindenhead-Riverside, actually lived in Hillingdon, Uxbridge, for 18 years. One would think this time and experience would be a considerable advantage on the CV when applying to represent the area? Or how about another shortlisted candidate, the current Deputy Leader of the London Borough of Hillingdon council – yes, that Hillingdon, the one in Uxbridge – David Simmonds? Surely both of these gents had more knowledge of the constituency, along with a real personal connection and even investment in the area, than the candidate elect Boris? Had they not more merit to represent this particular seat?

Party Before People politics

But herein lies the crux of the matter, merit wasn't the decider in Uxbridge and South Ruislip, contacts were. The two better qualified candidates wouldn't have served the interests of the Party as well as the blonde bigwig that is Boris. After all, the point in Party Politics is not what is best for the electorate – who our representatives purport to serve—but what is best for the Party. The Party is where our MPs (independents excepted) allegiances truly lie. It is the Party who they really serve. Party political power, and retaining it—that is what defines the UK's current version of democracy.

Boris himself extols the Athenian virtues of meritocracy, quoting, for example, Pericles on the ideals of Athenian democracy: "preferment for office is determined on merit, not by rank but by personal worth." But could Bojo honestly argue that, as a part-timer with virtually no previous connection to the place, he is better qualified to serve the interests of Uxbridge than a full-time councillor with years of expertise gained from working for its people, for their interests? Or is he better qualified than a councillor who has 18 years of living experience in the constituency in question? I would be interested in hearing his answer.

Indeed, what has happened in this case is power being handed to an outsider at the expense of those more deserving. It is but a slightly democratised version of the kind of feudalism created by the Norman king William the Conqueror (1028-1087). In order to consolidate his grip on the newly conquered lands, he too parachuted to the castles and important posts of 11th century England his personal friends and loyal vassals who would bid his will come what may.

Of course, a big difference to Norman England is that Boris still needs a majority vote before becoming a Member of Parliament, but we live far from a democracy based on merit where every one has an equal opportunity to stand for election and lead their community. Our Party Before People system is more akin to the People's Republic of China or Iran, where the Communist Party or Guardian Council respectively chooses the candidates that can be voted for. Thus, a chosen few effectively weighs the outcome of the election so that only preselected candidates have any realistic hope of winning.

Of course, in England anyone can put themselves forward as an independent candidate, but the political machinery of the main parties and the block voting power they will hold in Parliament make it all-but impossible for independents to be chosen for Government or really affect the country's political agenda. So, in reality, being parachuted into a safe seat, as has happened to Boris, isn't that different from a feudal monarch filling seats with his trusted minions.

Government is no place for musical chairs 

Another, slightly tangential, example of our Party Before People system of democracy is that calculated and cynical act of political expediency over long term electoral benefit which we call the reshuffle. The reshuffle this past summer, for instance. saw the replacement of several Cabinet Ministers with newcomers. Perhaps the most high profile position that was shuffled about was that of the Education Secretary.

Now, leaving aside Michael Gove's policies, my question is, who benefits most from this reshuffling? Is it the UK education system, which gets a new boss in the form of junior Treasury minister, Nicky Morgan, with no professional experience of the education sector and only a year to learn the ropes before then being replaced with another newbie? Or the Conservative party, which can make political capital by getting rid of the more experienced minister, but one that had made powerful political enemies, and potentially get more women votes in the process? While politically expedient, reshuffles just cause brain drain, disruption and a need to retrain. It is difficult to see any advantage here for the electorate.

It would surely be more beneficial in the long term if each party had to outline in their manifesto, in advance of a general election, those ministers who would hold each Cabinet post for the duration of the Parliament (provided there was no gross misconduct or such, of course). But that would take away from the Party an important tool, ever so useful for calibrating their machine toward electoral success, regardless of the effects on the public interest and the work they are supposed to be doing.

Other ways

Another quote from Pericles via Boris: "We rightly dwell today on the imperfections of Athenian democracy; and yet no modern democracy is perfect." Indeed. Would that we could govern our communities like, for example, the nomads in Ladakh, high up in the Himalayas. Here the villagers elect a leader for one year and one term at a time. The elected leader then does their best to guide the community's choices and work before relinquishing the job—often quite happily, as it happens—to the next leader. In the film Stone Pastures, we see this form of democracy in action and the responsibility and pressure it puts on the bearer. In Ladakh at least each and everyone has a chance to lead the community and there is no Party dictating who is eligible to run or who people can vote for.

Or, another example Boris would certainly be aware of, the Ancient Athenian political system. Even with such unjustness as only allowing men of property to vote and stand for public positions, it did have at least one distinct advantage to the "democracy" that we experience: there were no political parties.

For those allowed to take part in political decision making, the citizens, it was one-man-one-vote. There was no preselection, no pre-agreed block voting. Athenian democracy also had a secret weapon against corruption, the Kleroterion. This lottery machine was used to form juries and select citizens to state offices. It made block voting virtually impossible by randomizing the group who would be allowed to take part in any particular vote. Our system, on the other hand, with its institution of party "Whips", whose job it is to ensure that party members vote according to official party policy, actively promotes Party Before People politics.

That great sage of the Athenian age, Plato (427-347), correctly identified that true democracy was more suitable for relatively small city states because the sheer logistics of decision making required to govern a large population would necessitate professional politicians. The expertise of "Politics" would become more important than governing or knowledge of the area or the electorate or the portfolio... This is because politicking is more useful for securing an election and therefore one's job.

Enter our form of representative democracy, as in Uxbridge, where the pro-politician gets the leg up from the Party machine ahead of candidates with proven local expertise.

Shifting power from the Party to the People

Now, warts and all, our system in the UK is still a good way on the road to a meritocratic and equitable political system, but here are a few thoughts on how to reduce the incentives of Party Politics in favour of accountability and long term benefits for the electorate:

1. Political Parties should not be allowed to appoint candidates. Instead each candidate must garner a certain percentage of "thumbs up" from the electorate they hope to represent (today's technology would make such crowd-sourced mandates easily achievable—eg see here).
2. Each candidate should have a demonstrable connection with the constituency they are hoping to represent, through birth or throughliving there or working there.
3. Each party should be required to assign Cabinet posts before general elections.
4. To receive a Cabinet portfolio, ministers should have demonstrable experience of the department or industry in question.
5. Reshuffles should not be allowed, unless some crisis (war, death, proven corruption or misconduct, or such) necessitated it.

Just a few ideas that could make political parties more accountable, increase the amount of professionalism (real world, not politico) in government and incentivise longer term thinking, rather than focusing on how to get voted back in.

The current political system is calibrated in favour of political parties rather than the demos, which should be addressed immediately. Our semi-feudalist democracy serves political parties and vested interests first, and only second the electorate. We should aim for true democracy that would serve the interests of everyone, and give each and every one of us the possibility to lead our communities. Candidacy to lead a community should not be based on contacts, it should be based on merit.

***

UPDATE: Guido Fawkes brings us this similar story of Labour parachuting their chums into Parliament, ahead of local candidates.

Burying talents in a muddy Finsbury Square

The camp

Last Friday, on my way to Moorgate after work, I decided to walk through the Occupy camp on Finsbury Square. I wanted to see how they were coping with the dreadful weather we've had this spring - and what I found was anything but a pleasant surprise.

The place was a mess. Some six months after being pitched, the tents looked battered. Everything seemed soggy. There were few signs of life and the din of the city was the only sound to be heard. I saw a mountain of rubbish in one corner of the square, rising from a pond made of its own garbage juice. The ground, previously healthy grass, had been reduced to liquid mud and brown puddles. At times I was unsure of what I was walking on (or worse, in).

There were a few slapdash attempts to create walkable paths. A piece of cardboard here, a plank of wood there, but these were so dispersed and slippery that even Crash Bandicoot would've found it difficult to skip through the camp unscathed. The Square, the mud, the atmosphere; it all made me think of a festival where the final act had long since finished, but the revellers still refuse to face reality, pack up, and go home.

When I finally made it through the sprawl of tents, I found the main information hub. Interestingly, compared to the fall out city that lurked behind it, this place was clean and orderly like town library. I found myself wondering: how could the people who set up this info hub, who obviously had some pride in appearances and organisational skills to boot; how could they put up with all this filth around them? How can they live with front and back yards that resemble pigsties? And why are there still, 6 months into this experiment, no concrete signs of progress or development on the site?

The inhabitants

And, then, it began to dawn on me. I had been thinking of writing a post about how governments like to live beyond their means. To a large extent, I realised, this movement and their actions reflect a very similar mindset of wanting the cake, but not being prepared to earn it. The ideological inhabitants of Finsbury Square argue for power and wealth to be distributed more evenly, but judging by the place they call home, they must either be unwilling or too lazy to work hard in order to increase their share.

Guardian photo gallery (from a sunnier day)

Polis, said Plato, is man writ large. Well, if so, this polity looked like the kind of ruffian you would find living in a cardboard box under a bridge in a run-down part of town.


Granted, they had shown some initiative by turning a bicycle into a power generator. But in terms of creating a sustainable and long term power supply, it would probably turn out somewhat impractical - unless, that is, they fancy cities powered by people in hamster wheels? 

Still, hardly a blueprint for improving the structures of our society, this camp. If this Occupy group can't even manage an acre or so without turning it into the toilet from Trainspotting, then why should we listen to them harping on about how to structure society? Just imagine the state of our infrastructure, sewage, electricity, NHS, telecoms, etc., if these Occupiers were put in charge.

There's nothing wrong per se with turning on, tuning in and dropping out, provided one doesn't become a burden or a bother to others. However, not only does the ship of fools at Finsbury Square spoil public places and ask for handouts, they also have the cheek to belittle everyone else by declaring "Why get a job? I have an Occupation." 

(Well, let's see. Jobs pay for 1) a roof, floor and four walls, 2) water for washing, 3) gas for heating, 4) electricity for entertaining and, most importantly, 5) food to sustain me. But you, on other the other hand, dear Occupier, choose to live in a tent surrounded by mud, refuse and discarded bits of dreadlocks.)

Similar wasters have of course always existed. However, from the Middle Ages up to the 17th century, before the French came up with asylums, rather than being allowed to plant themselves right bang in the centre of town, they were forced to wander the rivers and the wilderness. 

We need not be quite so strict these days, but - here's an idea - why don't these Occupiers petition the government and local businesses for a licence to use vacant properties? They could undertake a binding promise to leave the property in better shape than what they found it in. They could could do it up a bit, make it nicer. In short, they could add value.

The Guardian writes about a meeting that took place in the camp: 'In a bizarre act of protest, an older Occupier called Rob, shouting "fuck your process", left the meeting to fish a ukelele from a nearby tent, then sat strumming for the remainder of the meeting, to the annoyance of several around straining to hear.' This sentence, for me, reflects the camp and its relationship with London in microcosm.

The people being annoyed by the arrogant and selfish rogue playing the ukelele are us, the many, the real 99% who live or work around the Square. The bad apple, Rob, is analogous to the Occupy movement vis-à-vis London. He decided to unilaterally ruin it for everyone else, just like the Occupiers did with Finsbury Square. They have arbitrarily appropriated a public space and reduced it to their own private squalor in order to promote their singular political beliefs, whatever the cost to the larger community.

The malady

In "Protest and Communication", episode 6 of the sublime BBC series Civilization, Kenneth Clark looked at Drürer's famous work, "Melancholia I".

Albrecht Drürer, "Melancholia I"

He said of the engraving, created in 1514, that it was "one of the great prophetic documents of western man." It shows, Clark continued, "humanity at its most evolved. With wings to carry her upwards, she sits holding the compasses - symbols of measurement by which science will concur the world. Around her are all the elements of constructive action: a saw, a plane, pincers, and those two prime elements of solid geometry, the sphere and the dodecahedron. And yet all these aids to construction are abandoned, and she sits there brooding on the futility of human effort."


In the Late Middle Ages, according to Clark, melancolia had meant a simple combination of sloth, boredom and despondency. As radical as the "direct action" activists on Finsbury Square might fancy themselves, today's Occupy movement is actually captured perfectly by the engraving. They have in their lap the most powerful machine yet (the computer) and with it a key (the internet) to virtually every tool in history. But instead of utilizing these to make stuff with, or do things that could improve their communities, they sit down and bury their head on a table, their their talents wasting away in the muddy ground beneath their tents.

Despondency in Finsbury Square

That is no route to progress. It is the opposite, in fact. Where the civilized man develops himself and improves upon his surroundings with a view to making them permanent, the savage merely looks around haphazardly to satiate himself now. The Occupiers have grown up cushioned by the welfare state and the Western life of luxury. As a result, they have little sense of direction, and even less of a work-ethic - instead, they prefer to act on the basis of an incredible sense of entitlement. It is because of these reasons that the movement, while admirable in intent, will ultimately fail.

The alternative

I have no doubt that there are many people living in the camp who have honourable ideas and who really want to make the world a better place. Indeed, I agree with many of the Occupiers' gripes. However, the path to wilderness is filled with good intentions, while the road to progress is paved with hard work. Plumbing, hygiene, waste management, taking care of one's property, construction, gardening, education, health care... that's the stuff that really matters. And as is evidenced by the unholy state of their camp, the Occupiers unfortunately prefer to spend their time and energy on more glamorous and intellectually stimulating pursuits, like discussing the international legal dimensions of eradicating ecocide.

Instead of transforming public spaces into a health hazard, these people should use their time constructively and find something that they can make into an occupation, something with which they can add value. These would be revolutionaries could have put up tents, and then occupied themselves in a productive way by figuring out how to improve and help the area, its people and its environs.  If they had done this, they would have gained more friends, and they might have made a real difference for the better.

The last time I walked through Finsbury Square was on my way to a concert by Terje Isungset. If these Occupiers find it difficult to figure out what it is that they can give to humanity, they would do well to to ask him for some advice. Mr Isungset has made himself famous by playing music with instruments he crafted from birch, ice and stones, to name but a few novel materials. Now that's more like it - and Terje's incredible initiative contrasts glaringly with the the self-righteousness and laziness that are on display at Finsbury Square.

It is May Day after all, the day of the workers, so, guys, you really should get to work. And, please, leave our public parks just that: public.

Ed Miliband's New (make belief) Reality

The lackluster leader of Labour, Ed Miliband, delivered a speech yesterday to the people's organisation London Citizens. It was billed as his nth relaunch, and he focused mainly on how his party would work to create a "New Reality" for Britain. This UK would be based on fairness and it would be one where vested interests are tackled head on so that the proceeds of growth are not just accumulated by those at the top, but also by low earners and the so-called squeezed middle. 

In what has unfortunately become his trade mark style of bland delivery with little substantive content, Mr Miliband also argued that the Coalition had failed by its own measure of getting rid of the deficit over this parliament, and that it was doing too little to stimulate growth while also cutting too much government spending. He accused the government of "shrugging its shoulders" while the UK's economic predicament deteriorated further, which, he argued, was the direct the result of their failed policies.

Hero or zero?

Ed painted a picture where David Cameron and the government were of the opinion that "fairness is a luxury you can't afford in tough times", while Labour would instead be "fighting for fairness", "fighting for justice", and "taking on vested interests." This was Labour as Superhero, dressed in tight red spandex, fighting for you, me and everyone - that is, as long as we fit into his particular concept of fairness.

Granted, there are few successes that the Coalition can boast about, the notable exceptions being Michael Gove's work in delivering choice and freedom to the education system, and George Osborne's sweet talking of the credit rating agencies into letting the UK keep it's AAA status - as a result of which his government is able to borrow with historically low interest rates. The latter in particular is a nothing less than a coup, considering that, in reality, he's spending and borrowing more than the Labour government did before him (although had Labour's Alistair Darling, or, heavens forbid, Ed Balls become Chancellor, the profligacy would most likely have been far worse).

But the Tories in particular, for all their failings - of which there are many - have actually come to love Ed as a result of his inability to convert the unpopularity of the Coalition's cuts into more Labour voters. Some Tories have even said that he's the "gift that keeps on giving", and that the most important thing for the Tories next election campaign is that Ed remains the Labour leader. Labour's woes under his leadership have also not been helped by the seemingly unending barrage of embarrassments from within the party, with a few own goals thrown in for good measure.

How will Ed save the UK?

Policy-wise there was little meat on Labour's policy bones. Ed said that he wanted to begin by "patching up the unfairness of the old economy" by taxing bankers' bonuses and using the proceeds to help those out of work. Noble idea, but it doesn't take into account how banks have already begun switching their remuneration policies from big bonuses to salary increases and other benefits in order to sidestep such money raising measures from HMRC.

His government would also undertake a review of "corporate short termism." As an example of this modern malaise he gave us the Quarterly Review, but he then failed to elucidate what the problem was - should they be annual, then? Or should companies only make Five Year Plans? - nor did he provide any clues as to how this "problem" would be solved.

He then advocated a policy whereby seekers of council housing would be bumped up the list if they were actively engaged in helping their communities. This is fair enough, but what exactly constituted "helping the community" was left to the imagination.

There were, however, some good ideas as well: Labour would set new rules to promote long term and fair wealth creation by looking at plans for a British investment bank to help small business grow - better that than ever more QE. They would also legislate so that government procurement contracts would only go to companies that provide apprenticeships, thus safeguarding jobs for the next generation. And a Labour government would make sure that energy companies give all pensioners over 75 the cheapest tariff - and if you don't, he said, we'll legislate to make sure it happens.

Ed went to great lengths to emphasise that if his party were in government, he would make choices that favour the hard working majority, over those - by implication skiving wasters - who earn enough to pay the 50p tax rate, which, he said, should stay in place.

But a good example his distinctive brand of what we could paradoxically call "Targeted Fairness" was that everyone in the country must pay for improvements on train lines in remote areas, rather than those who actually use the service and will therefore benefit from the upgrade. So Ed's is a fairness that espouses the rights of a "1%" over the "99%", in that the few would profit on the backs of the many.

So, that's how he'll create fairness. Where the money will come from is a mystery as he didn't say, other than the aforementioned bonus tax.

It wasn't us, guv, honest

But what made for truly interesting listening came from Ed The Historical Revisionist. According to him, the crisis that got the UK into its current state of high unemployment and near zero growth came from abroad, like an overwhelming global storm which even the UK was unable withstand. In stark contrast, however, he placed all the responsibility for the UK's continued economic hardship squarely on the shoulders of the Coalition government. A textbook case of what cognitive psychologists would call Actor Observer Bias - and the rest of us would call bull###t.

But Ed still managed to keep a straight face when he promised that Labour would not shirk away from "using the power of the government", and that Labour wouldn't cut the deficit as fast the Coalition, but would do so in a more balanced way - which translates roughly into "I would just borrow more than they are borrowing."

Hardly surprising, that. After all, he was part of the government that presided over a decade long splurge in public spending - one of the main reasons for the economy's current ills and uncompetitive state - paid by a) borrowing, b) the sale of gold reserves at the bottom of the market, c) using up the North Sea oil reserves, d) increases in tax revenue from the real estate bubble and e) the rise of the financial sector, both of which were the direct result of Labour policy decisions. (See the graph below from this excellent overview of the New Labour economy.)

Ed also accused the current government of having failed by their own standards because they promised to eliminate the deficit over this parliament (but not the debt, mind you, as that wouldn't even be touched). It wasn't to be, however, and, as the Chancellor admitted in his Autumn Statement, the government would have to borrow an extra 111 billion. And according to Ed's speech the figure now stood at 158 billion. (The Coalition's spin on why they needed to borrow more than first thought was that they just hadn't realised earlier how bad a state the economy was actually in. Well, it's of little use complaining now, Georgie Boy: you screwed up your figures or were naive when forecasting, or both, so your bad and your responsibility, simple as that.)

And while admitting that there has been an ongoing economic crisis, in Ed's world it's a crisis of the free market, where our governments apparently played no role. What an incredibly lazy analysis this is considering the sovereign debt crisis that is crippling Western governments and which has even lead to the overthrow of two European governments (so far).

Less honest reflection in favour of more cowardly deflection

But at least he knows how to dodge questions from the press and how to deflect blame - thus proving his credentials as a politician. According to Ed, "its the result of the [current] government not being able to get rid of the deficit over this parliament that we will inherit one." Well, putting aside his admirable optimism, what a porky-pie that was! After all, the government that counted Ed Miliband as a Cabinet Minister was the one that overspent and overextended the country's credit card, without putting anything aside for a rainy day (like a real Keynesian would have done), while making the economy less competitive and less effective even when the going was good!

Also, when asked about the note "there's no money left", and why has he only now, 18 months later, come to the realisation that, actually, there really is no money left, Ed parroted the same line again, that "Remember what this government said? They said we are going to clear the deficit over this parliament - now what's happened is that they've failed. They've lost the argument, and now we're going to have to win it. We will clear the deficit in our next government." Words are cheap, Mr Miliband - but why should we trust the party that racked up the underlying debt in the first place?

Another questioner asked that, while you say you will take on the energy companies, as Energy Secretary in the previous government, why did you not do so then? Ed's reply left the whole question unanswered: "we clearly didn't do enough. We didn't do enough. But I'm not here to defend everything the last Labour government did. We weren't strong enough taking on vested interests, but it's part of the recognition about how the world has changed that we now need to take action." Oh, OK, then. Times have changed - so no need to take any responsibility over the "last government" in which you happened to hold office.

One thing Ed got right, though, was that Labour are much closer to where the people are. This is no doubt true, but it's mostly so because they set in place a client welfare state and presided over a huge increase of people on the public payroll - the price of which is a deformed economy, the deficit and the huge mountain of debt underneath it, which we and our children will be paying off for a long, long time to come.

But that's no longer Labour's fault, apparently, because they're offering a "New Reality", based on not taking responsibility and planning to do the same thing again, only this time with a new outfit, and expecting different results.

Open House Saturdays

Wake up, breakfast, post office, drop off stuff at the charity shop and get a coffee;


Tube from Balham to the Bank of England, queue for two and a half hours, walk through Sir Merv's office and the MPC meeting room (note the bas-relief of Moneta holding a scale in one hand and a cornucopia in the other - somewhat ironic considering the former is pretty much ignored these days in favor of of the latter, à la QE) before lifting a gold bar (weight 13kg; value c. £459,000 - unfortunately they wouldn't let me take it home);


Have french onion soup for lunch beside St Paul's;

Continue toward Fleet Street and stop off to admire the Daily Express building's art deco foyer, marvel at the snake handrails in particular and almost recall being born upon looking up the spiral staircase;


Sit down in court room 15 for an intriguing and entertaining trial that originally took place in 1840's Nottingham (defendant, public execution, found guilty) at the magnificent Royal Courts of Justice;

Another coffee and off to Tottenham Court Road;


Negotiate a deal on a sweet new stereo (thanks Eamonn!) and DVD player, followed by grocery shopping and tube home;


Set up the new sounds and vids, enjoy a delicious meal with my beautiful wife, take out the rubbish, collapse into the swivel chair;


Knackered, but somehow end up writing this - all in all, happy days!

London going up in smoke?

Let's recap the events of the last few days, shall we. In a nutshell, London was almost flushed down the toilet by spoilt brats who thought they were deserving of new flat screens, sneakers and mobile phones and then went out to get them by any means necessary. The good news, however, was that the majority showed us what civilized people do, but we'll get back to that later.


The spark to this madness came from Tottenham when, last Thursday, a Met officer fatally shot one Marc Duggan in a sting operation. His family, understandably in shock and grief, admitted that he'd been "involved in things", but maintained that he had never been violent. The guy did, however, have a gun on him - and as tragic as the loss of a young life is, if you carry a gun, you run the risk of making a bad situation worse, which is what seems to have happened in this case. The Met initially said that he had shot the officer in question, but this has since been proven to be a fabrication. To fake such an incident is a crime for which the officer(s) involved should of course be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. However, to say that Duggan was wholly innocent is untrue, after all, he had a gun in his posession.


On Saturday, then, the bereaved family organized a peaceful protest in his memory and against police brutality. All fine, that - and admirable to be sure. People should go the the streets and voice their concerns if they think it will improve matters for their community. It's called participation and taking an interest, and it should be commended because there are few things more dangerous for society than lethargy, of not being bovvered. But, unfortunately, this peaceful protest, mourning a young man who had died violently, mutated quickly into a full blown riot as a result of it being hijacked by people out to create havoc.


 And so these thugs set off to work, demolishing Tottenham High Street. Shops were looted, buildings, cars and buses set on fire - in short, jungle rules for the demented. The police were caught off guard, and the situation escalated rapidly. The crowds swelled and the fever began to boil over as kids texted their mates to join in on the "fun". With such large crowds in the way, fire trucks were unable to access the area, as a result of which dozens of buildings were reduced to heaps of burnt wood and glowing metal. Businesses ruined, people made unemployed, homes burnt to a crisp... Tragedy heaped upon tragedy. The family Duggan were quick and right to condemn the rioting, so any pretext thereafter that this was about demonstration and solidarity with the dead man was rank, adding insult to such sad injury.


It didn't matter to the rioters of course and the next night, then, was to be a rerun, only this time in other parts of London as well. Enfield, Brixton, Camden and so on. The media began talking about similarities with the '81 riots, about the underclass letting off steam. Some bleeding heart liberal on Sky News was even crying that this was the fault of society, that "these young people have nothing", and that's why this is happening... Such incredible naivety, placing the blame on anything and everything except the criminals who perpetrate crimes. These were nothing more than vandals, criminals and jerks intent on destroying property, intimidating and attacking bystanders and stealing to their (probably drunk, maybe stoned, but certainly cold) hearts content.


By Monday night the trouble had spread to Clapham Junction, to Ealing, to Barking; the list goes on. What was happening to this city?!


On Tuesday morning, after another night of mayhem and destruction, while buildings smouldered and innocent people were left wondering what had they done to deserve their livelyhoods or homes (perhaps both) being shattered or reduced to ash, an article in the Guardian purported to contextualize these riots but in so doing attempted to shift responsibility for these events on the Coalition government. I was gobsmacked. To absolve criminals of their responsibility due to some perceived greater injustice is exactly the kind of mindset that brought up kids like these in the first place.


It should've been obvious from the nature of the riots that these disturbances had nothing to do with politics. There were no banners, no chants, no slogans, no organized walks. Instead, there were baseball bats and crow bars and balaclavas: everything you need to anonymously smash things up with. These youths were organized, as they demonstrated by the cunning use of BMB messaging in their bling, bling Blackberries to rendezvous in specific locations - ironically, this service is called "Support Community Forums", and it is untraceable by the police and free to boot, thus highly popular amidst those who partake in tearing communities apart. Their instructions on where to meet and what to bring were disseminated via social networking tools, and the messages spread like wildfire. Some of the trouble makers had, it must be said, also shown considerable foresight, like in this Tweet: "For anyone heading to places where riots are: 1) Mask up properly, not just a hood. 2) Bindmans solicitors if you get nicked: 02078334433". If only they had displayed this level of initiative at school. (Bindmans, incidentally, specializes in defending angry idiots who are filled with a sense of victimhood and/or righteous indignation, the most recent example being that wannabe comedian Bobo Jonathan May-Bowles, who assaulted the 80-year old Rupert Murdoch on account of disagreeing with how Mr Murdoch runs his media empire.)


These riots were all taking place on high streets for a simple reason: there are no Currys, PC Worlds, Carphone Warehouses or such in Westminster village. And this type of folk don't really do historical artefacts, paintings or books, as those working at Waterstones were no doubt relieved to find out. I'm still undecided, by the way, about whether this was a good or bad development: burning books is demonstrative of a dangerous mind, but, on the other hand, those who place no value on books are poor souls indeed.


To imply that these misguided young 'uns were only lashing out because they are a) disenfranchised, or b) poor, or c) angry at not having opportunities is therefore farcical to an Orwellian degree. Firstly, this country is not like apartheid South Africa, nor like the Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea (funny, isn't it, how the least democratic states always insist on using that word in their name), or Zimbabwe, or Myanmar - the sad list goes on and on. People do have a vote here. They have the opportunity to get elected into Parliament, if they set their minds to it and do the work required. We can also demonstrate freely, write and think and shout whatever we want - as long as we don't incite violence, of course. In short, these youths could participate and affect how this society is run, if they chose to do so. I suspect, however, that they are too busy getting drunk and playing Grand Theft Auto: Sin City. Nothing wrong with that, for youngsters - only don't then complain if you're not happy about how things are. And certainly don't go around wrecking property, being violent and stealing the more recent GTA: San Andreas.


Second, they are incredibly spoilt, these kids, and far from poor. They have mobile phones, Playstations, TV's, Ipods, bicycles; all those niceties of modern life that make Western being so unbearably light. Many if not most of these kids have more stuff than we as kids could have dreamt of. If, however, there were any in their midst who are forced to deal with pangs of hunger when going to bed, than that's another issue - one often debated in Ethics classes - any thoughts on that, anyone? But for the vast majority of these selfish brats, they know nothing about what poverty really is. They probably don't even bother watching the news or factual programs where they might see people around the world, infinitely less privileged than they are, starving, or living in makeshift tents, or walking 10 miles for water, or rummaging for food in waste dumps. These kids should try living on $2 a day. That's the reality of poverty - and there but for the grace of God go each and every one of us.


And, third, angry at not having opportunities? Bull. They have free education. Granted, it may not be the best in the world, but each kid here can, if they work hard, gain the basic tools to do something constructive with their lives. They also have the internet, often even on their snazzy smart phone. Instead of playing games and loitering on Facebook, however, they could be using it to learn more about our world. They have free health care. There are also libraries in most communities, and even if there is none in their area, in London, they have easy access to more knowledge than people of any other city in the world, for our museums are free, and they provide more learned information than most schools in the world, for those who are interested to use them. And the under 16's even have free bus travel passes with which to get there, for peeps sake.

So, to say or imply that this is the fault of society totally ignores the fact that, at the end of the day, it is about choice and willpower. Some people do get it easier, but then that's just life. Deal with it. Also, what people tend to forget is that those kids who are privileged today most often come from families who have worked hard in the past. The family that owned the House of Reeve's in Croydon, for example. They probably lived quite nicely, their kids may or may not have even gone to private school, but that's only because the family had put thousands if not millions of hours into making it a success, ever since 1867. And now, as a result of these idiots, it's a smouldering wreck, all that work gone up in smoke, and some 15 staff facing an uncertain, quite possibly, unemployed future.

But the above incredibly thick girls in Croydon say that they're "showing the rich we can do what we want" and that it's their fault for having businesses in the first place - they demonstrate perfectly what happens when life is too easy and people begin to expect things in return for nothing. The girls obviously had no idea about where money comes from, namely sweat, toil and tears. The idea of a "work ethic" must be as familiar to them as that of the Mandelbrot Set. These "ladies" believe, instead, that they deserve that mansion from Cribs just for gracing the planet with their perfect existence, so they went out to take what they want because they, like, so deserve it, innit.


Well, that's just not how life works, or should work. Deserving comes from doing something, making an effort, from working hard, trying to turn bad luck into a blessing in disguise; becoming the best you can be. There's a saying that excellence isn't a skill, it's an attitude. Sadly, the people who terrorized our wonderful city seem to think that they deserve what they want by virtue of being born. But, to paraphrase the excellent Nic Dawson Kelly, parents should teach their kids that potential is good but it must be backed up by drive. The reason the Reeves' probably do have bigger houses than these two idiots is that they thought big, and over several generations worked their assess off to make it happen.


In another example, a local man who filmed some of the looting in Clapham Junction asked two people why they were doing it. Their answer, without showing their face, unsurprisingly, was "we're getting our taxes back". Without getting into whether or not they've paid any taxes, what incredible idiocy backed by delusion and wrapped up in selfishness of the highest degree.


At the end of the day, life is not fair, it's difficult and more than often incredibly tough going. That's the unpalatable truth. We are all responsible for each decision we take, for every action we make and for the life that we lead. These riots had nothing to do with politics, they were about people wanting everything for nothing, wanting it now and breaking the law toward this end. But the people striving to make it political are only pouring fuel on the fire and asking for a repeat because many of these kids, who may have had difficult childhoods and probably parents who keep telling them "you deserve the best and don't let anyone tell you different", these kids will only feel more victimized as a result and, by extension, more justified in their unjustifiable actions.


There is no such thing as Equality of Outcome, nor should there be, because human beings are, in my view, inherently lazy, and therefore we need some incentive to work harder. We must strive for Equality of Opportunity in our society, of course, by educating people and providing them with the tools needed to succeed, even if to become great they'll need to sacrifice other aspects of their lives, like free time and party. What these kids need, therefore, is good schooling, and most importantly, good parents who instill in them the values of honesty, responsibility and work. 


Moreover, to imply that people living in deprived areas are somehow condemned to poverty and ignorance totally brushes aside the great accomplishments of those amazing people who manage to turn things around and be successful in life. They do this by sheer determination and hard work, and bucketfuls of both, much more than most us have to, and certainly more than those sent to Eton, for example. These heroes should be applauded - while the law breakers should be punished.


As a start, those who were caught taking part in this madness should have all their toys taken away from them so that they could begin to understand how lucky they are in the grand scheme of this planet (temporally and culturally). If they receive any state benefits, they should lose them until they have shown that they have made up for the damage - why should others pay for people who turn around and punch them in the face? They need to be taught that nothing comes for free, that there is no free lunch, and you have to work hard if you want a bigger sandwich. Likewise, even if you do, you might not make it to where you wanted to, because there might be someone who's better at it then you are. But that doesn't make you any less, as long as you are a good person and make the most of yourself. That's the rules, and if you don't like it, then you have to live with what you are given.


Now for the good part. My friend Matti put it well, when he was interviewed about this for our local paper back in Finland. He said that "everyone condemns these riots except those who took part in them". And those people, however loud, brash or violent, they are still, thankfully, the overwhelming minority amongst us Londonders. After things quitened down, the locals came out to clean up the almighty mess left by the eejits. Did they ask or complain about why they should pick up the pieces after someone else had acted the maggot? No, they just sucked it up and did what was best for us all. Likewise, the mother who turned her daughter in to the police for having taken part in the looting. Fair dues - I hope all other parents are as principled. To the people who were brave enough to confront these hoards in order to keep their communities safe, respect.  And the grieving father who's son was murdered by these savages,  but who still calls for calm instead of recriminations. Inspirational.


That's what most of us are like: civilized, helpful and thoughtful. We should thank our parents for bringing us up so well, and our grandparents, and backwards. In a city the size of London, it's always heartening to see how well people behave toward each other, strangers and friends alike. That's how civilization works - the other option, of which we got a bitter taster this last week, is always waiting outside the doors of an orderly society, and we mustn't let it in anymore than we already have. So, get your broom out everybody and let's get to work.

Colchester's Hamsterdam

In season 3 of The Wire, Major "Bunny" Colvin adopts an unconventional approach to ridding his precinct of junkies and drug dealers. He corrals them into a derelict part of town, where they are left to indulge in their vices to their hearts content. This "free zone" within Baltimore becomes known as Hamsterdam.


Unsurprisingly, life in Hamsterdam becomes about as pleasant as what you'd find in a cockroach infested Victorian brothel, but Bunny did succeed in cleaning up the other neighbourhoods. As crime rates fell in the areas he was looking after, his idea seemed to have produced a win-win situation for all involved: the junkies had vacant houses where they could make the most of their self-inflicted slavery; the dealers became ever richer as a result of this new policy of deregulation; and the normal folk were no longer forced to live in the midst of gun toting gangsters and diseased dope fiends.

Now, the question, dear reader, is this: what would you think if such a policy were to be adopted in your own town? The reason I ask is that the gents, ladies and unmentionables of Colchester are having to consider just this as their historic town is about to get its very own "booze zone", like the never sensational and always impartial Fox News referred to it. Admittedly, the plan isn't as radical as Bunny's Hamsterdam - Colchester's free zone will only apply to alcohol - but I wouldn't be surprised if the councillor spearheading this initiative to ingratiate imbibers was a fan of The Wire, so alike is his logic to that of Major Colvin.


The councillor in question, Labour's Tim Young, explains: "We're trying to get an area of Colchester where people who are problem drinkers can go in a safe and controlled environment where they would be monitored but not be a nuisance to visitors and residents." His view is that there will always be drunks and alcoholics no matter what programs or avenues for help we provide, so why not at least confine the problem to a certain area, away from the average citizen?


The drunks, of course, thought it was a great idea: "It'll be fantastic because we can let our dogs off [their leads] and drink and nobody will disturb us." Well, good on you. The rest of Colchester, meanwhile, held a more critical view of the council's plan, along the lines of what on earth are you councillors thinking? As if alcohol doesn't already cause enough problems, why make it even easier for people to go down that all too slippery road to perdition?


Whether one sides with the councillors and drunks or that of the other inhabitants, the issue seems to be one of balancing the liberty of a hobo to be a hobo vis-à-vis the liberty of Joe Average to not have to put up with roaming alcoholics, who more than often give off an aggressive vibe, which understandably makes some people uncomfortable.


If we accept the councillors philosophy of damage limitation, that some people do and will drink too much, why shouldn't we designate a part of town for all of those who just want to booze up and let the dogs out? History, after all, sides quite forcibly with Mr Young. As long as no-one is forced to go or live there, what reason would there be to not let the bums go about their business without bothering the rest of the town's residents?


Should we insist, for example, that the long arm of the law be applied uniformly on every inch of this island? Such a notion is, however, a relatively recent one - and this should be taken into consideration. For most of history, certain parts of the countryside were considered to have laws that would be applied where necessary, but the spaces in between these communities were no-man's land, where people ventured on their own responsibility. Gradually, this frontier land came under the jurisdiction of one power or another, but that took a long, long time of persuasion by brute force.

William Hogarth - Southwark Fair (1734)

I live in the London borough of Southwark. Many will have no doubt heard about what it was like in the days of William Shakespeare,  perhaps its most famous regular. Back then, Southwark was the home of disorder, licentiousness and the low arts in general. The strict laws and regulations of the City didn't extend to its neighbour on the southern bank of the Thames. Likewise, the aristocracy of Westminster, bounded by the tight corset of knowing your place, were about as far removed from the ruffians on the Southbank as if we, today, were to compare life in Knightsbridge to the God forgotten favelas of Rio.


Naturally, this lack of laws and regulations meant that what happened in Southwark, stayed in Southwark. Whatever you did, no law would come after you; but there was also no justice to help you, should you land yourself in trouble. Thrasymachus would surely have felt at home. One would hope that the only people to venture into Southwark in these olden days were those who liked to get well drunk before catching a show of bear-baiting on the way to bash the living daylights out of some poor, unsuspecting git - who, as it happens, was probably out with a plan of equally depraved genius. Seldom is reality so neat, however, and countless good souls were destined to live out their short lives in what must have been utterly miserable conditions - moving house just wasn't as simple for them as it might be for us. Life in those days was so infinitely more nasty, brutish and short, not to mention, unfair, then we can imagine from our cushy 21st century arm chairs.


In any case, the Great Bard was so fond of the lawless Southbank that even joined a playing company that was based there, the Lord Chamberlaines Men. This group of artists, playwrights and actors had set up their flagship theatre right in the heart of this 16th century Hamsterdam. (Incidentally, the theatre is said to have been modelled on a pub just around the corner from our home. The courtyard of The George - serving since at least 1534 - does bear a striking resemblance to the balconies of the Globe.) 

The George Inn

The Globe Theatre

Perhaps, then, it can be said that something good also came from having a part of town sans legal interference: it would seem to have inspired one of the greatest playwright of all time!

It's strikingly obvious, of course, that the rule of law is a good thing in itself. On the opposite bank of the river, the City, with its centuries old laws and regulations was probably one of the best places to live in back then because there are few things we humans like better than predictability. Just like there are few environments more conducive to human endeavour and progress than one where we can look forward being paid an honest wage for our work and not to be mugged on the way home.

The  City as seen from Southwark, c 1630.

These days, however, as a result of how the sovereign states that make up our international system have been sure to impose their authority of every square inch of their domains, a thin legal film extends pretty much over every nook and cranny of our world. This hasn't left much room for individual choice over one's lifestyle or habits. But, as it need not be so, couldn't we designate an area of Albion where people could do what they want and live how they like, warts and all?


One of America's Founding Fathers, Thomas Jefferson, said of religion: if someone believes in twenty Gods or none, it neither breaks my bones nor picks my pockets. The same should go for being a drunk in a park that no-one else goes to. Granted, it does kind of get into yours and mine pockets via using up our health care and social services, but, by this yardstick, we should also deny others their right to eat junk food, to pollute the air with car exhaust, to increase global methane levels by eating cows which assuredly have farted quite a bit over their lives, and so on.


If we accept that most everyday activities have some negative effects on society, then, how can we avoid hypocrisy while denying a few people the right to get lary on the outskirts of town, where they'll probably only bother a few squirrels?


Do we base this prescription on morality? Like religion, morality doesn't really mix well with legislation. The reason for this is simple: the rule of law should be blind to individual tastes but guarantee that every person in society is entitled to equal concern and respect. And this only works when we have an unequivocal measure for showing us what is right and what is wrong, which is something ethics and religion alike are unable to provide, as evidenced by their myriad different schools. So, what kind of standard could we use instead?


The wise John Stuart Mill pretty much hit the nail on the head with his Harm Principle: "The only purpose for which power can rightfully be exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others... In the part that merely concerns himself, his independence is, of right, absolute."


It will probably be impossible to ever legislate away each and every action that has or may have a harmful effect on others, but maybe that's not actually such a bad thing after all: no junk foor, no boozy nights, no air travel - doesn't sound much like a Utopia to me.


Maybe the next best thing is to ensure that we can all indulge a bit, but that the more harmful extremes are taxed higher (as they already are) and they get their own areas, so that we don't have to witness the debauchery.


As long as they don't act like the eejit travellers, who, a few years ago, ravaged Finland by intimidating and defrauding her people, killing park animals, and leaving an almighty wake of destruction in their paths - shame on them - then why wouldn't the drunks in Colchester be allowed to hang out with their mates and engage in collective suicide, drop, by drop?

I wonder what the inhabitants of Copenhagen would have to say about all this (any of you out there?) for they have their own Hamsterdam called Christiania, right in the middle of their nation's capital. Even though it's a free zone for some drugs and other shady dealings, it hasn't to my knowledge had any negative impact on Copenhagen or Danish society in general.


And, come to think of it, the whole of Holland is also a Hamsterdam, only on an international level. These sub-jurisdictions, therefore, already exist. And, metaphorically speaking, the fact that they cater for those who prefer their eggs scrambled rather than boiled, they don't seem to have brought much harm to their broader societies.


Quite the contrary. The Danes were recently told that they live in the second most prosperous country in the world! (Finland, since you ask, came in 3rd.) So as not to be outdone, the Dutch, with their famously relaxed attitudes to drugs, sex and variety of vices came in at a respectable 8th Newsweek's study, "The World's Best Countries." (This time, Denmark got to 10th, while Finland, thank you for asking, was ranked a well deserved 1st.) Now, I don't mean to imply that that either ranked so high as a result of their Hamsterdams, but having a free zone or even being one, on this evidence at least, doesn't necessarily open the gates beyond which the barbarian hordes await to ruin everything our parents and grandparents worked so very hard to build.


At the end of the day, I would guess that those interested in sex, drugs and rock 'n roll don't tend to hang out in Christiania or Amsterdam, or not that much at least - and why would they? Likewise, the green activist seldom frequents their local McDonald's - the industrial scale of red meat offends their sensibilities. On average, the Supersize Me variety would just as much stay clear of any vegan restaurants, which is fair enough. And the atheist might not visit their local church that much; I haven't heard of any priests who paint ball either. Well, fair play to all and each to their own. If I want to go to a rave, I would expect to be able to do so without having to ask for anybody's permission, save for that of my beautiful wife, of course.


There are, alas, very few of us who are not laden by some habit or vice that may prove to be a burden on others. Most things we like and do land people into hospitals, which we, the others, must pay for with tax and worry - that's the price we, society, pay for  civilization.


Sir Kenneth Clark put it well, that civilization is best defined as courtesy. In other words, being civil and giving others enough space to be themselves enables each individual to work in concert. (Like a professional orchestra, if we choose a good song and follow the notation, we can produce something magical.) The offshoot of this ever so small act, courtesy, is everything we understand as progress. 


It would, therefore, be courteous for us to allow people to drink as much as they like, just as others shouldn't complain when we dine at fast food joints, while, to the drunks, I hope you get your booze zone, but just remember, you're there on your own: what happens in Freechester, stays in Freechester.