US BOWS TO HURRICANE 'SANDY'

Many years ago I used to listen to the wonderful 'Round the Horne' on Radio 4 or, more probably then, the Home Service. One of the mainstays of the programme was a sketch piece involving the eponymous Kenenth Horne with Kenneth Williams and Hugh Paddick as 2 camp fellows introduced by Williams with the line "I'm Julian and this is my friend Sandy".

 

Few living on the eastern side of the United States will be considering their 'Sandy' to be a freind this morning as the storm-cum-hurricane of that name does its best to bring huge parts of the country to a halt. Airports and subways are closed, the streets are deserted and thousands have evacuated their homes. That mighty bastion of US society, the New York Stock Exchange, was closed yesterday and will remain closed today, the first time since 1888 that it has failed to open for 2 consecutive trading days. Some have no doubt lost their lives, many will suffer personal, business and financial loss and the Presidential election campaigning has been brought to an abrupt halt. What the eventual costs will be cannot even be guessed at, though the overall effect on the global economy may eventually be positive as repair and restoration work gets underway. Only the future will tell us.

 

This is not the first hurricane to strike the US and it will not be the last; they are battered by 10 or 20 every year but this one has hit its most important centre of population and finance in devastating fashion. At a time when the human race and, in particular, the United States, believes itself to be all-powerful, this storm has issued a salutary warning. Not only are we, and they, not all-powerful, in the face of nature in all its pomp, we are all but powerless.

SCOTLAND : INDEPENDENCE NIGHTMARE.

The agreement on a referendum to determine whether or not Scotland should become independent raises far more questions than it will ever resolve.

 

The agreement gives everyone who lives in Scotland and is aged over 16 an opportunity to vote on the independence question; this will include many non-Scots who happen to live there and exclude many Scots who live elsewhere. The inclusion of 16 and 17 year olds raises issues about their possible involvement in elections in the future, something which I consider to be ludicrous. Given that Scotland is an integral part of the United Kingdom and that breaking the Union apart will have a dramatic effect on the rest of the Kingdom, why isn't the rest of the population being given an opportunity to voice its opinion on the matter ?

 

These basic points aside, there would be many far more complex political questions. Would an independent Scotland retain the British monarch as head of state ? Would they retain sterling as their currency; in fact, would they even be able to ? The word seems to be that if Scotland became independent it would then have to apply for membership of the EU as it could not simply ride in on the coat tails of its UK association, and would then be required to adopt the Euro. There would be serious issues regarding border controls, overseas links and representation, defence and so on.

 

Scotland's population is around 5.25m, obviously larger than many already independent nations but hardly a giant; in fact, Scotland would be one of the smallest contries in the western world. Given that it is the western nations which are under most pressure in the conomic woes of our time, would independence really make sense ? It was the UK Government that 'bailed' out both the Royal Bank of Scotland and the Bank of Scotland when they became insolvent, not the Government in Edinburgh. Future similar problems would have to be resolved by Scotland alone and we all know what's happened in Ireland, Greece, Spain and the rest, when governments found this to be impossible.

 

Alex Salmond is a fanatic who leads a party of fanatics. His determination to break away from a 300 year old Union is so strong that he will happily ignore all of the difficulties in order to achieve his aim. He uses statistics in a way that is highly selective and he ignores the high level of subsidy which Scotland currently receives from the UK Government but which, in reality, comes from English taxpayers. He has talked nebulously about Scotland joining other small northern economies in some sort of economic resurgence - Ireland and Iceland, 2 countries which have experienced almost total economic collapse, have been mentioned in the past. Can Salmond truly believe his own spin ?

 

If Scotland becomes independent, it will have a permanent socialist government, while England will benefit from the removal of a raft of Scottish Labour Members of Parliament and will probably become permanently Conservative as long as immigration is brought under proper control. The potential benefits to England, which will no longer have to support a weak Scottish economy and unsustainable spending by the Scottish Government, are huge; the disbenefits to Scotland, which will then have to balance its own budget and try to compete on its own merits, will be enormous and debilitating.

 

Separating the 2 countries will have its issues. Resiting defence capabilities, potentially separating controls over defence forces, railways and public utilities and, worst of all, separating the finances of the 2 nations will be far from simple although, no doubt, the civil service will cobble something together. Salmond really doesn't care about all of this, he just wants to be the leader of an independent country. Cameron, in agreeing to the referendum, no doubt believes that the Scots will vote to remain in the Union; let's hope he's right, although, as an Englishman, I might be encouraged to think that getting rid of these troublesome neighbours would not be an entirely bad thing.

TEBBIT SLAMS INCOMPETENT GOVERNMENT.

It's good to know that that Grand Old Tory, Norman Tebbit, is in tune with my thinking.

Lord Tebbit is reported to have said that David Cameron, reputed to be the Prime Minister of our benighted nation, has allowed "this dog of a coalition government" to look incompetent. He was apparently speaking with particular reference to the saga over the now-departed Andrew Mitchell but his remarks come after a series of blunders by senior ministers.

 

Tebbit has also suggested that it is high time that Cameron started introducing some genuinely Conservative policies - tougher rules on immigration and crime, for instance; of course, his Liberal partners wouldn't like this and, probably, neither would Dave. It seems that the words of the 'Chingford Bovverboy' will continue to fall on deaf ears until the Conservative Party realises that it's best approach is to return to its true roots, rather than trying to appeal to the ridiculously named 'Middle Ground' which is, of course, a euphemism for being mildly socialist.

 

When our main electoral choice is between 3 parties whose difference is merely their degree of socialism, for whom are right wing believers to vote ?

BBC TAKES 'PETER PRINCIPLE' TO THE LIMIT.

I've just been watching the third part of Andrew Marr's 'History of the World' recorded last Sunday. A more pompous and ludicrous programme is hard to imagine.

 

Marr is a former BBC political broadcaster who has moved on to grander things; these days he presents programmes such as 'Start the Week', an unashamed piece of advertising from an organisation which is not actually allowed to advertise and which is an increasingly awful load of rubbish.

 

What Marr's qualifications are for presenting a world history are unknown; that his presentation is a mish-mash of semi-mythical stories with little historical basis seems to be obvious. The programme was interspersed with some supposed true accounts but these also seem to be dubious; an account of the affair between Casesar and Cleopatra was presented as recorded by Plutarch who was not born until almost 100 years after their deaths. The death of a woman named Perpetua was recounted according to an account of a supposed eye-witness although this person was not named and whether or not it was truly an eye-witness account was not challenged. This was no history but a piece of romanticized nonsense. The rest seemed mostly to be a repeat of an assortment of well known facts with nothing new being added. We jumped from India to China to Rome to Arabia with barely a pause for breath; how this was any sort of coherent history escapes me.

 

Why does the BBC persist with producing such rubbish ? Programmes about history should be presented by historians, in the same way as programmes about nature are presented by biologists and natural historians. Marr is acceptable, just, as a political commentator, but as a presenter of programmes such as this latest effort he simply doesn't have the wherewithal. Sadly the BBC seems to have a current policy of promoting newsreaders and commentators to greater things without actually bothering to assess their suitability for the more exalted roles. Humphreys, Bruce, Vine and others now including Marr and the egregious Balding, are everywhere and do nothing but convince me that they are well beyond their areas of expertise and ability.

 

If ever there was a perfect example of the operation of the 'Peter Principle' this is it.

 

 

OBAMA OR ROMNEY; DOES IT MATTER ?

We are often told that the US PResident is the most powerful person in the world and, therefore, the identity of the postholder is of enormous importance. I wonder if this is really true.

 

The notion of 'power' is inevitably associated with military capability and, in particular, with possession of nuclear weapons. The US has both in abundance and probably has the world's most extensive security and intelligence operations; I would be far from surprised to discover that they have a file on me, for instance, even though I am not a US citizen, have never been in the US nor even tried to go there. I have, however, occasionally expressed my views on certain issues on the internet which may well have been sufficient to gain their interest. The US also has the world's largest economy by some distance and, on the face of it, the US President does, indeed, preside over a pretty powerful setup.

 

However, in reality, what actual power does the President have ? Obama has largely failed to implement policies which are dear to his heart due to opposition in the Senate, House of Representatives or both. The involvement of his country in overseas ventures, notably Afghanistan, has been a continuing disaster though admittedly not of his making. The US economy is continuing to struggle and is currently weighed down by a far greater burden of debt than it had when he came to office. US diplomacy has failed totally to achieve any solutions to the problems affecting Israel, Syria and Iran, while interventions in Egypt and Libya have produced highly uncertain outcomes.

 

While the President may have had to 'sign-off' on the overseas military campaigns, his ability to influence much of the rest seems to be very limited. Indeed, apart from committing military forces it is difficult to deterrmine exactly what a modern President can really achieve. Perhaps this is because Obama is a weak President or perhaps it is simply because of the nature of the United States today.

 

One has the feeling that the Presidents of a few decades ago genuinely wielded power. Roosevelt in the 1930s, Kennedy for a brief period and even Nixon until he was caught, but more recent incumbents seem to have been increasingly emasculated. Ford was generally seen as a joke, and Carter likewise, although both may have been rather better than theywere  credited with being. Reagan stands out principally due to his charismatic presence and oratorical skills rather than for any great political ability, while Bush, senior, probably wasn't up to the job and his Presidency will be one of the forgotten ones. Once we reach the era of Clinton and 'George W', I truly begin to wonder who was in charge. Clinton was certainly a smooth operator while Bush minor was an imbecile, but both seem to have been backed by powerful organisational interests which pulled all of the strings.

 

Given the history, whether the winner of November's poll is Obama or Romney isn't what will matter. The important thing is who are their backers and what are their policies and desires ? Additionally, will the next President have enough control of the Senate and House of Representatives ? If Obama wins, we can expect more of the same; much rhetoric and little action leading into at least 2 years of a 'lame-duck' administration until the election of 2016. If Romney wins, things may change or they may not; he and his backers may find that their cherished policies are blocked by a hostile Congress and they have 4 years of stalemate while the economy continues to pile up debts.

 

Personally, I would never vote for anyone who has fought so hard and spent so much money in order to be 'top dog'. Anyone who is so desperate for power almost always turns out to be incompetent or worse, so I vote for the White House gardener who has no such ambitions but would do a better job simply because he would feel obliged to do his very best rather than worrying about satisfying his backers and winning a second term in 4 years time.

AUSTERITY, WHAT AUSTERITY ?

Listening to some of our politicians and political commentators whittering on about the extent of the 'austerity' being visited upon this country by those nasty people in Government, one may easily be driven to believe that we're in the middle of a massive squeeze on our pockets. These same people constantly harp on about 'Plan A' having failed and telling us that it is now time for 'Plan B', whatever either of these plans is supposed to be.

 

That there is a degree of Government tightening of the fiscal controls is undeniable but at the same time they are pumping untold billions into the economy via the wholly unproven mechanism of 'quantitative easing', a euphemism for printing money. The actuial consequence of all of this is an increase in employment, not the sharp decline that would be expected in a traditional economic downturn, though take-home wages certainly have been squeezed. Nonetheless, we do not have the starving millions on the streets that we might expect if we really were being subjected to severe austerity measures, as they are in Greece, Spain and one or two other Eurozone countries.

 

Politicians and their acolytes inevitably talk in political terms and for them it's all about whether they are supporters of the Government or of the opposition. The nonsense about 'Plan A' and 'Plan B' seems to have been an invention of the socialists, as is the drivel about the appalling austerity we're being forced to endure. In truth, we're little more than 2 years in to the current administration's term of office following 13 years of increasing mismanagment by the other lot which brought us to the point of total economis collapse, and I'm not talking about the banking crisis.

 

The Labour Governments of 1997 to 2010 followed the usual socialist policy of borrowing and spending vast amounts on the basis that something would turn up to plug whatever financial holes were created; while Mr Micawber was hourly expecting that something would, indeed, turn up, he also knew that spending more than you earned was the path to ruin. Labour apparently did not read 'David Copperfield' or chose to ignore Micawber's sound advice.

 

What was left in 2010 was the biggest Government mess ever, compounded by the effects of the banking crisis; the banks did not cause the Government's mess, but the Government certainly had a hand in the creation of the banks' one through its lax financial policies and monitoring. This was, of course, all in the pursuit of some idyllic world  in which we all becomne richer and richer while doing nothing of any tangible worth, a policy which was always going to end in tears.

 

Where we are now is at the sniffling stage. Those who had non-jobs in the public sector are the first to suffer and will soon be joined by those whose principle source of income is state benefits of one sort or another. Next will be those whose pay is simply not matched by their productivity or the value of the goods and services they produce, and their new cars, televisions, mobile 'phones and foreign holidays will have to go. By the time we get to this stage it will be all-out bawling our eyes out, but this stage is some way off yet. In other words, real austerity hasn't even begun.

 

Those who argue for a 'Plan B', meaning stop cutting government expenditure and start increasing it, are living in a fantasy land well beyond that of the cloud-dwelling cuckoos. For decades, we have paid ourselves too much for doing too little and the chickens are decidely coming home to roost; an economic correction had to come at some point and this is it. If we don't take the medicine now, but follow the socialist line of spending still more, the eventual pain will be a real live and full scale Depression which will teach us all the true meaning of 'austerity'.

 

Whatever the socialists are currently saying, they know full-well that more government spending will be disastrous; interest rates would soar along with inflation producing massive unemployment and a total loss of international credibility. We would be back to 1976 when dear old Denis Healey, another socialist, had to ask for help from the International Monetary Fund and had to accept stringent conditions as well.

 

Whether we like it or not, we're in for a lengthy period of economic retrenchment, not helped by the fact that most of the western world is in the same boat. The only good news is that we're not in the Euro.

ENTWHISTLE AND BBC AT THE CROSSROADS.

Listening to a discussion this morning about the BBC, it was easy to understand why this organisation is in such a mess.

 

The new Director General has been making nebulous statements about increased quality, reduced costs and heaven knows what else; his remarks tick all the right boxes, as required, without actually meaning anything specific, which is what he and his senior management would doubtless see as in their best interests. After all, if there are no properly measurable targets, there is nothing to be held to account for.

 

Once upon a time, the BBC fulfilled a role of huge national and international significance but it is now a pale shadow of its former self. Funded by the Government through the imposition of a tax dressed up as the 'Licence Fee' it has become a nonsense. Many of its programmes are merely advertising vehicles for whoever has released a new film, song, CD or DVD, book, play etc., etc. It is populated by a bunch of has-beens - as I write this, the television in front of me has a gaggle of newsreading women from the 1970s presenting yet another consumer programme. What their qualifications for doing this are and why they got the job must be 2 of life's great mysteries; given the BBCs penchant for being politically correct in all things, one has to assume that their presence on my screen has a lot to do with their a) being women and b) being over retirement age, neither of which seems to be an appropriate qualification.

 

When I was a child, there was one television channel, BBC1 which broadcast for no more than 10 or 12 hours a day; there were 3 main radio programmes titled the 'Light Programme', the 'Third Programme' and the 'Home Service', which were supplemented by the then great 'World Service. That was it. Today we have umpteen television channels - BBCs 1, 2, 3 and 4, CBBC, CBebbies, BBC News, and BBC Parliament, several of which broadcast around the clock; there are radio programmes 1,2,3 and 4, plus 1 Extra, 4 Extra, 5 Live, 5 Live Sport Extra, 6, Asian Network, and the World Service, plus a host of local radio stations on top of tall this, there's the BBCs website and online programming. Why all of this should be necessary in a world littered with commercial offerings in both radio and television is another mystery.

 

Mr Entwhistle, the new DG whose name seems to be drawn from the cast list of 'Last of the Summer Wine' has so many obvious targets for cost cutting and rationalization that he should have no trouble whatsoever in putting the BBC back on to the right path. We are often told these days that something is 'not fit for purpose' or that is has to be 'fit for the 21st century'; these and other meaningless phrases can and should be seized upon by Mr Entwhistle. For the BBC to be fit for a 21st century purpose, it should rid itself of all of the commercial and pseudo-commercial content which can be left safely to commercial broadcasters. It should stop the game of trying to compete with commercial broadcasters with its ridiculous and pointless morning chat shows and it should stop trying to provide individual services for just about every minor interest group in the country.

 

My recipe for the BBC is a simple but radical one. Get rid of the television channels, CBBC and CBeebies; these channels already have an amount of airtime on BBC2 in the mornings and some minor additional programming here should more than suffice as replacement. Merge BBC News and BBC Parliament into one online channel. Close Radio 1 which is nothing more than an advertising platform for music companies and leave this to comemrcial enterprises. Combine Radios 2 and 3 and get rid of Radio 6. The Asian Network should either be closed or added to the mix of Radios 2 and 3 - there is no place for separate community style radio stations in a national broadcaster. All local radio stations should be handed over to commercial broadcasters.

 

If Mr Entwhistle and his Board really want to make a difference and bring the BBC up to date, these are the types of changes he will have to make. Does he have the will ? Does his Board have the gumption ? If they go down this road they will have an almighty fight on their hands but, in the end, the BBC would emerge as a far stronger player producing genuine quality programmes. The alternative is a continuation of the decline in quality which has been seen in recent years and an eventual sale of the whole lot to Sky or some other commercial enterprise, which will then close most of it down.