05 November 2008

Well, what now?

This is November 5, there are fireworks outside and the day is appropriate for thinking about blowing up politicians. Our politicians, nobody else's. When I saw and heard this morning the joyful whoops of our own Tories because an extreme left-wing socialist (so far as we know but more anon) has been elected in the United States I announced that I was on a mission to destroy that party. A friend asked me whether they needed my help. Possibly not, but I am happy to supply it.

Since then I have calmed down a bit, noted that the final results in America are not quite as bad as we had feared (I am talking about Congress now) and I can now start thinking more or less rationally. (OK, stop sniggering at the back.)

First of all, let's get some of the hype out of the way. Yes, the new president is mixed race, something that could not have happened even forty years ago and can happen in only one country of the western world – the United States. On the other hand, he is not a descendant of slaves. In fact, given that there is East African Arab blood there, he is quite likely to be a descendant of slave traders. None of that matters.

Let us not forget that another barrier has still not been crossed – far too many people find the idea of a woman President (remember that 51 per cent of the population?) still unthinkable. I have high hopes for 2012, though.

The truth is that having an African father does not make one a magician who can change the world by waving a wand. In this case, it merely makes one a rather vacuous and somewhat corrupt politician. So, the world, despite the hysteria in our own and the American media, has remained stubbornly unchanged, though the New York Times is suddenly discovering nuances in Gitmo. Not long before David Cameron will follow suit, then.

Clearly, somebody has not given President Medvedev (Putin's mishka) the memo about it being a new dawn as he has used his first address to the nation to hit out at the “selfish” American foreign policy and announce that Russia was planning to install short-range missiles in the Kaliningrad (formerly Königsberg) enclave. He said this just hours after Obama’s victory was confirmed and appeared not to be overawed by the historic significance. This sort of thing can make the German media seriously upset with the Russian president.

Our Islamist friends are completely unimpressed though the Muslim Brotherhood express their hope that Obama will do as they tell him.

Meanwhile, the markets tumble and Reuters, who also campaigned for Obama, fear that he will not have the money to introduce whatever it is he wanted to introduce for health care. I strongly suspect that, despite certain people getting carried away by the hope and change message, mortgages will still have to be repaid or the banks will foreclose and gasoline, though cheaper and no thanks to Obama, will not be free.

And, um, the first job offer seems to be going to a very familiar face, old Clinton hand and an associate of Mayor Richard Daley's. My, my, hope and change before our eyes.

Here is a good summary why things are not quite as bad as one might imagine, though they are not good. I don’t agree with everything in that analysis. I do not, for instance, think there will be a nuclear war between Iran and Israel for various reasons, though I do not think that the mad mullahs should be allowed to have nuclear weapons. I also think that with General Petraeus in place, there is a reasonable chance that things might be turned round in Afghanistan but that is in the realm of discussion.

However, the point about the American President having considerably less power than people think is a very good one. No American President could do to Congress what a succession of Prime Ministers have done to Parliament. Those who see Obama as a miracle worker do not seem to understand this. The Founding Fathers in their wisdom foresaw the possibility of a demagogue getting to the top and created various barriers. These are very hard to remove.

The scenario with the media, I suspect, will go differently. They are crazed with their triumph now and have forgotten that readerships, viewing figures, share prices are slipping. But those facts will catch up with them and there will be the problem of boredom. So one or two journalists might start doing what they refused to do in the last couple of years and dig up a few facts about Obama, which have been hidden away but are discussed on the blogosphere.

Will we finally find out more about the Chicago Annenberg Challenge and the millions wasted and mis-spent? Are we to be told what Obama’s achievements at Columbia and Harvard really were? Where is that birth certificate? There are many more questions. But what will happen to any journalist who might try to write about it now that it is too late and the election cannot be affected? My guess is that they will fall foul of the Obamatroops and will start whining. That will be fun to watch.

Will those who jumped on the bandwagon like Peggy Noonan and Colin Powell get their reward or will they be discarded as not being useful any more? What fun if it is the second. That’s what I would do if I were Obama. Not being nasty or anything but I do despise people who are that cheap.

It will be fun to watch all those who are screaming about hope and change slowly realize that there is no change and little hope; that nobody, least of all a complete novice, can make good all those promises.

It will be fun to see the European leaders reel in shock as President Obama asks for more troops in Afghanistan and imposes all kinds of protectionist measures to keep the unions who brought out the vote happy. What will the Tories say when President Obama instructs the Democratic Congress to pass legislation that abolishes secret ballot in union votes and elections? Still applaud the hope and change bringer? What if Prime Minister Gordon Brown decides to follow suit?

It will be fun to watch as the libertarians realize that yes, indeed, there is a difference between the likes of Obama and the likes of McCain and, especially, Palin.

It will be fun to watch Joe Biden make an even bigger fool of himself than he has done so far. Absolutely nobody can accuse him of being the evil genius behind the presidency and we can always remind people how much smarter and more attractive Sarah Palin is.

It will be fun to watch all those who are hoping for a mega-hand-out walking away with little to show for their loyalty.

Of course, the trouble is that President-elect Obama has achieved nothing in his life and has put an omertá on every action in his past. So even those of us who have followed the campaign on the more outspoken blogs know nothing about him really. Perhaps he is a secret Reaganite. It is unlikely, given his various friends and mentors as well as the few pronouncements he has made, such as the one about redistributionist tax, but, of course, we don’t exactly know whether he really believes what he and his friends and mentors have been saying or whether he was just ready to be raised by the Chicago political machine.

It will not be fun to watch the Democrats make a complete hash of the American economy and reduce it to Carter-like levels. It has been calculated that FDR’s New Deal set back economic recovery by seven years and, eventually, he was rescued by the war. Obama can set it back even more and he will not be rescued by the Japanese who are not anxious to bomb anyone, least of all the Americans.

It will not be fun to watch the callow and ignorant Obama being bamboozled and challenged by our enemies just as the callow and ignorant Kennedy was by Khrushchev. Out of Kennedy’s lack of ability we got the Berlin Wall and the Cuban crisis. Then the man decided to get tough and tied America down in Vietnam.

What will come out of Obama’s lack of knowledge and experience? Another attack by Al-Qaeda, who did not dare to do so while Bush was president? What will Obama do if he decides to show himself to be tough? Will he bomb Pakistan as he said in one of the Primary debates? Or Iran? Contrary to what BDS sufferers might think, it is the weak, uncertain, fearful politicians who are dangerous not the ones who know what they want even if they are not always right about the path they take. Obama, the man who does not dare to reveal anything about himself, is a danger to us all, precisely because he is unknown and unpredictable.

It will be no fun to watch the poisonous, illiberal, anti-democratic tranzis and their supporters try to inveigle America into organizations such as the International Criminal Court, against express constitutional instructions and against the country’s interests. That is, of course, the promised land that the lefties and the tranzis have glimpsed: the surrender of the largest democracy in the world. Then again, it will not be as easy as they think.

So, what is to be done? I am delighted to see that the American right is regrouping already. This is what Michelle Malking is saying and she speaks for many:

There is no time to lick wounds, point fingers, and wallow in post-election mud. I'm getting a lot of moan-y, sad-face "What do we do now, Michelle?" e-mails.

What do we do now? We do what we've always done.

We stand up for our principles, as we always have — through Democrat administrations and Republican administrations, in bear markets or bull markets, in peacetime and wartime.

We
stay positive and focused.

We keep the faith.

We do not apologize for our beliefs. We do not re-brand them, re-form them, or relinquish them.

We defend them.

We pay respect to the office of the presidency. We count our blessings and recommit ourselves to our constitutional republic.

We
gird our loins, to borrow a phrase from our Vice President-elect.

We lock and load our ideological ammunition.

We fight.
Above all, we do not behave like the British Conservative Party has done for the last ten years. She did not say it but I am happy to supply the extra words.

The right in America often does well under a left-wing government, though there is some worry about Obama’s distaste for the Constitution and his obvious dislike of the First Amendment. There is no getting away from the fact that they will be very busy in the next few years.

We must stop relying on the Yanks for unbounded political and financial support. Of course, they will remain our allies and the fight for the Anglosphere goes on but we, on this side of the Pond, must also gird our loins and start fighting.

I have pointed out before that the right in Britain is in a parlous state. We have become fat and complacent and allowed the Conservative Party to take over as the lead organization. If nothing else, their unholy glee over Obama’s election should put to rest any doubt we might have about what they are: Tory Socialists and we do not want them. In fact, if this ship is to reach its destination or even leave the harbour, the Tory Socialists will have to walk the plank.

No longer do I want to hear confidential whispers about how some Tory boy or girl really does not disagree with me at all, is not too far from my point of view, really would not like to see any further European integration. Let's say it loudly and clearly: if you are not with us you are against us.

The rest of us, those who want to build up the right, who believe in Britain being an independent democracy with small government and a great deal of individual freedom, who believe that the future belongs to the Anglosphere and we want to be part of it, need to start formulating a battle plan. And there can be no rest, no whining and no self-satisfied patting of each other's shoulders until we do so and act on it.

UPDATE: I have just been informed by a very sound American contact that one of the achievements of the blogosphere has been to change opinions on the American right from being vaguely pro-EU to being more than vaguely anti that pernicious organization. So here is a trek to follow, one that is very easy for us.

COMMENT THREAD

31 October 2008

Snatch Land Rover Links

  • Five million down

  • Men of iron

  • A dose of reality

  • A question of negligence

  • Plus ça change …

  • How many more times?

  • Holding to ransom

  • No celbrations yet

  • Minister defends Snatch

  • Stupid, malign fools

  • Inquest fatigue?

  • It definitely saved my life

  • It does not end there

  • A breach of human rights

  • The last "hello"

  • Five years on

  • Shooting the messenger?

  • More coffins for the troops

  • They didn't have to die

  • Without further details ...

  • No one to blame!

  • Costing lives

  • Another day, another inquest

  • A lack of focus

  • A dangerous "puff"

  • Lesson to learn

  • Death trap failed to protect soldier

  • Another Vector?

  • The spectator sees more of the game

  • All because the generals prefer their shiny toys

  • What a difference a year makes

  • How we got it wrong

  • A humourless post

  • These men should be dead

  • Imagine this was a Snatch

  • We are not wrong

  • The battle of Basra

  • Alright - I did tell you so

  • It was a Snatch!

  • The road to defeat

  • Are they insane?

  • A purely imaginary world

  • Run out of town

  • Ignore the good news

  • Counter-insurgency in the House

  • Some quiet pride

  • Flawed choices

  • A collective failure

  • And so to Gerald

  • Getting away with it

  • Reflected glory

  • Going backwards

  • Where were you?

  • Two soldiers lightly hurt

  • A retreat from politics

  • Muppets half hour

  • Squandered lives

  • Cost-effective defence

  • God is on our side

  • Adding to the confusion

  • Of course we do care

  • The lies of Lord Drayson

  • The great debate

  • Jan tomorrow

  • The mean streets of Basra

  • The wickedness of the Beeb

  • Coffins on wheels

  • The greatest enemy

  • The ministers must lie

  • Mobility and protection

  • Canaries down the mine

  • The wheels on the truck go round...

  • How Blair is killing our soldiers

  • The dog that didn't bark

  • Shape up or get out

  • Are we a nation of mummy's boys?
  • 15 October 2008

    The law is the law …

    Our honourable and esteemed Members of Parliament have for many years laboured under the delusion that they produce laws. For sure they may, with the assistance of their clerks and printers, churn out pieces of paper with words on them. Those may bear impressive titles, like "Act of Parliament", or "Statutory Instrument", but they are not laws.

    Some people – too many – take these pieces of paper seriously. "The law is the law and must be obeyed," they parrot, especially when it comes to things like speed limits and other irritations.

    Down at the cutting face, though, that never used to be the case. As a young public health inspector, working for a large city local authority – one of a large team - there was only one law: my law. On my patch, a small slice of the Council area, I made the law. Furthermore, I was policeman, judge, jury and executioner. In truth, there was only one primary law: "Don't mess with North".

    That one superior law, however, did not stop me or my fellow inspectors making subsidiary laws, each to apply in our own patches – "districts" we called them – as occasion demanded.

    At times, our law-making was quite prodigious, aided considerably by a highly reputable firm of law stationers. At a not insubstantial cost to our employer, and thus the good ratepayers for whom we toiled, this long-established company produced for us pads of extremely impressive forms. These were "Notices" – always with a capital.

    With space at the top to type in the name of our employer, each proclaimed in bold capitals, "Take Notice" adding, "… that the aforementioned local authority does hereby require you …". There was space for the recipient's address, and then a large space in which we could insert our specific "requirements". The Notice was finished by the addition of a date by which said "requirements" should be completed, with the usual signature block and all the rest.

    If anyone ever asked by what authority we issued such edicts – and very few did – we would tell them they stemmed from the Local Authority (Consolidated Powers) Act 1938. This Act was later amended and updated to become the "73 Act", to reflect local government reorganisation. Do not bother to look it up on Google though. It does not exist. It never existed. In the office, the "Notice" was known by its short title: "Section 3 of the 1938 Bluff Act".

    Most times, it worked. For a whole variety of minor aggravations, where a request or a friendly warning had been disregarded, out came the "big stick". People usually came into line. Some had smart lawyers and refused to comply. We had our ways of dealing with that.

    One such came about in an unusual way – even for us. There was this restaurant, a small one in the university area. Dirty, it was – very dirty – and I wanted to close it down. The law – the stuff which came from Westminster – allowed me to do that, but I had to serve the official closure notice on the owner of the premises, otherwise it was not valid.

    This business, however, was not operated by the owner, but a tenant. He would not enlighten me as to who the owner was. That presented a problem: through some peculiar defect in the law (since remedied), I had no statutory power to demand that information. So off went a Section 3 Notice to the "occupier", demanding the owner's name and address. This one did have a smart lawyer. I got a tart letter back by return, refusing the information.

    I did have the option of prosecuting the restaurant operator, for offences under the food hygiene laws. But that was a mug's game. When I say "one" in respect of the restaurant operator, the operation was owned by a syndicate. This was the immigrant fraternity and they often played that game. You would set up the prosecution and they would dissolve the syndicate, close the premises for half a day, reform the syndicate – same people, different order on the documents – and re-commence trading. Back to square one.

    Okaaaay. So I went back and did a reinspection – a thorough one, in the middle of their lunch trade, their busiest and most profitable time. And when I say thorough, I mean thorough. To do that, of course, I needed to remove all the kit from the cupboards, all the food from the shelves, all the contents of the refrigerators, the cutlery from the drawers, the crockery, Uncle Tom Cobbley and all. How else could I inspect them? Out it all came, tossed none too gently into the centre of the kitchen floor, conveniently visible from the dining area.

    Offering them friendly "advice" on how to clean up the mess, I left them to it, only to return the next day, and the next, and the next … On my day off, a fellow inspector helped me out and, just in case they thought they would get a break over the weekend, I did a Saturday evening inspection. It really was quite amazing how quickly they came into line. The restaurant is still there, trading under the same name. It's quite a nice little operation now.

    As for the "real" law – the stuff from Westminster - that was optional. If we said it was law, it was law. If we said it wasn't, it was ignored.

    Take the "nail brush law". The Food Hygiene Regulations required of every wash basin in every food premises that they were equipped with soap, towel and nail brush. A boffin in the public health labs had done some work on nail brushes though. He had found that, in the warm atmosphere of a kitchen, after a few uses, the germ growth was so horrendous that you had to nail them down to stop them going walkies. That's why we called them nail brushes.

    Thus, the word went out to discourage their use. If we saw them, we binned them and told people accordingly. Never mind the law – our job was public health, to protect the public.

    Mind you, the law is the law … On the few occasions that we prosecuted food operations – and it was invariably the last resort, sometimes after years of warnings – we did everything to make them stick. While you could get them for dirty floors walls and ceilings, they only had four walls, and one each ceiling and floor – six offences. Add two or three missing nail brushes and that nicely padded out the charge sheet. It was only a few hundred quid extra fine, but it added to the pain.

    Eventually, they did change the law. But not before we had a prosecution and got the Mags to impose maximum fines for some missing brushes. It was quite fun telling the punter that, had he been a few weeks later, he would have got away with it.

    Prosecutions, though, were only for the small guys. They got hurt, and if that was our intention – then hurt there must be. There is no point in pussy-footing about. If the guy is a public menace and won't listen, then you have to take him out.

    Corporates, though – they were different. You could take them to court. A gang of my fellow inspectors, in different local authorities, tried it. The corporates would put up their smart lawyers, forcing us to match them out of our budget with expensive barristers. Even if you got top whack on fines – and £20,000 was a big fine in those days – they would shrug, sign off a corporate cheque and walk out of the court smiling. They paid their lawyers more.

    I had one on my patch – a big-name branded hotel and restaurant, dead smart and stuck-up. It was a pain. They knew exactly how far they could go. Not good, but not bad enough to make a prosecution stick. You'd send them a Notice - a proper one - requiring works. They would do some of them.

    A small independent – they would do the work straight away. Some of them had to struggle to afford it, but two or three visits later and you could sign them off. Not this lot. It took as many as ten or twelve visits to cajole them into completing the works, by which time you were back on a new inspection cycle, starting all over again.

    They were messing me about. They knew it. I knew it. They thought they knew the law and they did – Westminster law. But they didn't know my law. The only law you don't break: "don't mess with North". I did the rope trick. This was not the Indian rope trick. Just rope – give them enough rope and they'll hang themselves. Instead of the three-month cycle, I left it six months in the hope that they would get complacent in my absence and get bad enough to nick.

    You can't do that these days, incidentally. Inspection cycles are set by EU law, and if you miss one, there is holy war. But that's another story.

    On the appointed day, I went into the kitchen. It wasn't good, but not as bad as I had hoped for. Fortunately, the Gods were smiling on me that day. Unbeknown to the chef, the walk-in cold store had broken down overnight. Stacked with meat and other perishables, they had gone off. As I approached the store, I could smell it.

    Food in a commercial food premises, unless it is specifically marked to the contrary and segregated, is deemed food "exposed for sale". And "exposing" rotting food for sale is an offence. By this time the meat was rotting – high as a kite.

    Furthermore, if such food was present – unfit food – I had the power to seize it and take it before the Mags to get it condemned. That was Westminster law and I was quite happy to use it when it suited me. The hotel management offered to "surrender" the food, but I wasn't having that. This had to hurt. I was going to make it so, in a way they would not forget.

    Our department had its own "condemned food" truck. We offered a service to local food producers, taking away their waste, disposing of it under supervision to stop foraging in the tips. It had painted on the side, in very large, prominent letters, "condemned food".

    I got on the 'phone and whistled up the truck. But, instead of going to the loading bay round the back, discretely, I had it park in the front. We put it in the guest drop-off bay right opposite the front door. Then I got my lads, two of them, kitted up in white coats, hats, boots – all the gear – to go through reception, through the ever-so posh restaurant and into the kitchen. By then, it was lunch time. The place was full of diners, the expense account crowd and all the rest.

    At our leisure, we carried the trays of rotting meat, one at a time, through the crowded restaurant, through reception and into the truck, in full sight of the diners. It took us a long time.

    To cut a long story short – there was much more merriment before we had finished - I met the operations director of the hotel some long time later. By then, I had changed sides and was working for the company. He told me I had shaved 20 percent off the turnover of the hotel that month, and it had taken over a year to recover. In fact, by the time the word got out, it never really did recover. The company eventually sold the hotel. But, I never had any more bother with it. They learned about North's law the hard way.

    That, also – with the others – was an example of result-based regulation. The name of the game was to keep operations safe. We did what it takes to keep them that way and protect the public. We were good at it, and the law – Westminster law – was only one very small part of our toolkit.

    In its own way – using a similar approach – that is what the Bank of England used to do in order to keep the financial system sound. I know this as I have spoken to some "old timers". The businesses and the objectives might have been different. But I recognised the techniques and strategies. More to the point, I recognised the philosophy. It was the same.

    And if it sounds like we were a law unto ourselves, we weren't really. The punters just had to believe that. There were all sorts of checks and balances to make sure we didn't go off the rails and get too big for our boots. They didn't always work, and the system was far from perfect. But it was much, much better that what we have now.

    That is the subject for another post.

    COMMENT THREAD

    13 October 2008

    "A disaster waiting to happen"

    The financial crisis in which we are presently engulfed was a "disaster waiting to happen". This is the final chapter in an inevitable, but wholly avoidable disaster that involves primarily a complete breakdown in the structure of our law, and its enforcement. In short, what we are experiencing is a major regulatory failure, possibly the most serious and expensive in the history of mankind.

    Yet the words in the title were uttered by myself, over ten years ago, in respect of a completely different regulatory disaster. I expressed them to Sheriff Principal Graham Cox in Motherwell Sheriff Court in April 1998. That was my expert view of the meat product manufacturing operation run by Scottish butcher John Barr in Wishaw (pictured), Lanarkshire, and its condition prior to 21 people being killed and 400 infected from an outbreak of E coli O157:H7 over December 1996 and January 1997

    The reason the operation killed so many people is exactly the same reason our banks and our economy is in meltdown: bad law and dangerously poor enforcement - in this current case the one created at global level transmitted to us via EU law, the other via the Financial Services Authority, itself an EU construct.

    Therefore, to understand why we are in this mess, right now, it is extremely instructive to explore what happened in that unremarkable little Central Scottish town of Wishaw all those years ago.

    Bear with me on this one. This is going to be a long story and, before we embark on it, you need a little background. First of all, you might ask, who is this Richard North, a lowly blogger, to deliver such a robust opinion, and by what right does he make such an assertion?

    Well, blogger I might be now – and many other things besides – but it wasn't always so. Before I walked away from a challenging and exciting profession – in disgust (for reasons I will explain later) – I was the leading food safety expert in the country.

    I can say that without false modesty – false modesty itself being a form of vanity. In my (albeit very narrow) field, I was the best. (I even have an award for it, "The Foodtech Achievement Award 1999" for my "outstanding contribution to food hygiene and safety" – the only award I will ever get. I still have the engraved plaque. I'm quite proud of it.)

    And that's why I was called to give expert testimony in one of the most important and controversial Fatal Accident Inquiries Scotland had had for many years.

    One of my specialist areas (more accurately, sub-specialism) was enforcement standards. Having worked in law enforcement in the public sector, I had moved over to the private, as a consultant. There I had, on behalf of my clients, been on the receiving end of enforcement action all over the country. This had given me a unique overview of enforcement standards.

    In my opinion, they were poor – dangerously so. Inspectors – or environmental health officers, as they chose to call themselves - simply were not doing their jobs at all well. They were neither protecting the public, nor indeed the traders, who also suffer massively from food poisoning outbreaks. Many, like John Barr, lose their businesses.

    Over term, I had become increasingly voluble about what amounted to a massive regulatory failure. In the business – and this might sound odd – we needed good regulation, properly applied. The logic is unassailable. If you have an operation which is doing its bit, spending the money on maintaining "backroom" standards, and the operation down the road is not, it has an unfair competitive advantage.

    My 1996, my profile on this issue was extremely high. By then, I had been working with Christopher Booker for four years, feeding his column, and we had been running a campaign through The Sunday Telegraph and The Daily Mail on the "hygiene police", and "mad officials".

    Our line was based on the premise, "the sledgehammer to miss the nut". We did not oppose regulation, or officials - per se. The objects of our ire were bad law and poor, or inadequate enforcement.

    Thus, when the John Barr outbreak happened, I was more than a little interested. I had just completed my PhD which, to a very great extent, dealt with enforcement and food poisoning investigation procedures. I wrote about the outbreak extensively in the national press – and elsewhere – forming the opinion that, as much as anything else, it had been a regulatory failure.

    The point, which I was to make to Sheriff Cox, was that – in the main – food poisoning outbreaks are preventable. They are not Acts of God, or accidents. In commercial premises, they invariably arise from a chain of events which, from an oversight of the premises, are detectable. A skilled inspector can, from observation, identify these issues, take remedial action and thereby prevent disease.

    That was the real point. That is what we, as a profession – whether public or private sector – were there for. We were there to prevent disease, to protect the public. Furthermore, that was the purpose of the regulations – a tool to help us achieve that desirable object.

    In respect of John Barr, I was appointed by the lead law firm representing the bulk of the victims, working with an astute solicitor by the name of Paul Santoni. My task, at the Inquiry, was to give expert evidence which would help the Sheriff determine the cause of the deaths of 21 people.

    Having seen the detailed plans of the operation and all the technical evidence of the case, the facts were clear to me. As I was subsequently quoted in the media recording my evidence:

    …when the Wishaw butchers started in a small way the working layout had been adequate. But as the business grew the layout was no longer adequate and there was a very real and unavoidable risk of cross-contamination from raw meats to cooked meat products. His report was further quoted as saying, "It's nothing short of a minor miracle there had not been a food poisoning outbreak earlier."
    In our book, Scared to Death, we tell the story in detail – in Chapter 6, headed "Officials can kill". I've pasted the whole excerpt, which repeats some of the detail, but it's a good read:

    The most famous thing that ever happened in the drab former coal-and-steel town of Wishaw, near Motherwell in the Clyde valley, took place in late November 1996. A group of pensioners gathered in a church hall for lunch, to eat stewed steak and puff pastry supplied by the award-winning local butcher, John Barr and Sons. Afterwards many fell desperately ill, until eventually 21 died. Many more had suffered permanent damage to their health, particularly affecting their kidneys.

    The cause of the infection was soon identified as E.coli O157.H7, the strain identified since 1982 as potentially lethal and now responsible for the worst E. coli outbreak the world had ever experienced. The source of the infection was tracked down to John Barr's shop.

    When Barr was told this by Graham Bryceland, the chief EHO of North Lanarkshire council – until now, he claimed, he had never heard of E. coli - he agreed to stop selling cooked meats. But Bryceland took no further action and only days later Barr supplied more than 100 guests at an 18th birthday party at a nearby bar with 300 slices of turkey, ham and other cooked meats. Again some of the guests soon fell ill. When Bryceland was informed, he summoned Barr out of a service at the local Catholic church for an angry interview at the council offices, but failed to record what was said.

    A year later, when in total 200 people around Wishaw had been confirmed as suffering from E. coli poisoning, with hundreds more suspected, Barr faced trial, charged with the "culpable, wilful and reckless supply" of contaminated meat to the birthday party.

    Because Bryceland had failed to keep a record of his interviews with Barr, and because there was a dispute about their earlier agreement over cooked meat, a large part of the prosecution case collapsed. Four charges were dropped, and Barr was cleared of any personal blame. On two remaining charges, relating to hygiene and the sale of contaminated meat, his company was in January 1998 found guilty and fined £2,500.

    Three months later, however, a new drama began. Under Scottish law, a Fatal Accident Inquiry had to be held into the first E. coli outbreak, because 20 people had died. Its purpose was to establish the cause of death; to determine whether any precautions might have been taken to prevent the deaths; and to identify any system defects which caused or contributed to them.

    In April 1998 the inquiry opened, under Sheriff Graham Cox. The Motherwell courtroom was packed with a dozen legal teams, several led by QCs. Seated behind batteries of laptops, most represented public bodies, whose prime concern was to defend their own role in the events surrounding the outbreak. Centre stage were the lawyers for Bryceland and North Lanarkshire district council.

    The one exception was a local Wishaw solicitor, Paul Santoni, representing the family of one of the pensioners who died. To act as his chief expert witness, he had called in Dr Richard North, not unknown in the area since the role he had played in the Lanark Blue case three years earlier.

    What had particularly caught their attention was the role played in the story by the local EHOs, who, after the tragedy occurred, seemed to have found it only too easy to identify 134 serious hygiene faults in Barr's premises and procedures, any one of which might have contributed to the fatal outbreak. But if all these faults were now so obvious, why had North Lanarkshire's health officials not spotted them before the event, during what were meant to be their regular inspections?

    Certainly most of the deficiencies were so glaring that an experienced hygiene expert should have picked them up immediately. As one of the most dangerous of the bugs which can damage human health, E. coli O157 had in recent years become increasingly common in raw meat, not least because of the stress imposed on animals by the concentration of the slaughterhouse industry into fewer and larger units under the EC's "hygiene" directive, 91/497/EC.

    The design of Barr's premises ensured a high risk that cooked meats might be contaminated by raw meat. No procedures were in place to ensure that they were cooked sufficiently to eliminate E. coli. Cleaning procedures were woefully deficient. The catalogue of failings was endless. Yet what came over in the courtroom was a picture of hopeless incompetence, as the various officials sent out to inspect Barr's shop from North Lanarkshire's gleaming council headquarters dominating the centre of Motherwell limply admitted that they had failed to notice any of these points.

    The last full inspection of Barr's premises had been carried out 10 months before the disaster took place by a Mr Proctor, a 23-year old EHO not long out of college. Not only had he failed to identify any of these deficiencies; he had even recommended that Barr no longer need the six-monthly inspections required for "high risk premises". The state of the shop was so satisfactory, the young official had advised, that in future it would only need inspecting once a year.

    As Santoni and North gradually teased this chilling story out of the increasingly discomfited EHOs, the lessons it conveyed were not lost on Sheriff Cox. When his report appeared in mid-August, they formed the central thread of his conclusions. He identified the council's incompetence as a major system failure which had played a crucial part in bringing the disaster about. He contrasted the inexperience of the young EHOs sent to inspect Barr's shop with the much more experienced inspectors sent in to investigate afterwards, asking why Bryceland had allowed such a risky operation to be inspected by people without appropriate knowledge.

    But he went on to point out that, "having obtained an honours degree in environmental studies, Mr Proctor should have been capable of carrying out an inspection which would have revealed the apparent hazards in Barr's premises". Even if the shop had remained on a six-monthly inspection rota, the sheriff witheringly argued, this still probably would have made no difference, because of the unprofessional way in which inspections were being carried out.

    The real significance of Cox's report was that he did not just confine his findings to underlining the failings of one team of EHOs. His criticisms went much wider, not least in emphasising on how the whole purpose of arming EHOs with such draconian powers under the Food Safety Act had been to put them in the front line, by giving them the prime responsibility for ensuring that food sold to the public was safe.

    There had long been a tendency, the sheriff went on, to lay all the blame for breakdowns in hygiene just on the businesses which produced and sold the food. Certainly, he agreed, Barr should be held liable for his own part in the tragedy. But ultimately, he said, if public officials are to set themselves up as experts in hygiene, then both businesses and the public have the right to expect them to do their job properly.

    If there was a major failure, as here in Lanarkshire, the inspectors must equally share the blame. Cox said he was far from impressed by the attempts the officials had made throughout the inquiry to shuffle off any responsibility and to place all the blame on an incompetent butcher, who had every right to expect competent advice from those paid to be the official "experts".
    With that, I hope, you can tell where I am coming from, and my direction of travel. At Motherwell that August, we got what amounted to a landmark judgement. For the first time in recorded history, we got an official verdict which stated that the officials – the regulators – were culpable for their [in]actions.

    When disaster strikes in situations where they have a statutory powers directed at preventing those disasters, they too bear some responsibility when they fail properly to exercise those powers.

  • Other posts on the financial crisis here.


  • COMMENT THREAD

    11 October 2008

    Courageous journalism

    Those are not words we often use in the same sentence on this blog but fear not: this posting is not about British journalists but about an extremely brave Russian (well, half Chechnyan) lady who spoke this evening at the Pushkin House.

    Natalya Estemirova is a journalist and a human rights activist who lives in Grozny among the rubble and the severely traumatized people - the ones who have survived the carnage, the bombing, the shelling, the random killings, the kidnappings, the tortures. She does what she can to help them by building up structures that will aid individuals and their families.

    Above all, she tries to tell the truth of what has been happening in that country and what is happening in the surrounding Caucasian autonomous republics: Ingushetiya, Dagestan, North Ossetia and, more recently, South Ossetia. The world does not really want to know though, at least, some parts of it are more interested than people in Russia who, according to Ms Estemirova, simply do not want to hear on the rare occasion stories and evidence do get through to them. It is all too difficult.

    Natalya Estemirova's great friend, Anna Politkovskaya, was murdered just over two years ago, on October 7, 2006 (coincidentally President Prime Minister Putin's birthday) but she is detemined to continue the good work. Last year she was awarded the first Anna Politkovskaya prize by a rather odd organization called Raw in War (Reach All Women in War).

    Some of its work is entirely admirable but its trustees and patrons seem to be the usual assortment of rent-a-quote celebrities, almost entirely from the left and its founder Mariana Katzarova spent more time talking about the war lords in power in Afghanistan because of NATO, who prevent the development of proper democracy and human rights (of which there was such a lot before the NATO invasion) and comparing the West to Russia than on the troubles of the Caucasus.

    Ms Estemirova's stories were moving and harrowing. For someone who has supped full of horrors she is remarkably cheerful and determined though full of fury when she talks about President Prime Minister Putin, his protege President Ramzan Kadyrov, Chechnya's dictator in all but name, and the bloody rule of some of the military commandants.

    At the same time she also told of the young conscripts, whose lives are very hard and who often try to help the civilians they have to deal with, particularly the children. There was even one commandant who, in a difficult area, did his best to ensure that food came in to the civilians and various problems were sorted out. He asked Estemirova that his story not be published because as soon as his chiefs hear about it they will move him. Eventually, his tour came to an end and so did the relative peace of the area over which he had held sway.

    Journalists love to talk about themselves and each other and present each other with various awards. This year the Anna Politkovskaya award was presented by Jon Snow to Malai Joya, the young Afghanistani MP who has been suspended for vociferous criticism of the tribal elders. She is not a journalist but a woman whose courage and human rights activity deserves commendation.

    The question is how did Jon Snow feel when stood in the Frontline Club between these two incredibly brave ladies, one of whom risks her life to bring important stories into the open. Did he even stop for a moment and ask himself why it is that he cannot report with honesty, decency and seriousness in the easy world in which he lives?

    COMMENT THREAD

    05 October 2008

    The financial crisis - links

    Below are links to our recent posts on the financial crisis, listed in chronological order, starting with the piece on 27 September:

  • Therein lies your problem

  • A puzzling development

  • Playing with fire

  • The contagion spreads

  • In Europe but not ruled by …

  • This is one we missed

  • Doomed?

  • The elephant emerges

  • The smoking gun

  • We get what we deserve

  • No shortage of warnings

  • A dark and dirty game

  • The heart of the crisis

  • The elephant dives for cover

  • They really do not know?

  • Sauve qui peut

  • Beware of Greeks …

  • The House approves

  • Sucking the life out of politics

  • What is worse than scum?

  • The story so far

  • Blood on the floor

  • Seventy percent of the crisis

  • Oh Shit!

  • And double shit…

  • Happy days are here again (not!)

  • An air of unreality

  • Panic takes over

  • Finger in the dyke

  • Wall Street blues

  • The love that dare not speak its name

  • Spluttering?

  • Practically irrelevant

  • Groping…

  • Except …

  • The truth will out … but not here

  • What they actually agreed

  • Joining the dots

  • God help us!

  • Neelie 1 – Ireland 0

  • A crisis of enormous proportions

  • Now there's a thing

  • Something smells

  • The politics of denial

  • It ain't working yet

  • A fascinating insight

  • Questions in Parliament

  • Children at play

  • Hic sunt dracones

  • Follow me!

  • The driver quits the train

  • The blind will not see

  • Unfair to Tories!

  • They've known it all along!

  • The end of civilisation as we know it

  • A delicious rant

  • Cracks beginning to show?

  • A failure of regulation?

  • Mad Bank Disease

  • It ain't going to work

  • It is all soooo complicated

  • Bureaucratic Spongiform Encephalopathy

  • The law is the law

  • Do they read the blog?


  • We will keep adding to this list as the story develops, or visit our main site for the latest posts, and our forum where the issues are expertly discussed.

    25 September 2008

    First report

    [There are no illustrations in this longish posting because I cannot imagine what would be appropriate. When in doubt, ignore pictures is not a bad motto.]

    Part of Monday was spent at a conference organized jointly by (deep breath) the Center for Security Policy with the New Criterion, Hudson Institute, City Journal – Manhattan Institute and our own Centre for Social Cohesion. With such illustrious sponsors there were illustrious speakers, including Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Mark Steyn, Daniel Johnson, Melanie Phillips, John O’Sullivan and David Pryce-Jones. Several postings will be needed to do it all justice and this is merely a preliminary musing.

    The theme was “Free Speech, Jihad and the Future of Western Civilization” with a sub-heading mentioning libel tourism, a peculiarly British problem but that was not one of the main subjects. Since there were no lawyers on either of the panels, there could be no discussion of how the libel laws of this country can be changed as, we all agree, they must be.

    A repeated theme elaborated by several speakers was the notion that the danger we are facing through soft jihad is greater than any we have faced before as neither Nazism nor Communism were so obviously ensconced in our society. There were no schools named after Lenin or St Adolph churches on street corners. Thus, our refusal to fight the jihad is liable to destroy Western civilization in a way the other two ideologies could not.

    Let me, respectfully, disagree with that. The presence of mosques and madrassas (that means school) on our street corners need not be a problem as long there is a reasonable oversight as to what is taught there. No religious or educational institution is supposed to encourage people to go out and murder various others. By and large the people who attend these institutions have no power or influence in our society. (In fact, many of the youngsters have little to look forward to and that is a separate problem that needs to be addressed.)

    Obviously, we cannot allow the building of extraordinarily large mosques, whose minarets will dwarf all Christian churches; nor can we have muezzins calling the faithful to prayer five times a day in Oxford. This is not a Muslim country.

    However, there is an important difference between the inability displayed certainly by the establishment and various institutions in the West to fight for our culture and our civilization as against soft jihad and the refusal to do so when Nazism and, more importantly, Communism was the threat.

    When the Archbishop of Canterbury speaks of the “inevitability” of Sharia law being accepted on equal footing with the ordinary law of the land or the Lord Chief Justice speaks of being
    willing to see sharia law operate in the country, so long as it did not conflict with the laws of England and Wales, or lead to the imposition of severe physical punishments,
    they do not really mean that they see Sharia as being superior to Western law.

    Admittedly, it is difficult to work out what the Archbishop means at the best of times and Lord Phillips appears to think that Sharia should go beyond dispute resolution and, possibly, apply to marriage arrangement with all that implies for Muslim women. Nevertheless, both statements are expressions of moral paralysis and, possibly, physical cowardice rather than belief in the system.

    This is very different from the real fifth column that all Western countries had for Nazi and, much more so, Communist ideology. The politicians, officials, diplomats, film producers and actors, officers during the latter half of the Second World War, academics, teachers, and others promoted Communism, openly or covertly, because they believed that the Western system of social, political, economic and moral ideas must be destroyed in order to create a higher societal structure. Not only was that much more dangerous it was also much more long-lasting.

    I would argue that our perplexity in the face of the latest enemy and inability to proclaim the superiority of our own values of political, religious and social freedom have been caused to a very grerat extent by the infiltration of the much more dangerous enemy the West faced for decades until the Soviet Union collapsed in the early nineties.

    At the conference Ayaan Hirsi Ali talked of soft jihad as termites. You may think your beautiful furniture is still standing but as soon as you move it there is a complete collapse – the termites have destroyed it. I am afraid it was the Communist infiltration that were the termites and the furniture that was in place and looked so nice cannot stand up to the strong movement that is being inflicted by the jihadists.

    In the same way, many of us would argue that another specie of termites are the tranzis and, particularly, the European Union that is lodging in our furniture and destroying it from inside.

    The extent to which that system’s agents penetrated our society has been documented in greater detail for the United States than for any European country, including Britain. Partly, this is a matter of luck – the CPUSA’s documents have ended up in the hands of competent researchers and historians, thus making it possible for the Yale series on the history of Communism to be published, starting with “The Secret World of American Communism” in 1996.

    Then there are is the historical fact that the Venona documents that produced a remarkable list of individuals, some of whom have not yet been identified, were decoded in the United States, though often with British help. The declassification of documents was possible because of America’s Freedom of Information Act, which actually allows people to find out matters of some importance. Similar attempts to find out names of agents have failed in Britain and in European countries.

    There are other issues: the famous libel laws that have prevented many an historian from disclosing the truth about the situation in Britain; and a curious desire to bury and ignore the past, often coupled with misplaced compassion for the now elderly agents or their families if they themselves have died.

    Even in the United States McCarthyism is a word to invoke shivers of horror in many a right-thinking individual and George Clooney can get away with making a deeply dishonest film about the period, “Good night and good luck”. Ed Murrow may have been “a useful idiot” but the man at the heart of the story, Lawrence Duggan, was most definitely a Soviet agent and his death, allegedly a suicide, remains deeply suspicious.

    The announcement that the Rosenbergs were definitely spies by one of their co-agents produced a frisson of astonishment in the New York Times.

    In other words the debate is not ended and a great deal more is likely to come out on the subject of those “invisible” groups of agents, most of whom were in some position of power and influence. Compare that to the position the soft jihadists hold in our society.

    Some, either Muslims themselves or their sympathizers, who, nevertheless, do not actually want to live in a Sharia-run society, have acquired positions in such organizations as the Canadian Human Rights Councils (that are now being investigated and may well cease to exist soon). Some, like Khalid bin Mahfouz, have enough money to manipulate the disgraceful British libel laws in order to impose censorship on all those who try to discuss what he has been doing with his money. But most of the mosque-goers and madrassa-attenders are on the fringes of society. That causes problems of its own but they cannot be compared with the likes of Harry Dexter White or Alger Hiss.

    This is not to say that I do not find soft jihad seriously disturbing. Attempts to silence research, debate, even artistic expression whether through our libel courts, the Canadian Human Rights kangaroo courts or the manipulation of the American legal system and academia (so what else is new?) are outrageous and must be resisted.

    (Incidentally, all those people who were so schocked by the fact that Governor Palin, as Mayor of Wasilla, asked the City Librarian about the possibility of certain books being withdrawn, not actually suggesting that she should do so, were very silent when Cambridge University Press, terrified by Khalid bin Mahfouz’s determination to bankrupt them if necessary, demanded that all libraries worldwide should withdraw copies of “Alms for Jihad”. Luckily, the Office for Intellectual Freedom of the American Library Association recommended that American libraries refuse to comply and many readers seconded that.)

    The decisions taken by the OIC and the Human Rights Council are also worrying. We all know that these organizations should have no influence on what happens in our countries at all and we also know that there will be creeping indirect influence. In fact, as I have suggested before on the BrugesGroupBlog, the transnational organizations are, in many ways, a greater danger to us than the Islamists.

    We cannot allow books being pulped or withdrawn from publication because there are people around who do not like what is being said with respected writers and researchers like Rachel Ehrenfeld being prevented from publishing her work; we cannot have journalists like Mark Steyn and Ezra Levant bullied and harassed by sinister commissars for truth, who are not accountable to anyone and who have no legal framework within which they must operate (though, I understand they are now being investigated by various law enforcement agencies); we cannot accept that the likes of Robert Spencer of Jihad Watch should be silenced because they dare to point to unpalatable truths.

    At the same time let us not forget that there are other forces that try to abolish liberties that had been fought for. The EU, as my colleague has reported, is once again trying to control blogs and bloggers, no doubt for the good of us all.

    Over on the other side of the Pond, there are constant Democrat threats or promises to reintroduce the “Fairness Doctrine”, whose aim is to close down the highly successful right-wing radio channels and programmes. There were reports of Obama campaigners closing down Clinton-supporting blogs and trying to derail interviews with the likes of Stanley Kurtz on the subject of Obama’s links with the not-all-that-remorseful former Weatherman Bill Ayers and their joint behaviour over the Chicago Annenberg Challenge. Those egregious Holocaust denial laws not only go on in countries like Germany but there have been proposals to extend them to other countries. And, of course, we all, in Britain, live under the constant threat of the libel laws as operated by rich crooks with the aid and support of some (not many) members of the judicial profession.

    The point I am making that the censorship and other aspects of the soft jihad are imposed through fear not through ideological agreement. In the first place, it is physical fear. If we don’t agree to stop investigating the Koran or pointing out that almost all recent terrorist acts were committed by Islamist groups, they might come after us. We might be blown up or murdered in the street like Theo van Gogh was. At best we shall have to live under permanent protection like Ayaan Hirsan Ali and other outspoken Muslims and ex-Muslims do or like Geert Wilders, the Dutch parliamentarian does, or like the Danish cartoonists do.

    There is also the matter of intellectual cowardice. Too many people in the establishment and, one has to admit, outside it are terrified of proclaiming a point of view, particularly if it sounds nasty or unpleasant. The exceptions are the United States and Israel. You can say anything you like about them. Actually, you can say anything you like about any right-wing analyst or politician, as Governor Sarah Palin has found out.

    The third intelinking thread is moral cowardice or, rather, a moral paralysis, the result, I submit, of the activity of those termites. Faced with a determined onslaught by people who are not particularly interested in convincing us but in overcoming our possible resistance by any means necessary, too many of us find it hard to define what it is we are fighting for and how to go about the fight.

    The EU, needless to say, has been part of the problem. By insisting that member states abandon their own identities and histories in order to become part of the grand project; by officially proclaiming that part of the project is not upsetting anybody (except those who oppose it) as Commission President Barroso made it more or less clear in a waffly statement about the Danish cartoons and certain reactions to them, the EU has made our fight against the enemy that is trying to destroy our culture that much more difficult. Come to think of it, the EU, together with other tranzis and many of our own establishment, has refused to acknowledge that the enemy exists and is armed.

    However, this is a war we can win. The Islamists, unlike our earlier enemies, are offering very little. Few people want to live under Sharia law or go back to a particularly backward version of the social structure of the Dark Ages. So they are beatable as long as we remain determined to do so and that means, among other things, not handing over Muslim populations to their rule.

    The idea of imposing Sharia on Muslim communities in the West, thus creating a legal apartheid and condemning millions of people who should be living under our laws to that backward social structure ought to be repugnant.

    We can stand up to these people, rescue their victims (those unfortunate youngsters who have been seduced by highly unpleasant imams and the women who are trapped in Sharia family rules, for instance) and, in the process, reassert those values that make the West, in particular the Anglosphere, the most attractive and energetic part of the world.

    Going back to the conference, I want to quote two of the speakers (others will turn up in other postings), both writers I admire greatly and who have made appearances on the blog: David Pryce-Jones (here is his blog) and John O’Sullivan.

    Mr Pryce-Jones is an expert on Middle Eastern history and very knowledgeable on Islam. In fact, he is considerably more knowledgeable than many of the Imams that spout hate-filled rubbish and all those who protest against “Islamophobia”. (Nothing new in that, many eurosceptics are more knowledgeable about European countries and their history as well as the EU than all those who scream “swivel-eyed Europhobes”.)

    He started his comments by mourning the degradation that has fallen on the North African and other Arab Muslim countries in the last few decades, blaming it on the absolutist political systems that have grown up in them since the Second World War.

    The nationalists got rid of the few nascent political institutions that the French and the British left behind (very few, as it happens) and turned the countries into oppressive one-party states. When these did not produce all or even some of what they promised, a power struggle ensued with the radical Islamists taking over, often in very bloodthirsty fashion. (Let me just add that the story of radical Islamism growing out of left-wing, Soviet supported Communist or quasi Communist regimes has not been properly told. It is so much easier to blame Western imperialism. The latest issue of the Salisbury Review has a fascinating article on this process in Algeria by the Portuguese writer and politician Patricia Lança but you have subscribe to the magazine to read it in full.)

    Breaking absolute power is immensely difficult though, as Mr Pryce-Jones pointed out, the much-maligned Bush regime seems to have managed it and Iraq may well turn into an exemplar for the rest of the Middle East. It is certainly a worrying precedent for the rulers of those countries.

    In the meantime, Mr Pryce-Jones advocates a new and more attractive Congress for Cultural Freedom that will give a forum to those Muslim thinkers and writers who are not so much “moderate” as that is a meaningless term but intent on turning Islam into a modern ideology that can survive without too much bloodshed into the twenty-first century and develop into the future.

    The original Congress for Cultural Freedom was set up by the disillusioned left to counter the very effective Communist propaganda and other activity that was destroying Western culture and society. It was financed by the CIA because no-one else would. I think we can all agree that its work was but partially successful.

    A Congress that would be opposing Islamism will have to be different as it will have to concentrate on the Muslim countries and communities themselves. In the West, it will have to proclaim the importance of Western values and culture and fight cowardice and abject desires to surrender rather than a powerful ideology.

    John O’Sullivan, Executive Editor of Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, pointed out that not all threats to free speech come from radical Islam. He should know. He and his staff are fighting very tangible threats and attacks in many countries, not least Russia.

    He further pointed out that the lack of decent British patriotism that can be passed on to the young (and old but let that pass) has created problems for everyone in this country, not just the Muslim communities. (This, too, is a point we have made frequently on this blog.)

    He suggested a programme of five points:

    End multiculturalism and concentrate on teaching that decent British patriotism that includes a great deal of history, not forgetting that within a liberal (in the true sense of the word) Western culture there can be many divergences.

    Something nasty to be done with the establishment, whose idiocy and dishonesty has, if not exactly landed us, certainly has kept us in the mess we are in. Of course, the establishment tends to be rather left-wing these days so let us not have any more nonsense about the poor underprivileged left, ranting against power structures that disappeared decades ago.

    A serious reform of the police, which has become “the paramilitary wing of the Guardian”, a phrase so clever that many of us in the audience immediately made a note of stealing it.

    An alteration to immigration rules that would prevent all those endless first cousin marriages to people from backward villages in the Indian sub-continent. This, needless to say, will start working towards an improvement in the situation of women in the Muslim communities.

    The fifth point was the most important one as this is something we can all do immediately: resistance to foolish intellectual fashions, no matter where they come from.

    So there we are dear readers. A first report on the many subjects raised by an important conference and a general musing on the subjects covered. I may add that quite a few people on the panel and in the audience might not have agreed with my opinion. Unsurprisingly, I remain convinced by them.

    12 September 2008

    Who should decide - Part 2

    [This is a continuation of a posting I put up yesterday.]

    Let us have a look at Jonathan Freedland's piece first because it comes from the same stable that tried to influence the last presidential election by urging Guardian readers write to voters in Ohio, suggesting to them that for everybodys sake they should vote John Kerry (D). Ohio, incidentally, the last major State to declare, went Republican.

    Mr Freedland's piece is riddled with inaccuracies. He rehashes all the accusations against Governor Palin, having clearly not heard the truth about any of them; he calls Andrew Sullivan a conservative, something that has not been true for some time; he assumes that it is black candidates who do worse in elections than in polls, whereas the truth is that it is left-wing candidates; and he actually thinks that the ill-fated Berlin rally was a good thing. Then he delivers what he thinks are the killer punches:

    If Americans choose McCain, they will be turning their back on the rest of the world, choosing to show us four more years of the Bush-Cheney finger. And I predict a deeply unpleasant shift.

    Until now, anti-Americanism has been exaggerated and much misunderstood: outside a leftist hardcore, it has mostly been anti-Bushism, opposition to this specific administration. But if McCain wins in November, that might well change. Suddenly Europeans and others will conclude that their dispute is with not only one ruling clique, but Americans themselves. For it will have been the American people, not the politicians, who will have passed up a once-in-a-generation chance for a fresh start - a fresh start the world is yearning for.

    And the manner of that decision will matter, too. If it is deemed to have been about race - that Obama was rejected because of his colour - the world's verdict will be harsh. In that circumstance, Slate's Jacob Weisberg wrote recently, international opinion would conclude that "the United States had its day, but in the end couldn't put its own self-interest ahead of its crazy
    irrationality over race".

    Even if it's not ethnic prejudice, but some other aspect of the culture wars, that proves decisive, the point still holds. For America to make a decision as grave as this one - while the planet boils and with the US fighting two wars - on the trivial basis that a hockey mom is likable and seems down to earth, would be to convey a lack of seriousness, a fleeing from reality, that does indeed suggest a nation in, to quote Weisberg, "historical decline". Let's not forget, McCain's campaign manager boasts that this election is "not about the issues."
    Well now, let us try to sort this rubbish out. First of all, one cannot start by dismissing Sarah Palin, whose one great fault is that she is an outsider by Washington DC standards and then demand that Americans vote for the insider and call it "change" and "fresh start".

    Furthermore, after the Democrats discarded Hillary Clinton, surely not voting for the McCain/Palin ticket would mean that the American electorate is motivated more than anything else by crazy irrationality over gender. If not voting in Obama is racist, not voting in Palin must be sexist. You see, Mr Freedland, two can play that stupid game. (As a matter of fact, whoever loses in 2008, Palin will emerge as the winner. Tough luck Mr Freedland.)

    But, of course, it is more than that – we are talking about Americans not recognizing their own “self-interest”, which consists of being liked by Mr Freedland and Slate’s Jacob Weisberg and the mob in Berlin who applauded wildly whenever Obama mentioned completely irresponsible things such as solving the Darfur problem and global warming. (Incidentally, Senator Obama’s contribution to the problem of global warming is not, as you would expect, very helpful, as this account makes it clear.)

    The conclusion one finally draws from that attack column is that as far as Mr Freedland is concerned Americans have to prove their non-racist credentials by voting in a black man (or, in this case, a mixed race one) and any black (or mixed race) man will do as they are in Mr Freedland's mind completely interchangeable. Ahem, isn't that rather racist?

    I know of a very large number of Americans who read everything Thomas Sowell or Shelby Steele writes, are followers of LaShawn Barber's blog (woops, she is a black woman so she does not count), think Clarence Thomas is a good Supreme Court judge and would happily vote for Michael Steele (more here). (Incidentally, the last two of these have received a staggering amount of racist abuse from the left. Clearly, this does not bother Mr Freedland.) But they will not vote for Barack Obama not because he is black (well, mixed race) but because of who and what he is. He himself, not the rest of the male black population. That is what politics is about, Mr Freedland, in a democracy and not the sort of oligarchic government you are happy with.

    Nor do I see why America needs to prove its anti-racist credentials to countries where ethnic minorities do not exactly prosper (a look at the situation in France might be instructive). The present Secretary of State and her immediate predecessor are both black. The fact that neither has managed to overcome the problems with the job is irrelevant. Their white predecessors did not either.

    There are numerous black Senators, Representatives, Governors, Mayors (oh yes, they are important in American politics, despite Mr Freedland's ignorant comments), State legislators. The mere fact that a black (well, mixed race) man was chosen to be the candidate for one of the main parties is a huge achievement. Then again, the fact that a woman has been chosen to be the Vice-Presidential candidate for one of the main parties is also a huge achievement. And she, unlike Geraldine Ferraro, stands a good chance of winning and, probably, going on to becoming the Presidential candidate.

    So much for Mr Freedland. Let us turn our attention (and, I trust, vitriol) to the BBC World Service poll. Goody, goody, the "World Wants Obama as President". Well, the majority of the 23,500 people asked in this poll across 22 countries does, anyway. Not decisive, I should have thought, particularly as these would be people who had access to the BBC and, more to the point, to whom the BBC had access.
    A total of 23,531 people in Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, Egypt, France, Germany, India, Indonesia, Italy, Kenya, Lebanon, Mexico, Nigeria, Panama, the Philippines, Poland, Russia, Singapore, Turkey, the UAE, Britain and the United States were interviewed face-to-face or by telephone in July and August 2008 for the poll.
    Of course, one has to add that in July and August Senator McCain had had very little coverage in much of the world media (including the American MSM) as it was before his brilliant pick of Governor Sarah Palin as his Vice-President. Is the BBC going to conduct another poll that would take recent developments into account? I think not.

    Several things strike me about the piece, apart from the comment:
    In the United States, three polls taken since the Republican party convention ended on Thursday (local time) show Senator McCain with a lead of 1 to 4 percentage points - within the margin of error - and two others show the two neck-and-neck.
    One wonders whether there was any mention of the margin of error when Obama's lead was below 5 percent, which has happened a number of times. Again, I suspect not. It's the way you tell 'em.

    The summary of the figures is odd:
    The margin in favour of Senator Obama ranged from 9 per cent in India to 82 per cent in Kenya, while an average of 49 percent across the 22 countries preferred Senator Obama compared with 12 percent preferring Senator McCain. Some four in 10 did not take a view.
    Right. So nearly half the world, according to this, actually has no view on the subject. That's very interesting. I didn't see that in all the headlines. The spread is also interesting. The margin of preference was nine percent in India, a country that has close links with America and is worried about the defence situation in Asia.

    In Kenya, that seat of freedom and democracy, the margin was 82 percent. Would that have anything to do with the fact that Obama's father (who had abandoned him and his mother when the child was two years old) was Kenyan? Surely not.

    We have been here before in 2004 when we wrote about the sheer arrogance of presuming to dictate to the Americans how they should vote here and here. The subject came up earlier in this campaign as well.

    Let me sum up: the American President and the American Congress are elected by the American people according to the rules laid down in the American Constitution, which has been around for well over 200 years. This is called constitutional democracy. The alternative of acclaiming the POTUS by journalists, NGOs, tranzis and people they condescend to ask is not acceptable. Though it may suit Senator Obama's campaign who lost a lot of good will in America when they had their man strut around as if he was already the President. Unfortunately, America has this small thing called an election. Oh dear, I am repeating myself.

    Then there is a question of governments and elections in the countries where they so blithely tell us who should be the American President. Just how much say do the people of China, Egypt, Indonesia, Kenya, Lebanon, Nigeria, Russia and the UAE have in the selection of their own government, a matter of greater concern to them, one would have thought?

    So we come to the last and, for us, the most important point. Does Mr Freedland ever mention the fact that in Britain around 80 per cent of the legislation comes from the European Union with the Parliament, even if it is aware of it, unable to strike it down? Has the BBC ever conducted a poll about the fact that legal decisions in Britain can be overthrown by the ECJ and legislation properly passed in Westminster can be declared invalid by the same body?

    This is what I wrote in July in response to the notion that "we" should have a say in the choice of the POTUS:
    To which one can say only one thing: who is this "we"? We, the people of European countries, do not have a say in the selection of our real government. Nor do we have a say in whether to have a completely new constitutional arrangement, to wit the Constitutional Reform Lisbon Treaty imposed on us. When the people of one European country are graciously allowed to vote on the subject and say no, plans are made to disregard their vote. So, before we claim a right to impose our views on the Americans on who should be their President perhaps we should take a closer look at what is happening in our own countries.

    Furthermore, is it not strange that "our" opinion always seems to be on the side of the Democrats and the more left-wing and anti-American their rhetoric is, the more "we" seem to like them? Could it be because we are fed a succession of … ahem … inaccurate stories about American politics by our own media and various political pundits? Or could it be that "we" are only a very small proportion of the population?
    Well now, let me ask that question buried in the first paragraph: before we start interfering with the American constitutional structure are we to be allowed to decide whether we want the Constitutional Reform Lisbon Treaty imposed on us and is Mr Freedland going to write an angry article about the need for Britain and other European countries to turn over a new leaf and resume their existence as democratic countries? I take that is a no. After all, it is so much easier to make irresponsible statements about the next occupant of the Oval Office.