Archive for the ‘Behaviour’ Category

Sweden’s welfare society is often heartless to the elderly

December 4, 2015

Sweden has a well developed welfare state and longevity is high. But, I sometimes feel, those of the elderly who do not have private means, can expect to be hidden away from the general view and encouraged to fade away.

Age discrimination is endemic. The country has a youth fixation and this leads to a deep-seated and widespread discrimination against the elderly. Generally, once a person is labelled a “pensioner” at 65, the journey to being a non-person begins. Only those with private means have some chance of escaping the solitude and invisibility forced upon them. The elderly are grossly under-represented in parliament. The population over 65 is about 26% but the number of members of parliament over 65 is just 2.6%.  Instead of utilising the wealth of experience and knowledge available, parliament has more than its fair share of incompetent youngsters. (This is in spite of the critical faculties of the brain not being fully developed till about the age of 25). It is more expensive for employers to hire seniors even under this red/green government, for who “self-employment” is a dirty word. The prejudices against the elderly show up even in the health and welfare services. The services for the elderly have become dominated by the cost to fulfil the law and are not really concerned with any other measure of quality. Elderly people are often subject to a form of unconscious triage and receive inferior health care. The laws are ostensibly very friendly to the elderly but are administered often by very indifferent (if not unfriendly) people. It is generally assumed that the law – which should be a minimum requirement- is actually a sufficient assurance of quality. The “friendliness” of the laws and the assumed quality they “assure” is used to assuage the conscience of society as the elderly are hidden away in homes and encouraged to fade away with as little fuss as possible.

Every so often a case gets attention which demonstrates the impersonal and “heartless” nature of the welfare services for the old who do not have private means.

ExpressenSiv and Nils Sundén, 72 and 86, have lived together for over 40 years. But now Stockholm City is forcing them to stay in different homes for the elderly – even though it is against the law. “We do not have many years left so it is important to be together”, says Nils Sundén. 

A couple who have long lived together have the right to continue living together, even if they have different care needs. This law, of the right to cohabitation, has been in force since November 1, 2012. However few make use of it. …..

“We’ve been married for over thirty years. When we first moved from our villa, we came to a retirement home in Blackeberg. I lived in a group home and Siv got an apartment in the same house”, says Nils Sundén.
But the nursing home had shortcomings and the married couple were forced to move to two different homes for the elderly in early 2013. In May, the couple asked about getting to stay together, but this was rejected by the Assistance Unit within the City of Stockholm, which decided  on the matter. Siv and Nils Sundén were denied the opportunity to live together and the official wrote, 
“Joint living is not deemed to be appropriate in the nursing and care homes with dementia orientation unless both spouses have need of such accommodation.” …..

Dick Lindberg is an investigator at the National Social Services Board. He has been commissioned by the government to guide municipalities on how to apply the new law on cohabitation. He has followed the work of the law and written inquiries on the issue since 2012. He was very surprised that Nils and Siv Sundén had been refused the chance to stay together. “It sounds a bit strange. The whole point (of the law) is that it applies to spouses with different care needs. Even if one of the pair is completely healthy they should be able to stay together anyway. Moreover, there is no exception for people with dementia”, said Dick Lindberg.

The couple were first denied the chance to stay together because he lived in a dementia home. Which he does not. Then they were denied on the grounds of the health needs of one of them, which is not valid as a reason for denying that the couple live together. …..

Turkey’s Byzantine machinations with people trafficking for Europe, oil trading for ISIS

December 3, 2015

Turkey (and Erdogan and his family) are living up to my perceptions of supreme Byzantine duplicity. They are involved in a particularly dirty game of complex intrigue and unprincipled double dealing in Syria.

The EU is going to pay Turkey some €3 billion to control the flow of refugees to Europe and for housing refugees in Turkey. The better the control that can be shown the greater the payment by the EU. Now Turkey has a mechanism in place to earn money from people trafficking. There is real financial benefit to show more coming in to Turkey across the border with Syria and to show that less of them are leaving for Europe. Moreover Turkish citizens now have visa-free travel to Europe. The fault lines in Europe are easy to exploit and Turkey is running rings around the EU.

Henry Barkey in Carnegie EuropeThat Europe is selling out to Turkey is perfectly understandable in this light. But many in Europe will perceive as excessive the deal reached by Brussels and Ankara on November 29: money, visa-free travel arrangements for Turkish citizens, and the opening of a chapter of Turkey’s EU accession process in exchange for better management of the refugees and steps to prevent them from reaching Europe.

The EU is coming out as naive and gullible and complicit in Turkey’s people trafficking games.

But far more damaging are the Russian allegations of the involvement of Turkey, and more specifically of the President’s son, Bilal Erdogan, in the trading of ISIS oil.

BBCRussia’s defence ministry has accused the family of Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan of being directly involved in the trade of petroleum with the Islamic State group.

Deputy Defence Minister Anatoly Antonov said Turkey was the biggest buyer of “stolen” oil from Syria and Iraq.

The Russians are getting very detailed about the involvement of Bilal Erdogan in profiteering from ISIS oil and even about Erdogan’s daughter providing aid and comfort to wounded ISIS fighters

MintPressNews: …….. Others reaffirmed Lavrov’s stance, such as retired French General Dominique Trinquand, who said that “Turkey is either not fighting ISIL at all or very little, and does not interfere with different types of smuggling that takes place on its border, be it oil, phosphate, cotton or people,” he said.

……. And while we patiently dig to find who the on and offshore “commodity trading” middleman are, who cart away ISIS oil to European and other international markets in exchange for hundreds of millions of dollars, one name keeps popping up as the primary culprit of regional demand for the Islamic State’s “terrorist oil” – that of Turkish president Recep Erdogan’s son: Bilal Erdogan.

Byzantine Empire in 650 AD Wikipedia

William Engdahl writes in New Eastern Outlook:

More and more details are coming to light revealing that the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria, variously known as ISIS, IS or Daesh, is being fed and kept alive by Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, the Turkish President and by his Turkish intelligence service, including MIT, the Turkish CIA. Turkey, as a result of Erdoğan’s pursuit of what some call a Neo-Ottoman Empire fantasies that stretch all the way to China, Syria and Iraq, threatens not only to destroy Turkey but much of the Middle East if he continues on his present path.

In October 2014 US Vice President Joe Biden told a Harvard gathering that Erdoğan’s regime was backing ISIS with “hundreds of millions of dollars and thousands of tons of weapons…” Biden later apologized clearly for tactical reasons to get Erdoğan’s permission to use Turkey’s Incirlik Air Base for airstrikes against ISIS in Syria, but the dimensions of Erdoğan’s backing for ISIS since revealed is far, far more than Biden hinted. …..

The prime source of money feeding ISIS these days is sale of Iraqi oil from the Mosul region oilfields where they maintain a stronghold. The son of Erdoğan it seems is the man who makes the export sales of ISIS-controlled oil possible.

Bilal Erdoğan owns several maritime companies. He has allegedly signed contracts with European operating companies to carry Iraqi stolen oil to different Asian countries. The Turkish government buys Iraqi plundered oil which is being produced from the Iraqi seized oil wells. Bilal Erdoğan’s maritime companies own special wharfs in Beirut and Ceyhan ports that are transporting ISIS’ smuggled crude oil in Japan-bound oil tankers. ….

… In addition to son Bilal’s illegal and lucrative oil trading for ISIS, Sümeyye Erdoğan, the daughter of the Turkish President apparently runs a secret hospital camp inside Turkey just over the Syrian border where Turkish army trucks daily being in scores of wounded ISIS Jihadists to be patched up and sent back to wage the bloody Jihad in Syria, according to the testimony of a nurse who was recruited to work there until it was discovered she was a member of the Alawite branch of Islam, the same as Syrian President Bashar al-Assad who Erdoğan seems hell-bent on toppling. …….. 

I note that though Turkey is part of the US coalition, they have only attacked Kurdish fighters in their strikes in Syria. And now they have also shot down a Russian fighter which was threatening their oil from Da’esh. I am left with the perception that Turkey’s priority is overwhelmingly the suppression of the Kurds. Anything is acceptable to prevent a Kurdistan getting off the ground (let alone a greater Kurdistan). The second priority is to stir the conflict to make it as lucrative as possible for Turkey and its ruling families. Getting rid of Assad is also on their list, but not at the price of advancing the Kurds. If Da’esh (ISIS) is to take over from Assad and curb the Kurds, then that is perfectly acceptable. To fight Da’esh is not even explicitly on their list as an objective.

Why Barack Obama and John Kerry put up with the Turkish duplicity is not clear to me. That Turkey is a member of a belligerent and expansionist NATO (What has Turkey to do with the North Atlantic? and now Macedonia?), may provide some explanation. But recalling the way in which Biden changed his tune suggests that US “principles” are fairly flexible here. Unless Turkey’s protection of the flow of funds to Da’esh is stopped, no strategy to eliminate them can succeed. (Of course to stop the “idea” of Da’esh, requires that Saudi Arabia stop playing games). Now with Raqqa under attack it seems Turkey is also complicit in allowing Da’esh members to escape to Libya to set up an alternative “safe zone”.  Such a Turkey as a member of the EU and as its first majority Muslim country is almost frightening.

Sweden Democrat support at an all time high (and so is immigration level)

December 2, 2015

I have remarked on this before. It seems heretical and counter-intuitive.

Maybe immigration increases because of the anti-immigration parties

The surge of support for nationalist, “anti-immigration” parties in Europe coincides with very high immigration levels. At first sight it would seem obvious that the immigration level is the “cause” and the anti-immigration support is the “effect”.

But I begin to wonder.

The “nationalist, anti-immigration” parties have been around for a long time, with histories that go right back to the 1930s. The modern growth of these parties, however, really starts in the mid 1990s. Twenty five years ought to be enough for this support to begin to have some effect on their main objective. While these parties have won places in parliament and even in government, their support still runs along and in phase with immigration numbers. Increasing support for “anti-immigration” has not succeeded in reducing immigration. In fact, the anti-immigration parties have been so effective at building up support, but so ineffective at having any impact on immigration levels, that I begin to wonder which is the “cause” and which the “effect”.

In Sweden the Sweden Democrats are at an alltime high in the opinion polls (19.9%). But immigration numbers are also at an all time high. UKIP popular support has never been higher in the UK and immigration numbers have never been higher either.

Perhaps, by some paradoxical social mechanisms (which are not quite clear), high levels of immigration are a consequence of , and in phase with, the level of support for “anti-immigrant” parties. It could be argued that there is a threshold level to be reached before these parties can be effective. But parties in far weaker, “minority” positions have succeeded in pushing through their extreme views in many countries, and the Greens in Europe are an example.

My tentative conclusion is that either the threshold for the Sweden Democrats to be effective is much higher than 20% support (which is an indicator of not fitting the system), or that they are particularly ineffective (which is an indicator of political incompetence), or both.

SD support versus immigration to Sweden

SD support versus immigration to Sweden

Perhaps immigration numbers will only decrease if support for the anti-immigrant parties wanes?

A Holy European Empire is – for now – untenable

November 29, 2015

The EU has been facing an unprecedented assault on its borders with the refugee crisis. So much so that internal dissent about the free movement across the EU has never been higher. The Schengen agreement has been suspended and member states are reintroducing border controls. Political disparity across the member states ranges from far-left governments (Greece, Portugal….) to nationalistic governments which include far-right elements (Poland, Hungary…). Economic disparities across the member states are also extremely wide with the poverty (relative) of Greece and Romania at one end and the wealth of Scandinavia and Northern Europe at the other. Some members pay only lip service to fiscal responsibility and balanced budgets (inevitably these are left-of centre governments and includes France) while others keep within the nominally required deficit limit of 3% of GDP. Civic values are not homogeneous across the EU and individual behaviour follows national mores. In Greece, to pay tax is almost a “sin” and tax avoidance is a national game. In Sweden, it is almost considered a sin for a handyman to be paid in cash for fixing a creaking door and waiters are expected to declare and offer up their tips for taxation.

EU 28 members Oct 2013

EU 28 members Oct 2013

At the core of the EU idea has been a vision of a Holy European Empire which is far, far more than a free trade zone. It was a vision of a modern Utopia, a homogeneous Empire, a single state, administered from Brussels and stretching far into Asia, all the way till Kazakhstan. People would be citizens of Europe first. The nations would fuse their sovereignty into that of the Empire. Values and living standards and employment opportunity and prosperity would be uniform. There would be a single currency and a uniformity of education, health and welfare services across this new Empire. It would be a Holy Empire in that the values it espoused would be the envy of, and the standard aspired to by, the rest of the world.

There’s nothing wrong in having such a vision, but instead of trying to do this over a few centuries or a millennium, the EU has tried to do this over decades. Worse, EU leaders have not bothered to carry people with them but have allowed the administrators to lead the way. Country after country has been admitted to membership even though the disparities of values and prosperity and politics and behaviour were huge. In the last 30 years it has been an aggressively expansionist EU. The tail has been wagging the dog. Enforced monetary union has been used as tool to try and enforce a fiscal uniformity instead of being as a result of fiscal harmony. Free movement of labour has been encouraged before establishing harmony of unemployment and welfare benefits. There has been a significant number of people moving (always towards the more prosperous nations) – not for the sake of employment – but for the sake of the welfare services available. Brussels has became a place where the worst practices within member states become enshrined as the norm, rather than being from where best practices are disseminated.

The expansion has gone too far, too fast. And now the cracks can no longer just be papered over. The geographical boundaries have been expanded and the borders have become indefensible. So much so that “the fall of Rome” is being looked at as an analogy.

Business InsiderDutch Prime Minister Mark Rutte suggested that western European states might need to bring in a “mini-Schengen” to deal with the bloc’s migrant crisis, ….. He turned that into a more startling analogy, according to a report from the Financial Times. Here’s the kicker:

“As we all know from the Roman empire, big empires go down if the borders are not well-protected,” said Mr Rutte in an interview with a group of international newspapers. “So we really have an imperative that it is handled.”

Niall Ferguson is professor of history at Harvard University and writes in the Boston Globe:

Paris and the fall of Rome

…. Here is how Edward Gibbon described the Goths’ sack of Rome in August 410 AD:

“In the hour of savage license, when every passion was inflamed, and every restraint was removed . . . a cruel slaughter was made of the Romans; and . . . the streets of the city were filled with dead bodies . . . Whenever the Barbarians were provoked by opposition, they extended the promiscuous massacre to the feeble, the innocent, and the helpless . . .”

Now, does that not describe the scenes we witnessed in Paris on Friday night?

True, Gibbon’s “History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire’’ represented Rome’s demise as a slow burn over a millennium. But a new generation of historians, such as Bryan Ward-Perkins and Peter Heather, has raised the possibility that the process of Roman decline was in fact sudden — and bloody —rather than smooth: a “violent seizure . . . by barbarian invaders” that destroyed a complex civilization within the span of a single generation.

…. Let us be clear about what is happening. Like the Roman Empire in the early fifth century, Europe has allowed its defenses to crumble. As its wealth has grown, so its military prowess has shrunk, along with its self-belief. It has grown decadent in its shopping malls and sports stadiums. At the same time, it has opened its gates to outsiders who have coveted its wealth without renouncing their ancestral faith. Uncannily similar processes are destroying the European Union today, though few of us want to recognize them for what they are. …….

It is conventional to say that the overwhelming majority of Muslims in Europe are not violent, and that is doubtless true. But it is also true that the majority of Muslims in Europe hold views that are not easily reconciled with the principles of our modern liberal democracies, including those novel notions we have about equality between the sexes and tolerance not merely of religious diversity but of nearly all sexual proclivities. And it is thus remarkably easy for a violent minority to acquire their weapons and prepare their assaults on civilization within these avowedly peace-loving communities. ……

…… I do know that 21st-century Europe has only itself to blame for the mess it is now in. ……. “Romans before the fall,” wrote Ward-Perkins in his “Fall of Rome,” “were as certain as we are today that their world would continue for ever substantially unchanged. They were wrong. We would be wise not to repeat their complacency.”

The EU has to put its grand visions of a Holy European Empire on the shelf for now. It has to focus on the building up of the fundamentals of economic prosperity and fiscal rigour and trade among its members, and forget – for now – its ambitions to force economic uniformity on its members. It has to stop interfering and trying to be a social engineer. Values cannot be imposed, they have to develop naturally. When all member states have achieved, each in its own time, a uniformity of values, fiscal structure and economic prosperity, a single currency will be the natural outcome. And if a Holy European Empire is ever to develop it can only do so when it becomes the obvious choice for the peoples of its member states.

 

The inspiration for Da’esh comes from Saudi Arabia

November 28, 2015

Saudi Arabia is the current Chairman of the UN Human Rights Council.

Believe it or not.

And Saudi Arabia is proving to be the role-model for the region.

A 45 year old Sri Lankan married woman, working as a maid in Saudi Arabia has been found guilty of adultery with another Sri Lankan man and has been sentenced to death by stoning. He, in true keeping with the Saudi tradition of equitable treatment, has been sentenced to receive 100 lashes.

The Saudis are also planning a mass execution of 52 “terrorists” and under this guise have included a few Shia in their execution list. They too have been convicted of “terrorism” because they demonstrated for  human rights.

Of course Saudi Arabia has the “right” to be as barbaric as it wishes to be in its sovereign territory. Naturally it would be unthinkable for other “sovereign” nations to interfere with their behaviour. And if other nations choose to allow distinguished members of Saudi society to behave with impunity even in their own countries, that is surely their sovereign “right”. And if Saudi Arabia then allows such friendly nations advantageous oil deals and buys weapons at inflated prices from them, it is clearly not the business of anybody else. And what is wrong then if workers from developing countries freely enter into contracts of slavery with Saudi Arabian masters. These workers are very well aware that the job description of “maid” includes full sexual exploitation rights for the master/employer.

It is not so surprising, as far as barbarism, oil deals and weapons purchases are concerned, that the inspiration and example for Da’esh (ISIS) lies rooted deep in the traditions of, and current practices in, Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia may theoretically be a part of the coalition against the Islamic State (Da’esh) but this is a political opposition and not an opposition to their methods and practices.

UK Labour Party entertains more than expected

November 27, 2015

I expected the US Presidential elections to provide the next years political entertainment, and, to some little extent, Donald Trump is providing this. The UK general election also provided some entertainment and especially in how wrong the polls were. That was already more than expected. But I did not expect the UK to continue providing amusement for so long after their election.

Of course after David Miliband’s loss in the UK election, he had no choice but to resign. That St. Jeremy Corbyn was elected as party leader by such a large margin can be put down, I think, to

  1. the mismatch between Labour Party voters (c. 10 million) and Labour Party membership (c. 400,000),
  2. the packing of the Party membership with new membership from the loony-left, and
  3. a disillusion with the Blairite line as being heretical, from the unions.

And ever since he became “leader” it has been a continuing, old-fashioned farce. The Great names of the labour Party through history are whirling in their graves. St. Jeremy has never held down a productive job in his life and knows only how to agitate and protest and rebel. He hasn’t a clue when it comes to running an Opposition and how to “lead”. Fortunately – in the entertainment stakes – his ego is large enough, and his cronies are loony enough, that the farce is fast-paced and non-stop. It is becoming heretical among them to go against the gospel according to St. Jeremy. His ego leads him to believe that the Shadow Cabinet is of little consequence as a body and that he can dictate what they stand for. He and his cronies are living in the 1960s and are trying to infuse the debate(?) with the thoughts of Chairman Mao. John McDonnell is now given to quoting from Mao’s Little Red Book. Diane Abbott believes Mao did more good than harm. Ken Livingstone thinks the London bombers are somehow admirable in that they died for “their cause” and the 52 who were killed were just a little bit of collateral damage. The cult of St. Jeremy, and it has become a cult rather than a political party with any semblance of democracy, has become the sad inheritor of the Labour Party’s traditions.

There is a by-election due in Oldham next week but St. Jeremy is avoiding that. He may have realised that those of the loony-left who voted him into power are not representative of the voters who usually support Labour. This is a bit of a disappointment for entertainment value. It would have been amusing to hear St. Jeremy propounding his “peacenik” views to normal people. Instead he is spending the weekend trying to figure out, not how to persuade and carry his Shadow Cabinet with him as a “leader might, but how, instead, to bypass or coerce them. That process would also be entertaining in its own right, but unfortunately it is not so visible. His cronies (Graeme Morris and others) are busy trying to twist arms in darkened rooms among the Labour parliamentarians. But ultimately the Labour Party is a creature of the unions. The loony-left are living in the hope that they can manage to keep control of the Party till the next election. But I think it depends on how long the unions are prepared to put up with them.

It should be an interesting week before the Syria vote. That St. Jeremy’s ego and the arm twisting by his cronies can hijack the Labour party is a real possibility. But whether they succeed depends on the courage of the more centrist parliamentarians and their resolve to challenge the lunatics. If they do, the New Religion could be quite short-lived and the temple could come tumbling down. In either event, it should be quite entertaining. How long the entertainment can continue is uncertain, but it would be quite a remarkable achievement if it continues throughout 2016.

“For our children’s children …” is not to be trusted

November 27, 2015

I never met either of my grandfathers or my paternal grandmother, who all died before I was born. However I did “know” my maternal grandmother and even my maternal great-grandmother. It is a bit of a stretch to actually claim to have “known” them. I met them as a child when they were already past their primes. But I was too young and our interactions too infrequent, that I ever built up any kind of an opinion of them or of their values or their politics or their characters.

Did they, I wonder, ever do anything “for their children’s children”? They may have taken some life-decisions which they rationalised as being “for their children’s children”. But there is nothing in my life now that I either thank them for or criticise them for. Whatever they did or did not do are no longer of any relevance as an excuse or a reason for the state of my life or the state of the world I live in.

“For our children’s children” is invariably used to excuse or justify actions which have no immediate benefit. Doing things, now, “for our children’s children” is meaningless and, I would claim, an invalid reason for actions which are not of any apparent benefit. It is also invalid to claim that, unknown to us, decisions made, “for their children’s children”, by our grandparents or earlier ancestors have actually achieved their visionary aims. My parents (both deceased) could not have foreseen the world I live in today, but their decisions have surely made me whatever I am. They made their decisions about my education and upbringing to fit the world they knew of, not of the world as it was going to be. My grandparents surely did the same for my parents but they too, could not have imagined the world my parents lived in at the end of their lives. We have made decisions for the upbringing and education of our children, and no doubt we have influenced their opportunities and their lives, but I don’t think we have ever taken any actions, against our interests or the interests of our children, “for the sake of our children’s children”.

The one purpose of life that most can probably agree on is “to make a difference”. No doubt, in our own little ways, and no matter how small, we all do. No doubt also that the human race is where it is because of what our ancestors did or did not do. The Germans of today are where they are because of what Hitler did but not because of what Hitler did “for his children’s children”. Henry VIII’s actions certainly impacted his daughter but not because his decisions were ever against his own interests first. Genghis Khan may have done some things for the “sake of his descendants”, but they had lost their intended effects already with his grandson and certainly after Kublai Khan. The Khans surely made a difference. But neither Genghis Khan or Kublai Khan ever took any decisions “for their children’s children” which did not have tangible, realisable benefits or was against their own interests.

It would be unthinkable, and quite unacceptable, to blame our grandparents for the state of the world today or for the people in it. In some societies, but only in some general way, we do thank our ancestors for what we have today. But this gratitude is only felt by those who are in a position of some privilege. Whoever heard of ancestor worship for the purpose of blaming them for current misfortune. You can use your parents as an excuse for a deprived or depraved childhood and even as a defence in a court of law, but you would get short shrift if you blamed your grandparents for your condition or your sins. The Nazis could not, and cannot, pass off their acts as being due to the faults of their ancestors.

So what’s the point of all this? It is individuals who act. Any individual in any generation acts, and must act, for the interests and benefits of that generation. “For our children’s children” is not just an empty phrase. it is a part of a deception. It is just a last-resort excuse for actions which have no demonstrable benefits, cannot otherwise be justified and probably should not be taken. It is a phrase not to be trusted. Actions against your interest, “for the sake of your children’s children”, are a mirage.

So when a politician, or an environmentalist, or a social “scientist” or a priest makes a proposal for the sake of your children’s children, be very suspicious. Don’t listen.

Corbyn and his shadow Chancellor are stuck in the 60s and haven’t grown up

November 26, 2015

Attending a British University in the late 1960s, we, as new entrants, were courted assiduously by the various University clubs and societies. SocSoc (Socialist Society) was by far the largest on campus and had some good speakers. But they turned out to be rather boring and they couldn’t match the Fine Arts Society for the attractiveness of the membership. SocSoc never quite managed to con a subscription out of me but many of my friends were members and I did attend some of their meetings. It was the year of the student riots in Paris and Berlin and even in London but they were somewhat watered down by the time they reached the Midlands. Copies of the Red Book were carried by the more ardent members of SocSoc, but more as a badge, than out of any ideological convictions. But this was 1968 and the time of flowered shirts, bell bottom trousers, long hair, beads, conch shells and shaggy beards. A dirty hair band was also de rigeur.

John Lennon’s Revolution had just come out:

…. But if you go carrying pictures of Chairman Mao
You ain’t going to make it with anyone anyhow ….

But The Little Red Book was already past its best-by date. Mao was losing his lustre by then. Waving it around was no longer recommended as a way to “pull the birds” and tended to be counter-productive. And, after all, “pulling the birds” had a very much higher priority than anything else. At my University the barricades – in solidarity with Paris – were erected by the faithful one morning, but they had all come down by the the time for morning coffee. (I may have been one of those from the Engineering Faculty involved in tearing down the barricades, but memory fails. Probably I just watched). I recall that SocSoc had a meeting that afternoon which I attended just to gloat. But the meeting resembled a wake and gloating was no fun.

Now almost 50 years later, memories of that time and faces are blurred, and I can’t remember many of the names and views of those I knew then. But it is the mood and the smells and the feelings that do remain fixed in memory. The distinctive, slightly unsavoury, flavour of the SocSoc of the 60s is what now comes to mind again, after seeing the rather childish antics of the Labour Shadow Chancellor, John McDonnell, in Parliament today. He quoted from The Little Red Book and chucked it at the Chancellor. He may have meant it as a brilliant, devastating riposte and a sure-fire way of deflating George Osborne, but it was reminiscent of a spoilt child and backfired very badly.

Reuters: Mao’s Little Red Book makes surprise appearance in UK parliament chamber

McDonnell came across as an immature teenager. Put this together with St. Jeremy Corbyns “peacenik” gyrations and it seems like the behaviour of the current labour party leadership is a throwback to the student protests of the 60s. McDonnell did not attend University (Brunel) till 1974, so he probably feels he missed out on the fun and games of the 60s, and is trying to make up for that. St Jeremy dropped out after just one year at North London Polytechnic and never completed his degree. But he is very much a child of the trade union movement of the 60s. He seems to have been parachuted into a number of union and party posts, but does not seem to have ever done any real, productive work.

 Corbyn …. spent two years doing Voluntary Service Overseas in Jamaica before becoming a full-time official for the National Union of Public Employees and Amalgamated Engineering and Electrical Union, while briefly pursuing a degree in Trade Union Studies at North London Polytechnic, which he left after his first year without completing his undergraduate studies.

Corbyn later worked as an Official of the National Union of Tailors and Garment Workers, was appointed a member of a district health authority and in 1974 was elected to Haringey Council, representing Harringay Ward as Councillor until 1983. Corbyn worked on Tony Benn’s unsuccessful 1981 campaign to become Deputy Leader of the Labour Party and was elected Secretary of the Islington Borough Labour Group.

The entire Labour party leadership seems to be caught in a 1960s time warp and haven’t grown up.

Trump’s got his music right and his words don’t matter

November 25, 2015

Trump has got his music right and as long as the beguilement of the music holds, his words don’t matter.

How else to explain Trump’s position? He seems to be immune to the rational consequences of what he says.

The only conclusion I come to is that it is the mood he evokes that people are responding to rather than what he actually says. It is the almost abstract notions of being for less government rather than more, for common sense rather than political correctness, for pragmatism rather than high ideology and for being untarnished by “sponsors” or the establishment which are keeping Trump going.

It is becoming difficult to see how anybody else could overtake him now to the GOP nomination. And that is not something that was even worthy of contemplation 6 months ago.

Trump 25Nov2015 RCP Poll of Polls

Trump 25Nov2015 RCP Poll of Polls

So far, Trump is not penetrating much beyond disaffected Republicans. But he is capturing a mood and riding feelings and emotions in a way not seen since Obama’s first campaign against Hillary Clinton. But Obama had the words too. (It’s just that Obama has not been able to match his actions to the mood he evoked).

If now Trump can get his words right and continues to sustain the right music, then who knows what happens next November.

Swedish Greens abandon their principles just to remain in government

November 25, 2015

In the face of the massive stream of asylum seekers, the decisions by the Swedish government to now only offer temporary residence permits, to insist on identity checks at the borders and to return those without identification to the EU country they are coming from (Denmark and Germany in the main), are only just common sense. But even these common sense actions have long been considered much too tough by the Greens and the far left. But when the Social Democrat led government announced its decision today, their Green party partners stood by their side. They abandoned their previous principles, and did not leave the government or the position in the limelight they so desperately crave. They put forward the flawed argument that they are remaining in government because without them there it would be even worse for the refugees.

But – in my opinion – the only reason they did not do the right thing and leave the government is that their leader Åsa Romson and her other Green party ministers, have been so seduced by the trappings of power that they cannot give them up. Goodness gracious! They couldn’t possibly not be at the Paris Climate Conference now, could they?

The GuardianSweden needs “respite” from the tens of thousands of refugees knocking at its door, the government has said, announcing tough measures to deter asylum seekers in a sharp reversal of its open-door policy towards people fleeing war and persecution.

The country’s generous asylum regime would revert to the “EU minimum”, Sweden’s prime minister, Stefan Löfven, said on Tuesday, revealing that most refugees would receive only temporary residence permits from April. Identity checks would be imposed on all modes of transport, and the right to bring families to Sweden would be severely restricted, he said. ……

The reversal in refugee policy, which follows the imposition of border controls two weeks ago, marks a policy choice the ruling red-green coalition would have considered unthinkable until asylum seekers began arriving this autumn at a rate of 10,000 a week. Official estimates suggest up to 190,000 could come to the country of 10 million people this year.

The rise in refugee numbers has caused a frantic scramble to place roofs over their heads. At the weekend refugees arriving in the southern city of Malmö were forced to sleep on the streets because no beds could be found. …….. 

The Greens’ deputy prime minister, Åsa Romson, broke into tears as she announced the measures.“This is a terrible decision,” she said later, admitting that the proposals would make life even more precarious for refugees. But quitting the government would have made a bad situation even worse, she added.

Crocodile tears.

And yet Åsa Romson, while claiming that the Greens had reached their limits,  would not commit to leaving the government if even stricter measures were introduced.

Dagens Nyheter:

…. But now the limit has been reached for the Green Party. Åsa Romson said to DN that there is no question of the Green Party going along with the Moderate party’s proposals in practice to close the border to refugees.

“For the Green Party’s part, I see no room whatsoever today to take further steps in terms of a restrictive asylum policy”.

DN; Would you leave the government in such a case?

“I did not say so”.

DN: But how else should we interpret it?

“I said I did not see any opportunities for my party to make any further deterioration. Now we have gone down to the minimum level required by international law and EU law. To go beyond means not even meeting international asylum law. There is of course an upper limit that is not possible to go over”.

I don’t expect much logic or rational thinking from the Swedish Green party. But the lack of rational thinking here is particularly obvious.

In any event the decisions taken today are quite rational and necessary – even if they don’t quite go far enough. The reality is that something between 60 and 80% of those arriving at Sweden’s borders destroy their own ID documents so as to be eligible for being considered for asylum. A normal immigrant has no right to state support but an asylum seeker does. Nothing wrong with that, of course, but in the present wave of “refugees” the rules are being manipulated by some.

But the Green party has demonstrated quite clearly today that they are opportunistic, have very flexible principles (and values), and like being in power.