What a Riot

While England recovers from its latest night of broken glass and the traditional finger-pointing begins (bad parents, laziness, computer games etc. etc.) I thought I'd share a quote from a fellow Fifer. Book one, chapter one. Something that's been in print since 1776 and which surely one or two of our millionaire cabinet members will have read.

"It is the great multiplication of the productions of all the different arts, in consequence of the division of labour, which occasions, in a well-governed society, that universal opulence which extends itself to the lowest ranks of the people."

Adam Smith, The Wealth Of Nations

A friend of mine made the observation that pretty much any civilisation's golden age (Roman, Egyptian, British, French...) begins with massive industry, productivity and "universal opulence", and ends with an enormously rich and powerful elite that have normalised their own corruption and have become far removed from the society they were chosen to govern. It seems to be the nature of things that, rather than trickling downwards, wealth and power gradually percolates to the top.

The corruption of the elite becomes so engrained that we begin to accept it as the truth by which we all must live. So we accept being robbed by well-groomed, smooth-talking men and women in expensive suits, but we are somehow shocked and angered when a tiny minority of hoodies and chavs take control of large parts of the country for a couple of days.

Sigh.

Rioting for Fun and Profit. A practical guide to the redistribution of wealth. This photo was looted from the Daily Mail, a self-styled "newspaper" with right wing leanings, printed in England.

"What improves the circumstances of the greater part can never be regarded as an inconveniency to the whole. No society can surely be flourishing and happy, of which the far greater part of the members are poor and miserable."


The Wealth Of Nations, Book I Chapter VIII

New advice from HM Govt to students

Preview of the new UK government poster campaign produced in the wake of the student protests

__

Kettling

In the light of recent events in Whitehall, London, where grown men have been beating up children in the defence of democracy  I need to share a quote from Soviet dissident Boris Kagarlitsky:

"Globalisation does not mean the impotence of the state, but the rejection by the state of it's social functions, in favour of repressive ones, and the ending of democratic freedoms." 

I reckon this can equally apply to the idea of Small Government (aka Big Society).  The champions of Small Government imply it will mean less interference in our lives by the state. Events lead me to suspect the opposite will be true. 

For many of school age this was their first taste of how it goes if you use public places to exercise your theoretical right to express your opinions. When I was at school we were always told "if you want to know the time/are lost, ask a policeman." What are we teaching kids nowadays?

Inside the Whitehall Kettle - New Statesman article

Boris Kagarlitsky - Wikipedia biography

_

Breathing New Life into an Old Routine

There’s a new coalition government in the UK and it seems there are commentators in the press who are worried that the ConDem Alliance will somehow fail the country. They worry that a government of two halves will not be able to make timely and accurate decisions, will compromise, fudge issues and fail to deliver on its election pledges. Surely not?

Aside from lobbyists having to work twice as hard with twice the budget it should be business as usual. What the press commentators fail to remember is that England has a long history of such alliances stretching back nearly a century. From Flanagan and Allen through Morecambe and Wise, Cannon and Ball to Reeves and Mortimer, the double act is a tried and tested method for pleasing the punters and should do well in the House of Commons. Here’s what Wikipedia says about it:

“The template for the modern double act began in the British music halls and the American vaudeville scene of the late nineteenth century. Here, the "straight man" was a necessity as he would repeat the lines of the "comic". This was done simply because the audience would be noisy, and repeating the joke gave the audience a fighting chance of hearing the joke and the comedians a fighting chance of getting a good reaction. Soon the dynamic developed so that the "straight man" became a more integral part of the act, setting up jokes that the comic could then deliver the "punchline" to.”

Which one will be the straight man? Who will get the louder laughs? It’s an exciting time in English politics and it’s all still up for grabs.

More about the double act on Wikipedia