Humpty Dumpty's Guide to Defending the Indefensible

I know it’s hard to believe but sometimes governments and politicians do stupid, even bad, things. When they do, their colleagues, government officials and sympathisers inevitably try to defend their conduct, even when those
actions are clearly wrong and/or obviously counterproductive. There’s a word for this and it’s called being an "apologist," although people who do this rarely apologise for much of anything. After all, a sincere apology means an admittance of guilt and few politicians would ever want us to think that they are less than infallible.

All of us need to be able to spot the rhetorical ploys that governments, politicians and their acolytes use to justify their own misconduct. To help you through the labyrinthine lexicology of ‘apologist-speak’ I have compiled ‘Humpty Dumpty’s Guide to Defending the Indefensible’. There is an obvious connection to recent events in the UK (think ‘Jerry Can’ Maude) but such practices are commonplace in many, many countries and, indeed, widely practiced by non-politicians as well. So, ladies and gentlemen, here is what to look out for when the whitewash and
bull***t need to be applied. Select which approach is likely to most successful to the task in hand, be it local (store petrol at home, James Murdoch’s defence or just about anything that our government sets out to do)) or international (Iraq, Afghanistan).

1. We didn't do it! (Denials usually don't work, but it's worth a try).
2. We know you think we did it but we aren't admitting anything.
3. Actually, maybe we did do something but not what we are accused of doing.
4. Ok, we did it but it wasn't that bad ("waterboarding isn't really torture, you know. It’s just a little uncomfortable").
5. Well, maybe it was pretty bad but it was justified or necessary. (“We only torture terrorists, or suspected terrorists, or people who might know a terrorist or people who look like terrorists")
6. What we did was really quite restrained, when you consider how powerful we really are. We could have done something even worse.
7. Besides, what we did was technically legal under some interpretations of international law (or at least as our lawyers interpret the law as it applies to us.)
8. Don't forget: the other side is much worse. In fact, they're evil. Really, really evil. As evil as evil can be.
9. Anyway, they started it.
10. And remember: we are the good guys. We are not morally equivalent to the bad guys no matter what we did. Only morally suspect, misguided critics could fail to see this fundamental distinction between Them and Us.
11. The results may have been imperfect, but our intentions were noble. (Invading Iraq and Afghanistan may have resulted in tens of thousands of dead and wounded and millions of refugees, but we meant well).
12. We have to do things like this to maintain our credibility. You don't want to encourage those other bad guys, do you?
13. Especially because the only language the other side understands is force.
14. In fact, it was imperative to teach them a lesson – again.
15. If we hadn't done this to them they would undoubtedly have done something even worse to us. Well, maybe not. But who could take that chance?
16. In fact, no responsible government could have acted otherwise in the face of such provocation.
17. Plus, we had no choice. What we did may have been awful but all other policy options had failed and/or nothing else would have worked.
18. It's a tough world out there and Serious People understand that sometimes you have to do these things. Only ignorant idealists, terrorist sympathisers, craven appeasers and/or treasonous socialists would question our actions.
19. In fact, whatever we did will be worth it eventually, and someday you’ll thank us for it.
20. We are the victims of a double-standard. Other people/countries do the same things (or worse) and nobody complains about them.

I don’t claim that the list is exhaustive but it’s a good start. Bear it in mind when next you watch the news and have fun spotting the tactic being deployed. I listened to an interview with Tory Dave earlier on and recognised the oft-used ‘we have to make difficult decisions’ variant of #17. Putting Tory Dave to one side (if only!), there are some masterful Humpty Dumptyists at work the world over and personal integrity is no bar to the Apologist. They really do think we are stupid. In fact, an alternative title for this blog could be ‘DNP’s Guide to Having Your Intelligence Insulted’ but that’s a story for another day……!

Aging activist? Moi?

Through my activities as a trainer with Amnesty International I have had an exchange of e-mails recently with a younger (much, much younger!) person. It ended up with the said young person gently reproaching me with the words “you aging activists are all the same”. I was taken
aback: activist, yes, but aging? I was not quite sure how that had happened as just the other day I was 19 and getting ready to explore the world!
After more serious reflection, however, I have to agree with her. It’s sad but true: I guess I am an 'elder' now. Although my correspondent was respectful, I felt she was being somewhat dismissive of my views. How typical of her generation she was I don't know but I hope the young can give us elders a little compassion now and then. Many of us already feel the cold winds of eternal night as they begin to blow through our aging joints and we may rant and rage. Some of us have waited most of our lives for the global awakening, scarcely daring to dream it might happen before we pass on. In our enthusiasm and/or impatience we may overreact, repeat old behaviours, regress to the 60s.....
Don't take our rants too personally. They’re just the last desperate and/or joyous cries of a passing generation. If there's a kernel of truth in what we say, run with it. If it’s empty noise, smile kindly at us and move on.
I think we elders still have a lot to teach but, I have to admit, not always what we think! Many of us serve best as excellent bad examples. And that's not such a bad role. It can be fun - in an cranky, off-beat, liberating sort of way. We don't have to impress and because we have already lived through so much, we now have less to lose but still lots to give. We can listen, support, and lend a little historical perspective now and then if it seems essential. But, let’s be honest, many of our tired old fears and dated approaches - no matter how relevant they once were - belong to another era. And the oppressors already have scripts and weapons to defeat our bygone tactics.
I am really impressed by the sophistication of some of the young this time around (those behind 38 Degrees and Avaaz spring to mind). They are way ahead of where my generation of activists were in the 60s, 70s and 80s, when the opposition could so easily divide, divert and disrupt our movements. It’s critical that the young continue to take the lead (and I'm more than happy to ride piggy back on the innovations they bring). I hope they break the rules, choose the direction, attempt the impossible, seek allies everywhere, facilitate meetings, build momentum, goad us into a greater awakening, and keep the rest of us uncomfortable, off-balance, and wondering what will happen next.
And the cartoon below? A Google search under 'aging activists' didn't bear much fruit but it did come up with this cartoon. OK, it's a tongue in cheek take-off of the seven ages of man but it did prompt me to think of what my 'activism curve' might look like. I've superimposed it in red and I'm comfortable with the message it gives: the older I get, the angrier I'm getting! I hope I don’t ever lose my passion or desire to take action for what I believe in.

Go monkey!

In a posting at the end of last year (here), I mentioned the traumatic start to life Adam Bird had had. I also pointed readers in the direction of the inspirational blog his mother, Catherine, was (and still is for that matter) keeping (here).
There have been many ups and downs over the past few months but Adam is still hanging in there and slowly improving. There's quite a way to go yet but, in the words of Catherine: "what a little hero he is. Go monkey!"
And so say all of us.

Lest we lose sight of the reality of war

From the pen of Marie Colvin, war correspondent who was killed to day in Syria:
"Despite all the videos you see from the Ministry of Defence or the Pentagon, and all the sanitised language describing smart bombs and pinpoint strikes, the scene on the ground has remained remarkably the same for hundreds of years. Craters. Burned houses. Mutilated bodies. Women weeping for children and husbands. Men for their wives, mothers for their children".

The award-winning French photographer Remi Ochlik died with her as well. There is some evidence to suggest that they were deliberately targetted by the Syrian authorities. It's a great pity that Syria does not provide more of our oil: perhaps then the oft lauded policy of 'humanitarian intervention' would be more in evidence.

Fred Goodwin RIP

I'd forgotten that I'd written this particular blog and it has been lurking in draft form for a while. I started it soon after my posting of 28th January (Sir Fred and Corporal Jones). It's a little after the event but I'll post it anyway, if only to record my views at the time. That and the fact that I like the cartoon!


Well, it has happened. Fred Goodwin has had his knighthood removed. The Queen cancelled and annulled the title following Whitehall advice. In the past, only convicted criminals or people struck off of professional bodies have had knighthoods taken away. But the government said Mr Goodwin was an "exceptional case". There is no doubt that Fred is today a scapegoat, a pariah and the victim of a rather unedifying political witch hunt. But not a single recrimination against those who 'lauded' Fred with his titles and elevation into near sainthood as he did his bit to ruin reputations and financial institutions galore. But what of the weak and ineffectual jobsworths who lapped at his Lordship's feet as he proved that British politics and politicians are “not fit for purpose”!?
Perhaps if Fred had turned over his overloaded pensions to the poor and needy, the baying hounds probably would have left him to his opulent obscurity. But he didn't: his arrogance meant that he thought he could tough it out. In this he showed as much judgement as he did in most of his RBS dealings.
As the political parasites and their mouthpieces slap each other on their backs with relief, not a one will admit to the responsibility of escalating this demonstrably incompetent man to an office he was totally unfit to hold.
Another Labour masterplan not thought through with the common man having the job picking up the pieces. The system that bestowed Fred's honour in the first place is rotten and needs changing. But is there the political will to do this? I suspect not because if the 'Shred Fred' model is adopted with a modicum of objectivity, the poor Queen's right arm will be dropping off as she wields her sword...again and again and again.

Sir Fred and Corporal Jones

I think virtually everyone, with the presumed exception of Sir Fred himself, is agreed that he should be stripped of his knighthood. What strikes me as a little sad is that now this process is carried out by some dull and boring committee. Not so in days of yore as this little historical fact I came across indicates.
In 1621 two knights (businessmen coincidentally) were found guilty of exercising harsh monopolies over the licensing of inns and suffered the punishment of being publicly degraded. A contemporary report says:
'Sir Francis Mitchell's sword and gilt spurs, being ornaments of knighthood were broken and defaced.......one of the Knight Marshal's men...cut the belt whereby the culprits sword hung, so let it fall to the ground. Next the spurs were hewn off his heels and thrown, one one way the other the other. After that the Marshal's attendant drew Mitchell's sword from his scabbard and broke it over his head...'

Great stuff. That's what I call stripping someone of his knighthood. I bet if it were done in Westminster Hall, it would be standing room only with tickets probably changing hands for well over a thousand pounds. And think of the price the TV screening rights would get. A large part of our debt cancelled at a stroke and a good precedent set.
Do it to Sir Fred and see all the others fall into line. To quote the bard of Warmington-on-Sea: "they don't like it up 'em".

Responsible Capitalism: a political oxymoron

The papers and TV are full of it: British politics has a new battleground. And not just any old battleground, mind you. One that promises to define the prevailing ideology. We are hearing lots of talk of 'responsible capitalism' and 'moral capitalism'. No doubt someone (probably Nick Clegg who seems to be developing a penchant for making vacuous statements) will soon be waxing lyrical about 'cuddly capitalism'. Personally I like the idea of 'People's Capitalism', but that's just the old leftie in me.
Tory Dave and Hapless Ed are locked in mortal combat over ownership of this supposedly lucrative piece of political real estate. Labour’s leader sees an opportunity; the Conservatives a threat. For Ed it is the chance to show that he is setting the agenda, that he's making the weather – and that he’s not as crap as everyone thinks he is (too late, Ed, you are heading for Edmegedon and it's not that far away). For Dave it represents an exposed flank, a dark cloud on a relatively untroubled horizon. Plus, he’s got to do it because Ed’s forced him to (and it gives him an opportunity to show us his caring face. Don't you just love it when he does 'sincere'?).
As you may have guess from the title of this posting, I've got very little time for their apologies for capitalism. I'd love someone (and by rights it should be Ed) to be advocating a democratic socialist alternative to it. Anything else is pussyfooting around with a bankrupt system that has clearly had its day. There needs to be a fundamental change in the way we manage our affairs. We need to replace free market madness, with its inbuilt greed and selfishness, with a system of sharing and co-operation.
To quote the late lamented Bill Shankly (one-time manager of Liverpool Football Club): "The socialism I believe in is not really politics. It is a way of living. It is humanity. I believe the only way to live and to be truly successful is by collective effort, with everyone working for each other, everyone helping each other, and everyone having a share of the rewards at the end of the day". I compare those words to the latest inane utterings from Ed about 'responsible capitalism' and weep.

Yipee! It's 2012

Yes, it's that time when all politicians burden us with their thoughts on the year to come.
David Cameron has promised to use the "global drama" of the Olympics and "glory" of the Queen's Diamond Jubilee to help get Britain "up to strength". "This will be the year Britain sees the world and the world sees Britain," he has said in his New Year message. How inspirational and there'll be dancing in the lanes of Stoke Climsland from citizens excited by the prospect of such splendours. Ah, the sting in the tail: he admitted 2012 would be difficult as the economy struggled. You can see the man himself delivering his homily here.
In his New Year message, hapless Ed Miliband said his party must convince people in 2012 that "optimism can defeat despair". The UK needed "profound change" to avoid a future of struggling to compete in the world and called on politicians to show they could make a difference.
To complete the trio of Jeremiahs, the Dan Quayle of British politics, Nick Clegg, said the New Year posed "many great challenges for everyone", adding that his party had ensured the coalition government was helping people.

Let's accept that 2012 is not going to be an easy one: the financial crisis has got some way to run yet and we certainly haven't seen the worse of the Coalition policies. Neither should we forget what is going on elsewhere in the world: we are not alone in facing huge issues. Notwithstanding all the doom and gloom, there will be many good things about 2012 that we should not lose sight of. Here are a few from me: add your own to the list.
* The sun will rise and set every day.
* Most people will eat, laugh and love more than they are hungry, cry and hate.
* The world around us will continue to provide immense pleasure to those who take time to experience it.
* Many people will practice unsolicited random acts of kindness.
* Communities and organisations will continue to work together and make the lives of many immeasurably better.
* Most of us will continue to relish the companionship and support of our network of family and friends.
* Children will be born and received into the arms of loving parents.
* Healthcare professionals will successfully treat millions of us for a wide variety of illnesses and diseases.
* Other public service professionals and employees will continue to keep us safe and contribute to our good standard standard of living.

Each of us can accomplish something worthwhile in 2012: let's remember the Boy Scout motto of doing a good deed every day! Here endeth today's sermon.

Meanwhile, across the Atlantic....

In this, probably my last post of 2011, I thought I'd comment on something that's been keeping me bemused over the past few months - the antics of the contenders lining up for the Republican nomination in the USA. It's not something that has had a lot of coverage in the UK media but, through the internet, it's been interesting tapping into a few US news sources. As an apparently weak and vacillating President Barack Obama struggles on, US governance and policy-making has recently been described as "less stable, less effective and less predictable than it once was". It is obviously in everyone's interests - and I do mean everyone's - that the man in the Whitehouse is of the highest calibre: how do the Republican hopefuls measure up?
It's only a few days before the Iowa caucuses (and I can't pretend to understand fully the caucus/primary system) but all I seem to read about is talk of who is up in the polls, who is down, who has made the latest gaffe and who is the most conservative candidate of them all. To a distant observer like me, they are all saying absolutely nothing of substance. None of them has articulated a vision for the future that seems to be in line with what I perceive most Americans want. Stripped of the rhetoric, the stark central choice they are offering boils down to regression versus progress. And the more regressive the policies, the louder their supporters cheer.
The contenders will keep up their farcical jousting until the presidential race begins in earnest next year. And with what result? The former US president Harry S Truman once remarked "Progress occurs when courageous, skilful leaders seize the opportunity to change things for the better". From where I sit, I can't see any of the Republican contenders matching this description: unfortunately it pains me to write that I'm not certain that Barack Obama does either. And I don't think we can look to the UK for exemplars: no doubt I'll be ranting about that in 2012. Now there's something for you to look forward to!

David Cameron and our Christian society

In a speech celebrating the 400th anniversary of the King James Bible, David Cameron this week described Britain as 'a Christian country'. He claimed that Christian values could reverse British society's 'moral collapse', stated that he disagreed with the arguments of secularists, and argued that Britain is only welcoming of other religions because of its Christian heritage. Fine words and ones that have been pored over and commented upon by all and sundry. Far be it for me to resist the opportunity! I'm not going to go into whether or not we do have a Christian society (but, for what it's worth. I think we are good at coveting but not so good at turning the other cheek or loving our neighbours): I want to concentrate on how we should interprete Posh Dave's words.

Perhaps he didn't really mean it. After all, the boy's got form in this area. Remember what he said about the NHS? Perhaps he did not fancy getting into a fight with Rowan Williams and wanted to pacify the increasingly strident views of our more socially minded clergy (and why aren't there more of them making a noise?).

On the other hand, perhaps he did mean it. Perhaps he was implying that his government was an exemplar of Christian morals and values. I do find that a very interesting idea and I think I know the biblical passage from which he gains his inspiration. How about Mark 4:25? "For he that hath, to him shall be given: and he that hath not, from him shall be taken even that which he hath". This would explain his drive to advance the interests of the top 1% towards ever greater riches and dominance, at the expense of the truly needy - the old, the sick, the disabled and the unemployed.

What about the words of Matthew 6:24, Posh Dave?: "No man can serve two masters......Ye cannot serve God and mammon". Christian values, my ****! All I see is your support of mammon.

Who does Nick Clegg remind you of?

Something has been nagging me for a while - just who does Nick Clegg remind me of? Not just physically but also in his role as a hapless deputy? Last night, it came to me. Dan Quayle! If you are too young to remember Dan Quayle, look him up on Google. The more I think about it, the more the comparison seems valid. And it's going to get worse! How much more can the man take without his credibility being completely shredded?

Durban: We messed up

I've already mentioned my very low expectations of anything positive coming out of the recent Durban talks on Climate Change. By anything positive, I don't mean "we are positively going to have more talks and then maybe do something, possibly, sometime" but positive as in "we positively agree that we need to do something now and this is what it is". I'm ashamed that my generation (and it is my age group who are largely responsible for the present situation) appears to be content with leaving a terrible legacy to the generations to come. Along this theme, I'm going to take the liberty of quoting in its entirety an open letter written by Paul Downton and featured on the New Internationalist blog here . He writes:

I’m writing this on behalf of my generation, the generation that has shaped the modern world. With miraculous electronic devices, endless supplies of consumer gadgets and toys, international burger chains and the power of consumerism, we have created a world of plenty and endless progress. It’s a lie, of course; an illusion; and deep down, you know this.

You know that this has all been done with a fuel source that’s about to run out. You know that in creating a cornucopia for humans we have driven other species to extinction and trashed the climate.

You know about the insanity of the financial markets. You know that money is a fiction on which major decisions are made about the future of millions of people and that the real world is worth nothing in accounting systems which are used to manage the global economy. You know that globalization has poisoned and neutralized politics and that corporations run governments. Your generation has been brought up to believe in the power of personal choice – as long as it is confined to the market-place. You have almost unimaginable freedom to do anything you want, except have any real power in the world.

Mind you, we have left you with some cool stuff – you’ve got iPods and rock’n’roll, so you can listen to songs about love, freedom and sex while the world falls apart. Until the batteries run out. While you’ve been playing, we’ve been using the atmosphere as a rubbish bin, dumping the carbon left over after we burned the fuel to make your toys dance. We’ve now stolen the very air you breathe, polluting a future that most of my generation will never see. Sorry about that.

We didn’t mean to screw up quite so badly, not most of us anyway, but that doesn’t change the fact that we did. Big time.

What can you do about it? Nothing, if you listen to the corporate and government apologists. Plenty, if you listen to your own voice. Five years is all you’ve got, starting now. It’s just enough time to turn things around, but the changes needed are nothing short of revolutionary. Don’t believe any of the old rules. This ain’t no video game.

If I were you, I’d be getting angry. Very angry. Full-on, get-out-of-my-way angry. But don’t look to political leaders: they follow money and votes. Don’t expect leadership from major corporations, unless you want to be led over a precipice. And don’t follow sage advice from old folks – they got you into this mess in the first place.

The mess that you see coming out of climate talkfests is an eloquent expression of just what a bunch of no-hopers we really are. We have failed you.

Now it’s your turn.

Very nicely put and, yes, it is the time of the next generation but we (the oldies) must not absolve ourselves of continuing to fight to get things done.

The real life of Adam Bird

In complete contrast to the manufactured drama and manipulated emotions of The X Factor, Strictly Come Dancing and the rest of their tawdry 'reality TV' clones, I commend the following blog to you: IUGR Baby This is what real drama and real emotions are about. I defy you to read it and not be moved.

(Note added after original posting: Several people have asked me if I have a connection with the Bird family. Not a family connection but we have known Chris Bird since he was around 11 years old. He was, and still is, a good friend of our son).

What we seem to be thinking

Buried amongst the rest of the news is the latest report on British social attitudes. This is published every year by the National Centre for Social Research and so far there have been twenty eight of them. I won't pretend that I've read them all but I do dip into them whenever they are released. They make fascinating reading for anoraks like me and their availability is made so much easier, and immediate, now that they are free downloads. You can access the latest here What I find interesting about the data is that they reveal a marked shift to the right in public opinion. Here are just a few points.
Most of us, it reports, believe that the unemployed are deterred from looking for jobs by the too-generous benefits they get by remaining on the dole. Child poverty, apparently, is the fault of parental indolence and indifference. And global warming is a myth. The proportion of people willing to pay higher taxes to spend on health and education has fallen in nine years from 63% to 31%. And while most people agree that Britain needs more housing, 45% don't want any new houses built near them (and this percentage is higher – for example, 58% in outer London – in areas where the housing shortage is greatest).
While most of us believe that the gap between rich and poor is too wide, we don't want the government to try to do anything about it. In fact, the less the government does about anything the better. In particular, it shouldn't strive to make society fairer. We seem to be much more relaxed than we used to be about private health and education. Opposition to private health has fallen since the start of the millennium from 37% to 24%. The majority view appears to be that if the rich want to spend their money on these things, this is their business and nobody else's.
So how do we interpret these findings? Some commentators are citing them as being indicative of sturdy self-reliance, Others regard them as signs of increasing selfishness. Me? I accept the point about increasing selfishness (I could go on and rant about this being the inevitable consequence of capitalism - fear not, I won't!) but I also think that they are the natural feeling of individuals facing hard times and being placed in a position where they must temporarily forego altruism and take care of themselves.
Times are going to get harder and it's not unreasonable to assume that this shift in attitudes will continue. I'll confess that the prospect of increasing selfishness across the population fills me with dismay. It will provide fertile ground for the toxic policies of the Tories which will be to the disadvantage of the already disadvantaged. Whatever happened to 'compassionate conservatism'?

My thoughts on Jeremy Clarkson

The X Factor - revisited

In a previous blog (1st October), I gave my opinion of The X Factor in three words - mediocre, nauseating rubbish, By chance (or was it horrid fate?), I've just caught the last five minutes of tonight's episode. Have I changed my mind? Absolutely no chance but it has given me the inspiration to indulge in some splendidly hyperbolic purple prose!
I just can't regard this programme as entertainment. This is The Jeremy Kyle Show with a very bad backing track, And for Gary Barlow and his cronies to make out that they actually care as this pre-scripted, nonsense plays out is beyond contempt. The X Factor is nothing more than a textbook lesson in how to brainwash the masses through emotional glove puppetry. It is a tasteless, exploitative, intelligence-insulting marketing exercise, and to submit to it is to allow yourself to be intellectually raped.
Gosh, I feel better for that!

The Pope and I agree on something!

I have not been able to blog much over the past week - life has taken over! There are many topics that I could write about but today I thought I'd mention something unique - the Pope and I agree about something. Let me give some context.

It may have escaped your notice but the 2011 United Nations Climate Change Conference is taking place in Durban at the moment (it runs from 28th November to 9th December). The theme for the conference is "Working Together - Saving Tomorrow Today". Pretty impressive, eh?

The devil is in the detail and here's what lies under the grand theme: A primary focus of the conference is to secure a global climate agreement as the Kyoto Protocol's first commitment period (2008–2012) is about to end. It is also expected to focus on "finalising at least some of the Cancun Agreements", reached at the 2010 Conference, such as "co-operation on clean technology", as well as "forest protection, adaptation to climate impacts, and finance - the promised transfer of funds from rich countries to poor in order to help them protect forests, adapt to climate impacts, and "green" their economies.

Not quite so impressive, eh? "Finalising at least some of the Cancun Agreements"! How ambitious our politicians are. Well, we all know how successful the agreements made at Kyoto and Cancun have been and this lamentable performance suggests that we should not expect anything too revolutionary (or meaningful) to come out of the meeting. But I always travel with optimism and, going right back to my opening paragraph, I agree with Pope Benedict's message for the delegates attending the conference: "I hope that all members of the international community agree on a responsible and credible response to this worrisome and complex phenomenon, taking into account the needs of the poorest and future generations."

If any delegates are readers of this blog, how can you possibly ignore Benny and I?

Where do you want to live? UK or Somalia?

The right wing narrative in the UK at the moment seems to be:
Little government intervention = good
Taxes = evil
No taxes = good
I've been musing on these points recently and came across a posting in a blog I follow from George Clifford,an Episcopalian minister in the USA. If you are interested in issues of ethics and morality, I commend his blog to you. George's posting struck a chord and I've taken the liberty of developing his theme from a UK perspective.

George starts by relating a story:
Grover Norquist, the president of Americans for Tax Reform (an anti-tax lobby), asked a millionaire visiting the U.S. Capitol, “Who can best spend your money, the government or you?” The millionaire was part of a group of high-earners visiting members of Congress to lobby for higher taxes on high earners. The quick thinking millionaire remarked that if Norquist wanted to avoid paying taxes, he should exchange his citizenship for Somalia citizenship and move there since Somalia has no income tax.
George then asks the question:
Where do you want to live, Somalia or the United States?
Let's cross the Atlantic and rephrase the question:
Where do you want to live, Somalia or the UK?

For me, there is absolutely no choice. I want to live right here in the UK (even with Cameron and Clegg in charge). I enjoy the benefits of living in a society in which the rule of law prevails, rights and freedoms are respected and most social services are provided (at least for the present but beware the future!). I am of sound mind but I am both happy and grateful to pay my taxes. Most of what the government provides, I could not provide on my own. And it's an ideological nonsense to believe that the private sector can always provide the same things cheaper and better. It can't and it doesn't. Running social services as profit centres and regarding those who use the services as costs to be minimised does not work. Witness the appalling report today on standards of care of the elderly. Witness the way the railway system has performed since it was privatised.

Does the government need to take better control of its finances? Of course it does. But it should not do this at the expense of those who have no alternative other than to pay. If only they used as much energy and noise pursuing tax evaders and closing tax loopholes as they do in tackling benefit fraud.