Now that the British General Election is out of the way, we can catch our collective breath and get back to what passes for normality. That means changes here at Syntagma Towers.

Saturday Ramble will return to being a thoughtful, even speculative, wander through the byways of interesting ideas — not, as it has been recently, relentlessly political.

To compensate, the sometimes edgy Sunday Diary column will re-emerge this week, sparing nobody with a hint of red thread in their suit.

And as the hols are beckoning, we’re going to be pushing the delights of the West Country beyond normal tolerance levels.

Oh, and immortality could feature on rare occasions.

I’ve just watched David Cameron deliver another accomplished speech at the Conservatives’ Spring Conference at Cheltenham.

Gradually — a word also used by George Osborne this morning — he’s beginning to give shape to the message that will take him into the General Election.

“Thrift” loomed large, while “tax and spend” becomes the natural enemy. Sensibly, he didn’t put too much skin on the flesh and bones. Things could take many turns for the worse before election day arrives, however soon it comes.

The speech was a good mix and plays well with the mood of the times, especially after last week’s atrocious Labour Budget. It sounded pitch perfect to me, as far as it went.

I would have liked to hear something about an association agreement with the European Union, but recognize the constraints he’s under. Maybe a little dog whistle in code to us genuine Conservatives would do the trick?

Here’s my suggestion. In his next speech or TV interview Cameron could mention former French President Giscard d’Estaing by name, in any context, and we will get the message.

I’ll be listening out intently.

The following is my contribution to the debate on the standards adopted by our Members of Parliament.

As an author I sometimes despair of publishers. And yet, as a former book publisher, I know the problems publishers face. So I’m posting this little cri de coeur I found on the web.

It’s written by a publisher, obviously, who shall remain anonymous, largely because I’ve lost the reference. But it does provide some insight into the always tortuous relationship between author and publisher:

Authors really don’t like publishers. They don’t like us because we change their work, or force them to. We reject their titles. We dress their books in jackets they hate.

We take custody of their manuscripts and refuse visitation rights. We don’t let them see or comment on marketing plans. We spend very little money or time promoting their books.

Our royalty statements might as well be in Aramaic. We don’t return their voicemail or email. We don’t communicate and we don’t care.

Sure, that’s an over-generalization, but it’s too close to the truth for comfort. It should concern us that so many authors feel this way about their publishers. And it’s our fault, really, for not communicating better about exactly what we do, and why.

Why can’t our MPs demonstrate such exquisite self-knowledge?

Continuing with the ever present thorn in the public foot of MP’s expenses, something glaringly obvious (to me, at least) has been missed by many.

MPs on the left of politics spend a lot of energy denouncing “fat cats” in industry and commerce, as well as the City of London, for their huge paypackets. Consequently, they have induced a phobia about putting up their own salaries to appropriate levels.

A kind of Freemasons’ nod and winkery has been covertly put in place across party lines to use the expenses system to compensate them for what they regard as inadequate remuneration.

Such a system encourages corruption because it is fundamentally corrupt to conceal and disguise payments received — of any sort.

Thus most MPs cross the line between fair reward and brown envelope practices. The system itself is corrupt, therefore those who take part are corrupted.

As Iain Martin writes in today’s Sunday Telegraph, the answer lies in Members’ own hands — they are meant to be sovereign, after all.

How can they hold the Executive to account, when Chief Whips know everything about the jiggerypokery going on all around them? Francis Urquhart would have had a field day. “I know about that bathplug, Jacqui.”

Pay them £100k and be done with it. After all, if a 5-a-day officer at Warminster-on-Sea Parish Council gets that, why not our legislators?

Oh, I forgot. They aren’t our legislators any more, are they? Brussels has taken that prize.

Okay, promise them £150k if they pull us out of the EU. That should get things moving, don’t you think?

Down here in the South West of England we have three football teams: Exeter (the Grecians), Torquay (the Gulls), and Plymouth (the Pilgrims).

Mostly they languish towards the bottom of the Football League, which I believe has four divisions.

Usually one of them manages bottom spot in the fourth division, before disappearing, through relegation, into a bottomless pit of poverty and amateurism.

However, our local supporters are rarely downcast, taking it all in their stride as an Act of God. One cheery soul told me how he deals with the constant stench of defeat.

“Easy,” he said. “When you get your football paper at the weekend, turn it upside down before looking at the tables. My team is usually top of the whole football league.”

Is that a glimpse of Gordon Brown’s political philosophy?

Remember the “world car”?

It could be a Ford, a Range Rover, or a Chrysler, but its parts were made all over the world, from Brazil to China, before being assembled into its final incarnation, when someone would stick a badge on it proclaiming its proud provenance.

This was globalization in the raw. A ruthless, yet profitable, use of comparative advantage to drive the costs of motoring down — however carboniferous the footprint as all those parts criss-crossed the globe on smelly bits of shipping.

Then the socialist left — devoid of purpose after the collapse of the Soviet Union and China’s flight to capitalism — spotted a gap in the market. The old International Socialist movement, now describing itself as “Progressive Internationalism”, subverted the word “globalization” to describe its own activities.

Many normally astute commentators fell for this subterfuge and eagerly jumped on the global bandwagon, little knowing that it is, in reality, their worst nightmare.

Syntagma has been one of the few voices to proclaim this dirty trick from the rooftops.

Listen very carefully, I will say this only once: Globalization has ceased to be a technical term of economics and is now a pernicious political doctrine of the old left hiding under a thin veil of modernity.

Anyone using the word “global” more that once a year should be sacked immediately from high office.

Finally, on the new 50p tax rate for anyone earning more than £150k a year:

Both David Cameron and George Osborne said today they will put it on a list of taxes to repeal, but priority will be given to National Insurance increases for people earning just £20k and more.

Fair enough, but given the rate of attrition 50p will cause (see Nigel Lawson’s piece in today’s Sunday Telegraph), perhaps they could turn the list upside-down when deciding which tax to drop first.

Some of the best people do this, I’m told.

PS: I shall be listening out for a Cameroon mention of the secret codeword: Giscard d’Estaing, over the coming week. PMQs would do very nicely.

John Evans

Recent Related Stories
DIARY: Tory lead, Cambridge connection, Vince Cable, Royal Academy, West Wing Hazel, Queen and Duke
DIARY: Water droplets, Dirty tricks, David Starkey, Liddle’s Lent, Carbon storage
DIARY: Editors at large, Easter, Hoffman, Andrew Neil, Iain Dale, Autumn election
DIARY: Wishful spending, He has bottom, Brown’s fall, Combustion stinks, One world

As it’s a holiday weekend and we’re all supposed to be tackling the puzzle supplements that newspapers inexplicably distribute at this time, I thought Syntagma should have its own version.

Well, one puzzle, at least:

In the world of apples and oranges, two plus two equals four.

In the world of water droplets, two plus two equals one.

Does that destroy the cosy world of mathematical certainty? Answers in a linked blogpost or by hitting the contact button in the sidebar.

Dirty tricks are all over the British newspapers this Sunday morning. A senior government aide has fallen on his machete, and the Labour blogosphere, such as it is, has gone into meltdown. More heads are predicted to roll.

I’m not going to comment on the specific incidents or personalities involved because I’m too far off the action to contribute anything of interest. Iain Dale’s blog is the place to get the lowdown and links to other players.

On a side note, this site has twice been the victim of dirty tricks. Two years ago I wrote a review of a new IT product launching in Britain. I criticized the cost of the deal and held the view that it would be a flop over here. I was wrong, but that’s irrelevant. Almost immediately our servers were subjected to a three-day distributed attack, presumably from zombie computers, that closed down our sites for 72 hours.

That was a commercial intervention. I’ve reason to believe that an ongoing kicking is political.

I’m not going to spell this out because that might prejudice the operation of the site, but someone very web-savvy has caused considerable inconvenience to the operation of Syntagma.

Taking into account the new revelations of the extent Downing Street will go to attack its perceived enemies, plus the anti-Labour nature of much of what I write here these days, it doesn’t take much to invite strong suspicions.

Putting two and two together, and making either four or one, it seems just possible that someone who knows about these things is throwing a few silent blows in our direction.

I can’t prove it, of course, but I’m about to approach a third party to investigate.

Politicians are supposed to take reasonably-argued criticisms in their stride. After all, politics can be a brutal game. It seems that this is not the case. Someone somewhere has a thin skin masquerading as a thick one.

The historian Dr David Starkey, has accused lady colleagues of writing only about women in history.

A few of them have replied with the charge that he writes only about men.

Girls, girls!

It’s true that Antonia Fraser and others have penned many pages in the cause of Elizabeth I. Boudicca (Boadicea) attracts a great deal of interest from women historians.

Starkey, who has just begun a Channel 4 series on Henry VIII, is sticking to his guns.

Isn’t it reassuring that some of our most distinguished historians, who interpret the past for us, are capable of having such a deep and edifying discussion?

Rod Liddle, an old Today Programme hand, has informed us that he gave up chives for Lent. A noble choice, and a great sacrifice, given how easy it is to become hooked on chives.

Many years ago, I made a more subtle decision. I gave up giving up for Lent.

In an ad hoc straw poll, someone asked around how many people now give up anything for Lent. The result was vanishingly small, and not much better among Catholics and High Church supporters.

Most, apparently, genuflect towards the practice by giving up something they never consume anyway — Liddle, you have a lot to answer for. Others just lie about it, or ignore it altogether.

Like Advent calendars at Christmas, we just can’t be bothered with all this paraphenalia nowadays.

Apart from farmers, does anyone mark the Quarter Days, for example. Michaelmas is not often mentioned in my presence, even on the day itself. However, it remains part of our poetic heritage, occurring mainly in novels by Thomas Hardy, George Eliot and others of their vintage.

With many Anglicans only using churches for “hatch, match and dispatch” purposes, (births, marriages and deaths), Church leaders really are fighting Canute-like against a tide of indifference.

As today is Easter Sunday, probably the most significant day in the Christian calendar, it does indicate a bleak future for the old religion.

Even America, Christianity’s most humble servant for 200 years, is going in the same direction.

If it is disappearing, do we need to find a substitute fast, or will it be replaced by something infinitely worse and more terrifying?

“When people stop believing in God, they don’t believe in nothing — they believe in anything.”
G.K. Chesterton

An opportunity, or a fall from grace? Times change, but human nature retains its propensity for disaster, and genuine mystics will always be thin on the ground.

The latest answer to the perceived problem of climate change is a process called Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS).

A current advert by the Shell oil company informs us that “capturing” carbon dioxide gas (CO2) from industrial processes, and “storing” it underground, is the safest way of reducing our “carbon footprint” on the Earth. While the company admits this will not be easy, it nevertheless promotes the practice for the future.

Now, I’m trying to visualize this process in the real world. By common consent we emit vast quantities of CO2 from almost everything we do. I haven’t got a number for it, but it must be millions of tons of every day.

If all of that is somehow blown into underground caverns, do they suppose there won’t be leaks? And not just leaks but whole plumes of the stuff spraying out into the air in some places.

Adverse conditions underground, like earthquakes, could make this a nightmare scenario. Imagine not only having to cope with the effects of a quake, but with vast amounts of carbon dioxide gas in the local atmosphere too.

CO2 is not deadly toxic in the way carbon monoxide is, but enough of it has poisonous effects and might reduce the oxygen in the air sufficiently to suffocate many people. It might also be changed by atmospheric conditions — sun, cosmic rays, etcetera — into deadly monoxide and kill everyone in sight.

Here’s what expert website Analox.net calculates:

After a few decades of this process, the amount of the gas stored underground will be vast. Given scientists’ knack of getting things wrong, how can we possibly allow this to happen?

We may be in more danger from the climate scientists than the climate itself.

TV veteran Michael Parkinson, had this to say about Jade Goody’s death: “When we clear the media smoke screen from around her death, what we’re left with is a woman who came to represent all that’s paltry and wretched about Britain today.”

Jade Goody’s grandmother replied: “If I could see him face-to-face I would love to give him a right mouthful and a wallop.”

It proves Parkie’s case, doesn’t it?

John Evans

Recent Related Stories
DIARY: Editors at large, Easter, Hoffman, Andrew Neil, Iain Dale, Autumn election
DIARY: Wishful spending, He has bottom, Brown’s fall, Combustion stinks, One world
DIARY: Signposts, Adair Turner, Ayn Rand, 45 percent, Jonathan Porritt
DIARY: Clegg, Burke, Chocolate, Labour copycats, High centre ground, Pointers

We are going through a period of profound transition — from one party in power to another, and from boom to long-term bust. The signs are all around us.

When I first moved to Devon, pedestrian signposts had the patina of age and gave distances in yards and fractions of a mile.

Then Labour came in and the posts were changed to metric ones. These were very unpopular and many were defaced or painted over — we have a UKIP MEP down here, Trevor Coleman. I’ll bet you’ve never heard of him.

Today, I noticed that all the signposts have been changed yet again. Miserably, the yardage is still absent, but at least the Napoleonic metres have gone.

In the Exeter area we now measure distances between sites of interest and public conveniences in minutes.

Yes, some Council plodder has been trudging around the City and environs with stopwatch and pencil recording how long it takes to walk from point to point. The job was probably advertised in The Guardian at £100k a year.

I’ll leave you to imagine what comes next. Brussels will surely not take this lying down.

I’ve been waiting for years for a new EU system for measuring time. Euroheures, perhaps.

I watched Lord (Adair) Turner on the Andrew Marr show this morning with incredulity.

He’s a clever chap, no doubt, and he’s had more Government jobs than you can shake a pile of sticks at. In his new dual role as Financial Services chief and compiler of future rules on bank surveillance, he demands to be heard.

So I was both amused and bemused by his implacable and persistent defence of the status quo in banking regulation.

A new Glass-Steagull Act? No, there are occasions when crossovers between retail and investment banking are inevitable. And Lehmans was not a deposit-taker, yet still crashed the system.

Strict limits on capital adequacy? We should be careful because smaller banks will not be big enough to support the economy.

Tighter regulation all round? We’re not facing a repeat of present circumstances for decades, so let’s lob that into the long grass for the foreseeable future.

He is, though, recommending a huge expansion of the FSA and its responsibilities. Presumably that means ratcheting up its present cost of £350m annually closer to a round billion.

Even when reducing its caseload, the public sector seeks to expand its budget.

A blast from the past is never far away in our 24-hour media.

Last week the name of Ayn Rand appeared again in the public prints under the distinguished byline of Gladstonite flag-bearer, Simon Heffer. Ye Gods, I had completely blanked this lady out from memory.

I first read her most famous tome Atlas Shrugged in the late 1980s when Thatcherism was the meaning of life, the universe, and everything, in the City of London where I then worked.

I have to confess, I was underimpressed by the book. Apart from being an immensely long novel about the endeavours of capitalist heroes and their socialist enemies in Depression era America, it was stupifyingly boring.

It also seemed to me to be almost identical in reverse to the Stalinist artworks about the endeavours of socialist heroes in the Soviet Union, where the Depression never ended.

The book is full of cardboard characters, with people representing notions rather than anyone you might know. A lesser version of a Shaw play without the wit and humour.

Interestingly, Rand grew up under Stalin before escaping to America, so understood what Communism was like at first hand. Even allowing for that, her advocacy of capitalism red in tooth and claw, operating like a vast machine, visible across every landscape, was too similar to Stalin’s murderous industrialization policies for my taste. Both philosophies shared the same inhuman and ultimately self-defeating qualities.

As we could be entering Great Depression 2.0, it should have some resonance today. I’m sure the basic idea is sound. Free individuals, subject to creative destruction, allocate scarce resources better than booby bureaucrats, as we know all too well.

But there’s something missing. It’s called Up-To-A-Pointism, and in present circumstances we would do well to remember it.

Rand’s Objectivism would lead us all the way back to where we now find ourselves.

Much fuss over the new, proposed 45 percent tax rate for £150k+ earners. As some commentators have said, it could be another of Gordon Brown’s less than subtle traps of the “damned if you do and damned if you don’t” variety, opening the way to the charge of “Tory cuts!”.

In defensive response, Shadow Chancellor George Osborne signalled that he may not be able to avoid retaining it once in power, given the state of the economy. It may have been more profitable to avoid the subject.

It has to be said, George Osborne attracts a great deal of antipathy from individuals on his own side. There are those of a Tory persuasion who would flay him alive if they thought they could get away with it.

So far, the leadership has adopted the sensible strategy not to give too much away before the election, which could be as late as June next year. History relates that Margaret Thatcher did much the same in 1979.

But how should David Cameron address Brown’s inevitable taunt of “Tory cuts”?

With real anger. He should turn it back on Brown, branding them “Brown’s Cuts”. As Chancellor, he ran the prosperity-creating parts of the economy ruthlessly into the ground to fund his bloated public domain.

Cameron should repeat the phrase at every possible opportunity to dull the edge of Brown’s claymore in the campaign proper. A taste of his own poison will throw Brown into confusion and drill the message into voters’ heads.

As Corporal Jones used to say, “They don’t like it up ‘em”.

Mr “Green”, Jonathon Porritt, adviser to Prince Charles and Gordon Brown, wants Britain’s population reduced to 30 million. At present it stands at 61m and is expected to rise to 71m in 20 years.

What exactly are we supposed to do with the excess 40m people? Should we drop them into shark-infested waters? Ship them through the channel tunnel and dump them in France? Maybe have regular culls like the Canadians do with baby seals?

How do we know we ourselves won’t be included in the list?

One thing’s for sure, no one will mention that the recent immigrant population is having children at a much faster rate than the natives.

Where was Porritt when Labour’s open-door stealth immigration policy was foisted on a reluctant Britain?

H.G. Wells thought that the optimum world population was two billion. What would he make of the 7bn sardines now living on the planet?

One can’t help thinking that Jonathon Porritt would be regarded as one of humanity’s worst ogres if ever he gets round to formulating a policy to carry out his new, big idea.

Prince Charles should gently guide his old friend to the nearest rest home for oddballs and nutters.

John Evans

Recent Related Stories
DIARY: Clegg, Burke, Chocolate, Labour copycats, High centre ground, Pointers
DIARY: Kennedy, Mandelson, Public sector, Prince of Wales, Birdtweets, Canadian meltdown
DIARY: Maitlis, Tories, Spring offensive, Education, Hendry, Eurozone
DIARY: Captain Mainwaring, God and bicycles, Psychological contagion, Prediction, Blakemore, Gilbert
DIARY: Tax evasion, Derivatives, Oborne, Randall, Great Depression 2.0, Political awards, O’Rourke

Here at Syntagma Towers we groaned at the news that Edward Kennedy is to get an honorary Knighthood at the request of Gordon Brown, a long term friend of the Massachusetts Senator.

The fate of Mary Jo Kopechne, left to drown at Chappaquiddick Island by the younger brother of JFK, destroyed Ted Kennedy’s presidential hopes for ever.

The incident was made worse by Kennedy’s failure to alert police and rescue services for 24 hours or more. Did Brown not remember this shameful incident while planning to devalue British chivalric orders?

I suppose if you’re prepared to debauch the nation’s currency, and find room for Stalinist Eric Hobsbawm in the Companionship of Honour, you’re beyond doing the right thing.

Of Knighthoods, Shakespeare got it right:

When first this order was ordain’d, my Lords,
Knights … were of noble birth,
Valiant and virtuous, full of haughty courage …
He then that is not furnish’d in this sort
Doth but usurp the sacred name of Knight,
Profaning this most honourable order.

Quite.

It’s official. Labour will lose the next election.

At least that was the strong impression given by Peter Mandelson on the Andrew Marr programme this morning.

Discussing the problems of the Royal Mail and his unpopular efforts to privatize 30 percent of it, Mandelson said that Labour had tried to do this a number of times before, without success.

Then the crucial admission: “This is the last throw of the dice for this government.”

Slip of the tongue? Freudian whatsit? Silky way of subtly distancing himself from the coming defeat by predicting it, while sticking it on Gordon Brown?

Or do we overrate the Machiavellian powers of this man for whom “the last throw of the dice” might be equally appropriate?

After criticizing the government’s handling of the financial crisis many times on this site, I’ve received a few indignant communications asking “What would you do then?”

Here’s what I wrote on January 23:

“Of the £650bn [public sector] pot, an emergency £150bn cut would be relatively easy, if painful for some. Overpaid operatives in the sector could be offered the choice between a 25 percent pay cut or redundancy. This would rebuild the public finances and make room for tax cuts. Brown built his empire, let him now dismantle it for this country’s sake.”

Paul Johnson wrote this week of the 20 percent pay cuts across public services during the 1930s depression (Spectator).

Now hundreds of thousands of workers in the private sector have quietly agreed to pay cuts already. Many more have been laid off altogether or put onto shorter working weeks. Why then should the public sector be immune this time round?

The answer is twofold: Brown is afraid of public sector strikes, and is averse to clipping his “client state” for electoral purposes.

Politics is the art of the possible, but I believe that most people in the public sector should realize they can’t be set above the rest forever.

David Cameron and George Osborne will face a wall of ideology, propped up by buttresses of self-interest, when they come to power. It’s vital, though, they don’t shirk the dismantling of Brown’s folly.

We now know that Gordon Brown has sunk an extra £219 billion a year in real terms into his personal vanity project, the equivalent of the massive pyramids built by dodgy Pharaohs in ancient Egypt.

Lopping £150 billion off that is not beyond the wit of determined Conservatives.

On Thursday, Prince Charles is to claim we have 100 months to save the planet from “irreversible climate change”. A strange assertion in the circumstances.

Man’s contribution to natural global warming is unknown and, in my view, probably greatly overstated by the anti-capitalist activists who push the argument to ridiculous levels.

However, consider what they might say if the present economic crash had not happened, and countries around the world had voluntarily reduced their greenhouse gases by the same amount as the drop caused by the current world depression.

Wouldn’t they be ecstatic with delight and self-praise? Imagine the articles in The Guardian claiming the moral high ground. I don’t think the phrase: “100 months to save the world” would be uttered by anyone. Why spoil a great story.

Furthermore, has any of the followers of James Lovelock considered that a prolonged world depression might be the handiwork of Gaia — the supposed self-regulatory mechanism of the planet itself?

If Gaia exists, it’s precisely what you would expect, is it not?

According to the theory, Mankind is an irrelevance in all this.

A few months ago I succumbed to the Twitter craze, mainly to find out about “microblogging” — messages limited to 140 characters, or less.

For illustration, the paragraph above is 138 characters.

I don’t use the account very much (twitter.com/Syntagma), and I haven’t delved into it beyond spraying out a few tart comments from time to time.

However, there’s a vast hinterland behind Twitter, comprising hundreds of applications that allow you to aggregate, sort, search and personalize the modest, low wordage utterances of the Twitocracy. Some Twitizens even believe it’s the way news will be distributed in future.

How does Twitter make money? It doesn’t. Google has denied it will buy it, which must put the kibosh on the service pretty soon.

Who else will snap it up in the current climate? Rupert Murdoch, the Barclay Brothers? Few takers, I think.

It’s more than likely that a new class system will emerge, with toffs who read newspapers, and twits who tweet like birds.

The fate of an earlier Canadian Conservative Government is casting the gloomiest of shades over Labour MPs. In 1993 it was reduced from power to two seats in the Canadian House of Commons.

The Canadian meltdown has no equivalent in British politics, although the Tories have been in the doldrums for 12 years and sometimes it must have felt like that.

Now it’s Labour’s turn to ruminate their fate and sink into political bipolar disorder. Could it happen here?

The Canadian House of Commons has 308 members, the British House, 646. Two seats in Ottawa would translate into 4.19 at Westminster.

Is it possible that Labour could fall into single figures at the next election? Unlikely, but a double-figure result should not be ruled out.

With Gordon in charge, the campaign will be clunky. Whatever advantage a sitting government gets from being in power will be cancelled out by his dire performance.

His closest colleagues will be more interested in positioning themselves to take over the leadership than saving his neck. The mood of the public will be explosive and there could be rioting on the streets.

David Cameron, on the other hand, will undoubtedly run a smooth and impressive campaign, with all his senior people onboard for a return to power.

The LibDems and other parties will be severely squeezed. UKIP Tories will want to be on the winning side, while the BNP will take votes from Labour.

It’s hard to see how a Conservative landslide can be avoided. But a Canadian-style meltdown is not the British way.

If it were, who, we might ask, would be Labour’s 0.19? There are plenty of candidates for that role.

John Evans

Recent Related Stories
DIARY: Maitlis, Tories, Spring offensive, Education, Hendry, Eurozone
DIARY: Captain Mainwaring, God and bicycles, Psychological contagion, Prediction, Blakemore, Gilbert
DIARY: Tax evasion, Derivatives, Oborne, Randall, Great Depression 2.0, Political awards, O’Rourke
DIARY: Darwin, Hitchens, Obama, polls, Steyn