The Olympics: Social Empowerment or Societal Gentrification?

Is it bricks and mortar that resurrect a socially vulnerable neighborhood? Or is it role model and mentoring? And anyway, who defines what is a ‘socially vulnerable neighborhood’?

If we are to define ‘socially vulnerable’ on the basis of the net contribution to society, I find the Hamptons more toxic than Harlem, Chipping Norton more harmful than the East End of London.

But, commentary on the benefits or otherwise of the financial classes to our common economic health, I want to spend a few minutes, on a day when the Brits won a fistful of Olympic medals (wasn’t going to let that slide), wondering aloud about who it is we call ‘poor,’ why, and what really works when it comes to empowerment.

I remember when last I was resident in the UK, I lived in a ramshackle bedsit in Slough – home to the English version of ‘The Office.’ One day, I read a poll in the popular daily tabloid, The Sun.

The poll told me that folks considered themselves poor if they had no bathroom exclusive to themselves (me), no color television (me), no car (me), and didn’t go abroad on vacation at least once a year (me, too).

What the poll did not mention was: not having a door or windows in the kitchen, only holes in the wall (me); drug addicts upstairs (me); and a knife-wielding psychopath in the room across the hall (also me).

What was extraordinary was that the poll was subjective. And that it was all about material possession. By definition, I was poor as a church mouse. But, I didn’t feel poor.

I had a roof over my head. Food in my tummy. Money in my pocket (enough, not a lot). I kept my room clean and warm. I occupied myself with books and writing. And to all intents and purposes, bearing in mind my purpose at the time was research for my book, I felt quite comfortable.

Yet the world increasingly measures a person’s happiness by the accumulation of property. And, if those at disadvantage cannot or will not earn the money to buy, then stealing and the like become the acceptable alternative.

In the run-up to the London Olympics, I read a piece about the Atlanta Olympics which characterized those Olympics as rather sad, being as they had been held in a city rife with racism and violence.

I was in Atlanta from 1992 to early 1996, and was still resident in Northeast Georgia during the Olympic Games, and through to 2002. I do not remember feeling as if I was trapped in a seething cauldron of vice and misdemeanor.

As chance would have it, I then read an article in The New York Times Magazine, which describes the adventures of a snitch called Alex White, who, interestingly enough, grew up a stone’s throw from the site of much of the Atlanta Olympics - http://tinyurl.com/7fq75r7.

Frankly, I only got as far as the first few paragraphs before I got angry. Look, I grew up in a fancy upper-middle class town, just to the west of London. A stone’s throw, thirty miles and a million dimensions removed from the site of the London Olympics, in the East End.

I know what privilege is. And I know how it can buffer one from any other perspective on life. Partly by happenstance, partly because I went looking, I found out what it was like to live at the other end of the spectrum.

The inner city. The feeling of being trapped. The certainty that one wakes up every day without any hope of denting, let alone controlling, one’s own destiny. Where all are the enemy. The landlord. The electric company. The drug dealer. The police.

But I have known folks who dug their way out. Who got the meanest of jobs. So that they could finance further education. Who went looking for good mentorship. Who had fine teachers. Caring parents. And who were the first  to correct me on my view of victimization.

Who would tear me new ones if I spoke of the bottomless tyranny of history and legacy. Who would truck no talk of ambition, achievement and behavior being the preserve only of those with good environment.

The environment that made the man and the woman was the environment each person created in their head. Bad behavior, they told me, was bad behavior. Don’t be bringing your trashy white condescension (I think they word used may actually have been ‘shit’) into our neighborhoods.

And it was these same lovely women of whom I was thinking (why is it that it is strong women who teach me all my lessons in life?), when I got angry at the NYT article. For the article describes how Alex has always been out of control. It wasn’t his fault. It wasn’t his mother’s fault. It was inevitable. And if anyone was to blame, it was the corrupt police.

Which, in turn, got me thinking about Olympic Legacy. I did a little research and came up with a note about the legacy of the Atlanta Olympics - http://tinyurl.com/449jtso. And then two more describing what folks believed would be the legacy of the London Olympics - http://tinyurl.com/ccszkov and http://tinyurl.com/chxv669.

And all I saw was bricks and mortar. As if the disadvantaged South West of Atlanta has been permanently enriched by the new Centennial Olympic Park and the new dormitories for Georgia Tech, and the East End would experience similar renewal by being right next door to the technical marvel that is the new Velodrome and some enabling joyhouse of materialism called the Westfield Stratford City Mall.

What is required for true mindset change is all the help one can muster to allow those who want to make the most of their lives to do so. And I don’t mean by designing for them what their aspiration should look like. If someone is happy getting a High School education, working in a flower shop and raising a happy family, then that is empowerment of that person – if they are able to achieve it.

The emphasis should be on enabling all the resources necessary to be available in those communities at risk. And resources means more than buildings. And more than money. It means teachers. And mentors. And not just for the children. But for their parents, too.

You can throw any amount of resource at a community, at an individual, but none of it counts for squat if the person and people concerned do not take advantage of it.

I do not know what made an obviously resourceful person like Alex not want to try a different path. I don’t know what his parents (or parent) were or were not doing. What the situation was with his school.

But, as my good lady friends (the ones who didn’t want my ‘shit’) made clear to me, it requires a dose of reality, along with charity, to empower. I do not feel sorry for Alex. Bluntly put, he needs to grow up. I do not feel sorry for people who make themselves victims. I am a recovering alcoholic. I know all about that.

I do not believe that poverty is simply a lack of money. It is also sometimes a lack of resolve. Of dignity. Of respect. And that can be found in the most squalid of material circumstances. Provided we want to get off the pity pot long enough to find it.

Mind you, the folks for whom I have the least time are those who make it out, and never feel the moral obligation to turn back, and offer a helping hand, or a word of advice.

I don’t have any real solutions here. Merely thoughts. A reality check. For myself, if no-one else.

If we convince ourselves that we have left a legacy from these Olympics simply because we inject cash and build a few irrelevant monuments, we are kidding ourselves, and we are letting down those we affect to want to help.

Empowerment comes from a change in mindset – both of those who wish to do the empowering, and those who (like Alec) so assiduously find excuses not to be empowered (sorry if that’s a bit too strong for some) – and then the human resources necessary to encourage empowerment, and to allow it to occur.

And by the way, writing this, I am the same person who campaigns for programs to help folks empower themselves, by alleviating the worst immediate symptoms of poverty - http://tinyurl.com/bto3ejd.

Now, an interesting anecdote on empowerment. When I was a brash young English Town Councilor, back in 1979, convinced I knew it all, and ready to establish my enduring legacy in one term, I tackled with the issue of gypsies.

Now, I will leave to one side the argument about whether or not they were true gypsies, or merely Irish didicoi’s. They were travelers. They camped in inconvenient locations. They made a mess. And the world and his auntie were convinced they stole everyone’s telly and automobile radio.

The great and glorious in the land had decreed (Caravan Sites Act 1968) that the solution was for every local governmental area to provide static sites, equivalent to the number of ‘gypsies’ in the area at any given time.

Of course, it was a nonsense. Who could know? They were travelers. But all the local worthies willingly entered the fray, because, as soon as you provided the arbitrarily calculated number of gypsy sites, you became ‘Designated.’ Which meant that you were legally entitled to move on any gypsies who were not encamped on the publicly provided sites.

My little local government area was in the process of agreeing the last site, which would have met the Designation quota, when I became Geoff the Town Councilor, at the tender age of 23.

I looked at the plans, and, with good reason mind, opposed the site unequivocally. To the applause of the 1%-ers, whose house values I was nobly rescuing.

Long story short. Kept up resistance for a year. Got some changes. Site got approved anyway. Went down with sinking ship. Much appreciation. Use of eldest daughter (I wish). But onwards to the new dawn of gypsy site in constituency. Designation achieved.

Except the gypsies would not play ball. There were five pitches to the site. But they would insist on parking as many as twenty caravans. It was a mess. They used the portable loo’s as firewood. And the telly’s were disappearing again. It was just not good enough.

What to do? Well, I’m nothing if not a tad unconventional. So, I thought it might be a good idea to go talk to them. My fellow Councilors were in shock. You mean, go down THERE? There are dogs. And filth. You won’t come back alive (um … work out that pretty use of language).

Well, I trundled down in my wellies (which took care of the mud). Barked just as ferociously as the dogs. Which aroused the curiosity of the gypsies. Ok. They WERE Irish.

Why are you here? Well, you happen to be my constituents. Why wouldn’t I want to talk to you? Right. Best come in and have a sherry then. Don’t mind if I do. And then proceeded to have the most extraordinary conversation.

It seems (not surprisingly, when you think about it) that they were all Irish-Catholic. And bred proverbially. Had at least six or seven kids each. And they needed at least three or four caravans to a family (not just the one, determined by some three-pieces in Whitehall).

Plus, they couldn’t promise they wouldn’t steal. Part of the blood, don’t ya know? But they would really like it if they could just be allowed to build (and finance) their own sites, on land they would buy and maintain, in locations that suited them, and not on out-of-the-way tips, like the one they were currently occupying. Oh. And their caravans already had loo’s. So, thanks for the firewood.

Hmm. I contacted a body called the National Gypsy Council (I know, I know, it sounds about as redundant as a pension fund for zombies; but it’s real, honest). They confirmed what my new-found chums had said, and told me that they had been campaigning for private sites, rather than public sites, like for ever.

Bottom line: Parliament had passed an Act, which was nonsense. Because no one bothered to ask the folks involved. Skip some thirty years (and I do not make myself out to be an expert on travelers in the UK today; but this is my impression), and it would appear that the narrative has, indeed, moved from public to private sites.

What is the moral? Talk to folks. Be honest about what is required. But then also, be tough, when that too is required. I told my ‘mates’ that I would pass on their views (that made for an interesting Council meeting, I can tell you). But that I would still set the police on them if I caught whiff of their stealing.

For the most part, the co-called ‘poor’ do not consider themselves to be ‘poor’ in spirit. Sure, they want a helping hand. For certain, they want schools and neighborhoods that are as goods as anyone else’s. But they know the difference between helping hand and hand-out.

And, they are the first to recognize those who play the victim, and need a good kick up the backside. And they are no less likely to take a mile, if given an inch, as any of the so-called 'entrepreneurs' to be found in the City of London and Wall Street. It ain't about breeding and background. It's about trust and verify. Trust everyone, but verify everything.

Empower, don’t nanny. Help, don’t smother. Assist, don’t enslave. Ask, don’t demand. And for the love of all things Velodrome, please stop building monuments to irrelevance. And then calling them ‘revitalizing legacy.’ Whether Millennium Dome or wooden outhouse …

Today, We Are All Londoners

The emotional import of these London Olympics didn’t truly impact me until I saw the Queen sitting in the Stadium during the Opening Ceremony. At that moment, the years fell away. And I saw a young Princess Elizabeth.

Her courageous father defied the pleas of advisers, and stayed in London throughout the Blitz of World War II, while German bombers pounded the East End of London. He stayed, to share the danger with his East Enders. They never forgot. And they loved him for it.

His daughter ascended to the throne less than a decade after the end of that awful War, her father exhausted by his sacrifice. In this year, when Britons the length and breadth of our small but proud isle celebrate 60 years of the Queen’s selfless service as Head of State, a selflessness learned from her father, we see her sitting in a magnificent Stadium, risen from the ashes of that same East End.

I can not believe that she did not feel the symmetry of honor that the moment represented for her, for East Enders and for all Britons, every bit as much as we all felt tremendous pride at the show we put on for the world, in spite of the troubles that beset our land.

It isn’t easy to present to the world a living montage of our past, when, for many visiting, that past reminds them that it was built on our unwelcome conquest of their lands. Nor is it so simple to forget that shenanigans in the financial districts of the host city, in the past few years, once again contributed to devastation in their nations.

Yet all present were gracious and open-hearted in their enjoyment of the international spectacle of togetherness we staged for them, and in which we invited them to engage. My hope now is that the pride we felt and the show of unity that we created can last more than the two weeks of the Olympics.

Great Britain has a unique opportunity to show the world that the Olympics are more than a two-week slogan. That we learn from our mistakes. That we are more than a fading Empire. More than a City of thieving financiers. That we are a nation that stands together when the moment is darkest, that we build together, and can overcome any adversity together.

At a time when our country is hurting from self-inflicted economic wounds, we nevertheless found a way to stage the greatest international show on earth. We can use that experience as a catalyst for dragging our country out of its financial and spiritual woes. And show the rest of the world a way forward for them, too.

As one people, with one voice, united as we have been for the Olympics and for the Queen’s Diamond Jubilee, we turn on those financiers, who occupy another patch of the East End, within sight of the Olympic Stadium, and say, stop stealing from our citizens. Stop devastating a world that is hurting. Clean up your act. And start now to share the burden of righting the wrongs you wrought.

We turn to our politicians and say, we’re not going to ask the impossible. You are, after all, politicians. But try your hardest to pull together, for the rest of us, at least for a while. And do what you all know needs to be done to set our country back on course. If you must disagree, please do so civilly. But stop the sterile attacks. Forget the polls. Jockey for political advantage another time. Just do the right thing. Now.

We turn on the media and demand that they stop the whining, the hacking and the bribing. If we are worthy of the Olympics, we are worthy of more than tits on Page 3, John Terry on the Back Page and gossip in between. We deserve a press that exposes the callow, highlights success, and provides informed and useful opinion that enriches our nation, not Rupert Murdoch.

I am by experience a cynic. But I am at heart always an optimist. The Opening Ceremony of these London Olympics was nothing if not about heart.

So it is that I truly believe Great Britain will continue to surprise the world. Not just by staging the very best Olympics ever. But by using the symbol of these Olympics, risen from the ashes of the East End, to act as inspiration, as we lift the remainder of our country from its current miseries.

And in so doing, creating an even more enduring legacy for the rest of the world. Demonstrating that the Olympic Spirit, of fortitude and strength, aiming ever high, can be an ongoing venture. Not just for a few, in the sports arena. And not just one that occurs every four years. But, a venture of renewal and growth that works for everyone. Where all share and all succeed.

Armlock and Malleable [The Redux]: What Goes Around ... ??

Were the 2012 UK Local Election results bad for the British Coalition Government? Yes. Do they spell the end of that Government? No. Why? Because there ain’t nowhere else to go. Wenlock and Mandeville are more likely to get married than the LibCon Coalition is likely to bust up.

First, the noise. I wrote in February 2010 that Dave was sowing seeds of rebellion amongst the ranks of his own MP’s (existing and to be). Well, what went around is now coming around. Exacerbated by the fact that a large pool of frisky Conservative MP’s, all vying for a small number of juicy ministerial portfolio’s, had that number reduced even more by the Coalition with the Liberal Democrats, and now find themselves possibly facing the political abyss at the next General Election.

Forget screaming for Dave’s head. If I were a Tory MP in a marginal seat, I’d be curled up in a corner of the Commons’ Tea Room, with Blankie and a hot cup of cocoa, writing love poems to Lord Ashcroft. Sat right alongside all the Liberal Democrat MP’s composing sonnets to Lord Ashdown. Will it make a fig of difference? No. First, the bad news for the screaming Tories. And then the hey-we-get-to-stick-it-to-someone-else news.

The bad news? Tory MP’s can scream all they like. They can even force a ballot to overthrow Dave as Leader. But, to whom will they turn as an alternative? David Davis? Yesterday’s news. John Redwood? Pre-history. Liam Fox? Hardly Mr. Teflon. Which leaves? Yup. Boris Johnson. Ok, let’s clear that one out of the way.

There is next to no difference between Boris and Dave. With the exception that Dave has had to deal with a huge number of conflicting crises, while trying to find compromise with a Coalition partner. Boris, bless him, has no real power, and has had nothing of any real significance to handle. It was easy for him to look good getting rid of some of Red Ken’s wilder fancies, cut a few taxes, bring back the double-decker buses, and play the goof on London weekend television.

There is absolutely nothing, save the hyperbole of the media and Boris’s closest chums, to suggest that Boris could have done a better job than Dave, or would be able to pursue a significantly different political path. Besides, as fickle as the British electorate have become over the past few decades, I think that even they are getting a bit sick of PM’s getting changed without their say-so.

As for the Liberal Democrats (this, for any rabid Tory, is the stick-it-to-someone-else news), I think the greatest disrespect the British public have for them is not that they have supported austerity measures, but that they have been seen to ditch their most sanctified electoral promises in order to continue supping at the high table of political power (cf. tuition fees).

Whatever Liberal Democrats may think of Nick Clegg, Dave Cameron, austerity, posterity and the 300 some councilors who just lost their seats, they know, deep in their hearts, hidden away in the smoke-filled back rooms, that what little pulling power they have left in any polling booth will dissipate like so much will ‘o wisp if they take any steps that can be interpreted as being only about their continued opportunity to participate in government. Be that ditching Clegg or forming a new alliance with Labour. They are stuck with the Conservatives until at least 2014, when both Parties in the Coalition will likely ease apart, in advance of General Election 2015.

What of the future? I think for the answer, one needs to look at a whole bunch of other questions. Why did Dave create hostages for fortune with his huge 2010 intake of new Tory MP’s? Why has he been so rude to the 1922 Committee of Conservative Backbench MP’s? Why has he ignored the feelings of his fellow Tory ministers, in order to form a close alliance with Nick Clegg?

I saw some of this coming in an article I wrote in May 2010. The bottom line is this. Dave really does see himself as the Tories’ Tony Blair. He truly does believe that he, and a small band of merry men, are destined to save the Conservative Party from the clutches of right-wing nutters, who consigned the Conservative Party to insignificant Opposition for thirteen years. And that the future for Tories is a middle-of-the-road progressive position, whether in Coalition with the Liberal Democrats, or as a stand-alone Liberal Conservative Party, shorn of all right-wing poison.

Furthermore, Dave feels that the path to righteousness is bound to be one littered with unavoidable pain. He will piss of the Party at large, when he centralizes power in his own hands, in order to ensure the success of his revolution. He will upset the Constituency Associations by parachuting in the A-List Team of his choice, all the better to fill Parliament with his lackeys. He cares not a toss about the 1922 Committee. And he will continue to arrive late for Cabinet Meetings of his own Ministers, so that he can finish the pre-Cabinet agenda preview with his new progressive mate, Nick.

I have a feeling that Dave is an interesting mix. I genuinely believe that he thinks he is doing what is right for Great Britain. And that ‘right’ is not the ‘right’ of the Tory right-wing. It is Liberal Conservatism. But, at the same time, he is capable of unutterable ruthlessness. He realizes has he has only a small window of opportunity, and he will do all that he needs to take advantage of that window, including sacrificing his own elected fellow politicians, the Liberal Democratic Party, and even his own Prime Ministership. I suspect that Dave has already calculated that he may only govern for one Parliament. And that he will use that Parliament to set the country straight, and move his own Party irrevocably to the centre.

In that light, Dave has followed the classic playbook of a first-term activist administration. He has attempted to do as much as he can in the first couple of years, before fear, electoral exigency, gas, whatever finally set in, and slow it all down. What the media are lovingly calling the ‘omnishambles’ of the Coalition Government is not the consequence of a Coalition that cannot make up its mind; it is the result of a Coalition attempting too much.

So. Will Dave and Nick effect a U-Turn? No. Have a look at history. This is precisely where Margaret Thatcher was in 1981, when at the Party conference of that year, Cabinet Ministers were lining up at fringe meetings, barking for her to change course. I know. I was there. Got my first bit of national publicity (in “The Sun” – right next to Samantha Fox; still my beating heart!). When I mauled Sir Ian Gilmour, Deputy Foreign Secretary, for daring to criticize the Blessed Margaret (ok, let’s not go there … ).

Dave likes his history. He reckons himself a part of it. He won’t turn. And he will make great show of his not turning. He will tighten up focus in his legislative agenda. Maybe put some of the more esoteric social issues on the backburner. We won’t be hearing about Big Society for a while. He will move into consolidation gear. Focus on the big ones – the economy; welfare; education. Take it a step at a time. Set out simply what is to be achieved. Achieve it. Say he’s achieved it. Move onto the next issue. But he won’t turn.

Will he shift appreciably on his economic and fiscal goals? No. He believes he is doing what is right. Even if it costs him the next General Election. Look, the Budget really wasn’t that bad. It just wasn’t terribly well presented. Yeah, the top tax rate of 50% was cut. But the threshold for those at the bottom was raised too. What were there, some £3.5 billion in tax cuts overall? Eat that Boris and the Tory right-wing!

Too many folks have too easily bought the press from the past thirty years. That a little bit of spending here, a tax cut there, and bingo, the boom will be back. The boom is over. The party is finished. On every occasion we have fought our way out of economic correction since the beginning of the Eighties, we have attempted to rush recovery with unwise fiscal expansion. I truly believe that Dave is committed to not making that mistake this time. There may be some room for a little extra spending on infrastructure projects. But, beyond that, I would say that we all need to get sued to slow economic growth or no growth for some years to come.

Look, in 1970, Thatcher did not inherit a recession. She inherited a mess. But she is the one that created the recession while tightening the financial belt, to overcome Labour’s largesse. Dave took over an economy that was both in a financial mess, and already in recession. Everyone was agreed that the belt, once again, needed to be tightened. We may have disagreed on how much. But please remember this, the Liberal Democrats have not been sitting in the wings. With outspoken Ministers holding the No. 2 Portfolio in the Treasury, and the No. 1 portfolio at Business, the Liberal Democrats have been front and center in all the economic decisions taken by the Coalition. It hasn’t just been Dave and George.

So. What did people think was going to happen when we tightened the belt on an economy in recession? If the Coalition is guilty of anything, it is that it did not do enough to prepare people for the inevitable. And that is the next area Dave where will make concessions, without actually changing direction. He will reach out more to his own Party. Have a cuppa with 1922. Get to Cabinet Meetings on time. Tour some constituency associations. Make Michael Fallon Chairman of the Party. Dave may focus on doing a better job of explaining and assuaging. But he won’t make any concessions on his bid to modernize the Party, nor on his central goal of fixing the country’s finances.

So. There you have it. Or, at least, my opinion of ‘it’! The Coalition had some awful mid-term election results. But, we are only two years into a five-year Parliamentary Term. The Coalition will regroup, re-focus, slim down, hire bring in new PR, and continue on its path to a reformed economy and society, anchored by a centrist progressive political movement.

I like the way Charles Moore sums it up in the London Daily Telegraph, which he once edited: “Boris has always kept the end in view. So should the Coalition. It will not prosper because one bit concedes something – minimum alcohol pricing, an elected second chamber, gay marriage, whatever – to the other, but because people can have faith in its essential purpose of national recovery. That purpose is intact, but almost invisible. Now is the time to relaunch a new, improved, slim–line Coalition with greater pride and passion than before. “

A Victorian Englishman's Perambulations At The Beach ...

Just got back from the beach. This was the product of my arts and crafts. Enjoy ...

[UK LibCon Coalition Government 2010] -- Will The LibDems Be Able To Stop The Tory Arms Kickbacks?

Is this why Michael (Lord) Ashcroft is screaming blue murder? Because one of the reasons David Cameron did a deal with the LibDems was to spike Ashcroft’s plans to revive illicit arms dealing and kickbacks under a purely Tory Government?

In the Eighties and Nineties, a group of Tory politicians, City businessmen, Ministry of Defence officials and intelligence personnel instituted a scheme to make hundreds of millions of pounds from illicit kickbacks from legitimate arms deals and illegal profits from illegitimate arms deals. [http://tinyurl.com/y8bnpyd]

The public came to know this group as the “Savoy Mafia.” Margaret Thatcher’s son, Mark, was a member. As was her husband, Denis, and disgraced former Tory Cabinet Minister, Jonathan Aitken – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathan_Aitken. But what the public learned through the mainstream media at the time wasn’t even the half of it – http://www.conservativecampaign.com/tory_arms_corruption.php.

My now deceased best mate, Hugh Simmonds CBE, a former rising star in the Conservative Party, was responsible for setting up the money-laundering pipeline (unbeknown to me, I hasten to add), which pipeline included the then Conservative Central Office – http://www.conservativecampaign.com/hugh_john_simmonds.php.

Hugh was able to do this since he was a member of the Conservative’s National Board of Finance, based in CCO. I only found out about Hugh’s involvement when I started asking questions after he turned up dead in the woods in suspicious circumstances in November 1988.

I’ve written a book about my little adventure of discovery. “Dead Men Don’t Eat Lunch” @ http://www.lulu.com/content/384105. In addition to giving my book a plug, the other reason for raising all of this now is that there is a good chance history may be about to repeat itself.

One of the prime behind-the-scenes brokers of the notorious ‘Al Yamamah’ arms deal with Saudi Arabia was Jonathan Aitken, who made his money by acting as an arms middleman for various senior members of the Saudi Royal Family - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Yamamah.

Aitken didn’t believe in giving up the day job when he joined the Conservative Government of John Major in the early Nineties. And so it was that, in September 1993, when Aitken secretly met with a representative of the Saudi Royal Family in the Ritz Hotel, Paris, to carve up ‘commissions’ (we call ‘em bribes up in the mountains) from ‘Al Yamamah II,’ he was also serving as Major’s Chief Secretary to the UK Treasury (a Cabinet Ministerial position). [http://tinyurl.com/26qxy32]

That meeting was exposed by the owner of the Ritz, none other than Mohammed Fayed. Aitken denied he was ever there. He went to Court to prove himself innocent. Lost. Went to jail for perjury. But. Business had to carry on.

Aitken’s business partner was Alan Duncan, MP, who took over as the new arms middleman with the Saudi Royals, on behalf of the Conservative contingent - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Duncan.

Thing is, New Labour then came to power (1997). They wanted a piece of the continuing action. Their arms middlemen were the Maxwell twins (sons of Cap’n Bob Maxwell: deceased billionaire Labour politician, publisher, Israeli agent and arms dealer in his own right).

Now, all sorts of introducing and handshaking took place, to get the new guard into position. I explain in detail in my book. But you get an idea of the connections from this blogger, Hopi Sen –http://tinyurl.com/23q326u

In addition to having middlemen in place to negotiate their interest in the arms action, both sides, Conservative and Labour, then needed overseers to look after and distribute the accumulating kickbacks.

In the case of the Conservatives, the Keeper of the Key (to bank accounts in Switzerland, reputed to hold a total of £200 million (plus interest)) was and is Michael (Lord) Ashcroft (an undisclosed but senior member of the “Savoy Mafia,” and a close buddy of Sir Denis Thatcher). [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Ashcroft,_Baron_Ashcroft]

The Labour money was and is being looked after by Geoffrey Robinson (Labour MP for Coventry North West, a former Cabinet Minister and bagman for Bob Maxwell – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geoffrey_Robinson) and Peter (Lord) Mandelson (who is a walking, talking scandal, thrice over, and good buddies with Wafic Said, another of the brokers for Saudi arms deals – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Mandelson).

This explains why both Ashcroft and Mandelson wield such enormous influence in their respective Parties.

All arms deals need to be sanctioned by the Government. Although it’s not as simple as that. And let me just say, I’m not trying to encapsulate some 450 pages of my book into this brief Note. I’m using this Note to alert. If you want the whole picture…er…buy the book.

Anyways, Government and defence contractors work together to encourage folks to buy British arms. The Government effort is spearheaded by the Minister of State in the Ministry of Defence with special responsibility for Defence Procurement (which is deliciously-Orwellian doublespeak for ‘arms sales’).

Once the deals are agreed in principle, the private defence contractor has to apply to the Export Control Organisation (ECO) for an export license. This Organisation used to be in the Trade and Industry Department, but now finds itself under the supervision of the Department of Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform.

Back in the Eighties, when the whole illicit arms-bribes-for-pols enterprise was getting underway (under the Thatcher Government), it was given huge assistance by Alan Clarke and Lord Trefgarne, who swapped Ministerial positions at Defense and Trade, where they respectively oversaw Defence Procurement and the ECO. (By the by, before he was Chief Secretary to the Treasury, Jonathan Aitken was a Minister of State for Defence Procurement.)

Fast forward to 2005, when David Cameron is miraculously elected Leader of the Conservative Party – with help from Ashcroft’s wife (http://tinyurl.com/2vqfus4). The first thing Dave does is to make Ashcroft Deputy Chairman of the Party, putting him in charge of spending millions of ‘his own’ money in those all-important 100 Labour marginals.

Dave then appointed Alan Duncan as his new Shadow Secretary of State for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform. And Gerald Howarth and Julian Lewis as his two shadow Ministers at Defence.

Right. Who the heck are these Gerald and Julian characters? Gerald Howarth was an old right-wing (and I’m talking WTF loony right-wing) chum of Hugh’s from the Seventies, when the two frequented that choice playground for all aspiring Neanderthal Tories and sometime intelligence officers, The Monday Club. [http://tinyurl.com/2e2qslb – buried away in this wiki-biog, you’ll find mention of a libel action in 1986; it was my mate Hugh from whom Gerald first sought legal advice in this matter]

On the subject of Gerald Howarth and libel actions, Gerald is one of my FB Friends - I strive for an eclectic network; I want to know what folks are up to, and for them to know likewise. If you see what I mean. Anyway, let me just check...yup...he's still a FB Friend.

Which raises a point which I will allow to distract me for just a moment. It's important - especially for those of who who think I'm way out on a conspiratorial limb here, and are unaware of the 10 years of investigation behind my allegations.

Every single person, about whom I have made potentially libelous statements in my book (and those in this article are mere repetition of the book), has been informed of what I have said, and has been given a physical address in the country of their residence, where they may formally serve upon a representative of mine a Writ of Libel. The credibility of these allegations is a serious matter for me. To date, I have received not one notice of legal proceeding.

The only threat of one came from Michael (Lord) Heseltine, John Major's Deputy Prime Minister. Michael demanded I desist in saying he knew there was arms corruption in the Conservative Party in the Eighties and Nineties. I checked with my original source to make sure that source had been correct about the allegations concerning Michael. I then wrote back to Michael respectfully declining his 'request.'

I gave him two options: sue me, or I would feel justified in saying that he was not doing so because he knew the allegations to be true. And by the way, I wasn't alleging that he was a part of the corruption (he wasn't). I was only saying that he knew about it. I have heard no more from him.

So. One more time. Michael Heseltine knew there was arms corruption in the Conservative Party in the Eighties and Nineties. Right. Enough of that. Where was I? Oh yes...Gerald Howarth...

Gerald was a bit of a hanger-on with everyone and everything. But he became, over time, a favorite toady of intelligence, the military and Margaret Thatcher. A safe pair of hands to look the other way as serious crooks went about the business of…well...doing arms bribe business.

Julian is altogether a more substantive sleazebag - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julian_Lewis. Officially, he was Deputy Director of the Conservative Research Department in the early Nineties. But his unofficial work included negative research on the Opposition, and covering up all trace of the arms money moving through the Conservative Central Office (where, by the way, at that time, Ashcroft was a Joint Treasurer).

So. As the Tories headed into General Election 2010, they were all set to revive the pipeline funneling arms bribes into Tory coffers from both legitimate and illegitimate arms deals. The personnel were all in place to make this happen.

But why would squeaky-clean Dave go along with all of this? Again, you’re gonna have to read the book. But the bottom line is, Dave didn’t ‘go along’ – with anything. The same powers that smoothed the path for Dave’s rise to the Leadership were and are the same powers that wanted the Tories back in power, so that those Powers could start making money again from arms sales.

Dave had no choice. It was a take-it-or-f**k-off deal.

But, here’s the big ‘but.’ And this time, I am going way out on a limb. I don’t think Dave went along all that willingly. I believe Dave thought and thinks that he could jettison this corrupt element from his Party – an element which drew most of its strength from the right-wing of the Party. (I could be wrong. Dave did accept that money from Ashcroft's wife. And he also accepted some rather unusual money from a Lebanese arms-dealing chum of Jonathan Aitken - http://tinyurl.com/ycm749j)

But, to continue with the theme of Dave-as-the-Tooth-Fairy, if he could get rid of the right-wing, it would take care of much of the corruption. And so, he moved to the left. Now, I’m not saying the move was a sham. It’s a self-reinforcing circle. Dave’s better instincts make him progressive and non-corrupt. Which makes him opposed to the right-wing, and the corruption they have decided to clasp to their bosom – as it were.

It must be late at night. I’m talking about bosoms…

Along comes the Election Campaign, and lo and behold, Dave agrees to let Nick Clegg of the LibDems into the TV Debates. Nick does splendidly. And we now have a Liberal-Conservative Coalition Government.

Now, I’m not saying this was all a carefully thought out plan. C’mon. We’re talking about Tories here. I’m one of them. And the most planning we do is taking up a collection for a round of drinks after a Constituency Executive Meeting.

But. I do think there were some hopes and aspirations at play here. Which began with a young Leader seeing a Party totally in thrall to right-wing and corrupt elements, and ended with those corrupt and right-wing elements potentially held at bay by coalition with the LibDems.

Which is why I believe Ashcroft is screaming so loudly – http://tinyurl.com/2e86gyy. And why he is almost immediately working to undermine Dave – http://tinyurl.com/37hmlgz. Ashcroft didn’t spend £14 million getting Dave elected, just to see his (Ashcroft’s) chances of renewed arms kickbacks get…well, kicked into touch, by Dave’s new LibDem buddies.

Now, we’re not in the clear yet. Alan Duncan, notwithstanding his unfortunate comments about Miss California, has just been appointed a Minister of State at the Department for International Development.

So what? Well, there’s another important Department to be found under the auspices of the Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform (for the love of all things holy, Dave, can we please shorten that bloody name!). It’s the Export Credit Guarantee Department.

The largest part of ECGD's activities involves underwriting long term loans to support the export of military equipment (about 50% to be precise). As part of its risk management process, ECGD has to make a judgment on the ability of a country to meet its debt obligations. The Department uses a ‘productive expenditure’ test, undertaken in consultation with the Department for International Development.

In other words, Alan’s going to be wandering around the world making sure countries are good, not only for repaying our Government’s loans to sell them arms, but also for coughing up the necessary kickbacks to the Tories.

Meanwhile, notwithstanding the fact that there will be a LibDem Minister of State in Defence (Nick Harvey), to keep an eye on shenanigans, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence Procurement is still going to be Gerald Howarth.

And, although Ashcroft is no longer Deputy Chairman of the Conservative Party, he will still wield influence since he continues to be the one granting access to the bank accounts with the past arms millions. And who’s to say he’s not waiting with new deposit slips in hand…??

The bottom line is this: there was massive arms corruption under the last two Tory Governments (although, on an aside, John Major did try to stop it, but got shafted by Rupert Murdoch and Sir James Goldsmith for his troubles – both businessmen also being beneficiaries of the arms largesse; with Sir James Goldsmith’s son, Zac, now a Conservative MP and Cameron BFF). And this arms corruption continued under New Labour – http://tinyurl.com/2dp79tj.

I honestly believe that Dave is hoping he can prevent a repeat. But he hasn’t completely cleared out the Augean Stables. It will be up to non-corrupt and progressive Tories to keep a weather eye on their own mob. And to LibDems to keep their Coalition partners under close scrutiny. Either that, or follow the activities of the individuals mentioned above, and find yourself eye-witness to the next major political scandal, as it unfolds.

Personally, I would really rather not find myself having to write a sequel to “Dead Men” in ten years time...

UK General Election 2010: Will David Cameron Be Hung Out To 'Dry'?

Well, the British polls are going up and down like Dick Cheney and Bill Clinton’s EKG’s. Probably giving British Tory Party Leader, David Cameron, more than the occasional heart murmur (http://tinyurl.com/ybtc3vm).

But the fact remains this: the Tories are ahead in the 60 most marginal UK Parliamentary Constituencies, and Young Dave is more than likely to succeed Gordon Brown as Prime Minister later this year.

However, it is becoming increasingly clear either that Dave may have only a very small overall majority (we have a lot of minority Parties in the UK), or even that he will find that he has the largest number of MP’s in the newly-elected Parliament, but without an overall majority – what we charmingly and somewhat grotesquely call a ‘hung’ Parliament (http://tinyurl.com/ydhghmn). And yes, we’ve heard all the jokes…

Now, contrary to what most of the pundits in the UK are speculating, I think that, in such circumstances, Dave is going to have difficulty governing with any consistency. Not because of his inability to keep the opposing Parties at bay. But due to the newfound, frisky independence of his own MP’s.

Just to set this in context. We all know that the underlying theme of Obama’s first year in office, and his continuing travails with healthcare reform, is how to keep the ranks of Senate Democrats lined up behind his proposals, so that Republicans cannot filibuster their passage – the so-called Super Majority of 60 Senators.

British Prime Ministers normally do not have such problems. In the UK Parliament, our Party Whips are more than mere window-dressing. They do actually wield power. And the tactics they use to ensure that every last one of the Prime Minister’s MP’s vote ‘Yes’ would make even the most extreme political dominatrix blush.

My favorite is what we call the Three Line Whip - http://tinyurl.com/yc2mqqk - which is basically a penalty flag, red card and air raid siren, all rolled into one. You defy one of these babies, and you are declaring that you became an MP because you really, really wanted to spend the rest of your life reviewing pest control problems in the Outer Hebrides.

The problem is that Dave (who as a politician, makes a pretty good Eton-educated barrow boy; he is to public relations what Lucifer is to sin)…where was I?...oh yes…Dave, in his all-consuming drive to return the Tories to government, after 13 years in the wilderness, has made sure that he hasn’t missed a trick to convince the British electorate of his sincerity.

That includes establishing himself as the Alpha and Omega when it comes to responding to the public’s disgust with professional politicians. No more, exclaims Dave. The Tories are now the Party of political purity.

Last summer, he issued an invitation for folks, who were not Tories, to apply to be his Members of Parliament. Every chosen Parliamentary Candidate has to sign a form undertaking that, in the event of a conflict of conscience between an elected MP’s own views and the interests of his constituents on the one hand, versus what his own Party and Prime Minister are urging on the other hand, the Tory MP must choose his conscience and constituents. Which effectively consigns the Tory Parliamentary Whips Office to toilet detail.

Of course, you say, no Tory MP is actually going to defy his Prime Minister. I mean, he or she wants to curry favor in order to get a plum job. Right? Not so fast. After this next Election, it may not be as simple as that.

The Tories are likely to be hanging on to government by their fingertips (you’ll have noticed lots of hanging references in British Parliamentary jargon). In order to win, the Tories will have to capture about 150-200 Parliamentary Seats from the other Parties – the largest electoral swing to the Tories since 1930. This new intake of Tory MP’s will be the single largest influx of Tory MP’s in one Election in history.

It will be the clearest representation possible of the irrefutable volatility of the British electorate. A volatility which is daily being recorded in those rollercoaster polls. An electorate which can swing so wildly one way, one day can just as quickly and violently swing the other way, the next day. Your average newbie Tory MP is going to know that. And they’re going to know that the job they want to protect is the one they already have (MP), rather than holding out hope for a job they might never get (Minister).

Time was, even a few decades ago, we all knew which were the safe seats and which the unsafe, for any given Party. Yet, boundaries have changed so much in the past couple of decades, politics has been so uncertain, that no-one really knows what the new ‘safe’ is. Every single one of those 150-200 new Tory MP’s (out of a total of about 350-400 Tory MP’s) is going to be sitting on what they will still regard as a marginal seat. That’ll make them more likely to want to please their new constituents, rather than their new Prime Minister.

Add to this the fact that, again, in his never-ending campaign to return the Tories to power, Dave insisted that seats choose their Candidates as early as possible in this last Parliamentary cycle, and that chosen Candidates then move lock, stock and barrel into their seats. None of this commuting to the country from the London ‘burbs. Dave wanted each and every one of his Candidates to be able to say, after a couple of years, ‘hey, I’m local, too.’

In his newfound progressivism, Dave also ‘invited’ all of his Candidates to undertake a welter of ‘social action’ projects in their respective constituencies, the more to ingratiate themselves with their chosen ‘locals.’

The upshot of all this is, when push comes to shove, most of this new intake of Tory MP’s is likely to turn around and say, ‘er, Dave, I’m just as responsible as you for my getting elected; I’ve got to consider my constituents if I want to keep the seat; nothing is certain with my constituents; and, by the way, you told me to put my constituents before you…so…sod off.’

It gets worse. The Party attaining power after an Election has to find about 150-190 MP’s to form a Government and fill important associated Parliamentary positions. Dave is highly unlikely to form a Government made up of MP’s who’ve only just been elected. So, he’s going to have to use the boys and girls who are already there. Who are not necessarily the ones calling for the Great Dave Progressive Revolution.

So. There may be something of a lag in Dave being able to introduce all those wonderful, radical ideas that he is convinced will (a) reform GB; and (b) ensure his re-election. Rendering even more wobbly his powers of persuasion when it comes to those newly-independent MP’s. Who, as I’ve just said, will be on the backbenches, not in Government. As a general rule, the Headboy tends to have more sway with his fellow Prefects than with the guys having a quick smoke behind the cricket pavilion…

Those nervous MP’s might be better persuaded if the Headboy was having demonstrable success on the national stage, rather than having to negotiate every day with a bunch of go-slow, has-beens from a previous era. An era which was visibly more right-wing than Dave’s current precocious and fragile progressive perch.

In other words, in his first year, Dave could be getting it from both ends. A Government made up of old-timey MP’s, who yearn for the days of Iron Maggie [Thatcher], and who may be a little leery of Dave’s touchy-feely ‘hug-a-hoodie’ approach. And a whole flock of backbenchers too new to be in Government, anxious at any sign of a lack of public progress, and nervously glancing over their shoulders at their constituents’ ever-changing outlook (http://tinyurl.com/yata6ba).

Add to this the fact that whoever is elected is going to face a smorgasbord of intractable problems – runaway government debt; an economy that could deflate if public spending cuts are too severe; and two wars in lands where the British have a history of getting a bloody nose. The chances are that Dave could be facing an inevitable one-term administration (not unlike Obama) – and I’m pretty certain all of the new intake of Tory MP’s will be painfully aware of this possibility also.

AND. Yes, it never ends! There is one other entity to which a Tory MP must pay constant obeisance – his or her Constituency Association. It matters not if you are an MP who was ever so graciously and delicately ‘parachuted’ into a seat by Central Conservative Campaign HQ. The Association retains the right to deselect you and find another.

The Associations are, at least for the moment, somewhat to the right of Our Dave. Look, some of them (cf. Norfolk, Suffolk, et al - http://tinyurl.com/yzmbcnl) are to the right of Attila the Hun and Cardinal Richelieu. As a general rule, Associations will pretty much back anyone or anything that puts the Tories back in Government. But not necessarily this time.

In addition to being a tad unhappy about some of Dave’s ‘wetter’ policy initiatives, the goodly folk in Association Land are definitely up in arms about his attempts to impose his chosen Candidates on Associations, which fiercely protect their prerogative to choose their own Candidates and MP’s (http://tinyurl.com/ygz6k3d).

At the slightest sign of anything other than overwhelming success by Dave at the top, it may well be that these Associations will exact their revenge by replacing their ‘wet’ Flopsy Mopsy, MP with something a little more ‘dry’ – say, Sir Hunting Horsewhip, MP. [Er…’wet’ = progressive; ‘dry’ = Thatcherite…for my US Friends.]

Are you beginning to sense a potential trend here? Far from being a wave of New Tory progressivism, Dave’s election may well herald a return of old-style Thatcherism. First, with the old-timers he may have to call on to man his new Government. And then, with a new intake of MP’s nervous about failure and anxious of what their Associations might do to them (http://tinyurl.com/ya4c6tf).

Where it gets really interesting is how Dave decides he has to react to such a trend. Let’s back up a bit. If this coming Election leaves the UK with a hung Parliament, the word is that Dave will introduce the Budget he wants (regardless of old-timer MP’s, new intake, Associations or constituents), and then dare the opposing Parties to reject it.

Whether they do or not, it is highly likely that we will see another Election within the year. I do not think that that Election will have any more clear a result than the first. In which event, Dave has already indicated that he is not unwilling to make overtures to the middle-of-the-road Liberal Democrats (http://tinyurl.com/ybjyvgu).

Your average hot-blooded Tory Constituency activist would rather walk on hot coals, and then feed them to his progeny, than join forces with the Liberal Democrats. But Dave wants power. Or rather, his Notting Hill-set Tories want power that badly. And that’s his position now – he’d do a deal with the progressive Liberal Democrats to attain or stay in power.

Let’s say in this next Election, or a second, after the first leaves us with a hung Parliament, let’s say Dave ends up with a smallish overall majority or a second hung Parliament. Let’s say he finds it difficult, nigh on impossible, to negotiate a path through his now frisky and more right-wing old-timers/Associations/fearful new intake, et al, on the one hand, and Liberal Democrats on the other. Let’s say it all ends in yet another Vote of Confidence in Parliament (the convention being that, if you lose one of those, you have to call another Election). Throwing all of that into the pot, might Dave decide re-alignment is the answer?

I mean, I’ll give him a little credit. I think he may be a genuine progressive. Whether I’m right on that or not, Dave definitely understands politics and public relations, and feels as much fealty to old-style Thatcherism as a hermit crab feels to an old shell (http://tinyurl.com/yk7wmvs).

I think that Dave knows that a lurch to the right would spell doom for his Party in any ensuing Election. The future, at least for the moment resides in the middle.

I’m not sure how it would happen, but in the light of all my Sunday-morning meanderings above, I have an inkling that, within the next ten years, we might see a major re-alignment in British politics: Dave (and the likes of the Miliband Brothers (Labour) and Nick Clegg, Vince Cable (Liberal Democrats)) leading a new (what?) Liberal Conservative Party; the Tory right joining forces with UKIP; and a substantial rump of the old Labour Party (100 MP’s?) remaining, well, the old Labour Party.

And one final prediction? If that new Liberal Conservative combo doesn’t finally put the issues of Europe and immigration to rest, then, within twenty years, I’m guessing we’ll have a very reactionary Tory/UKIP Government in Great Britain – likely, with Daniel Hannan as Prime Minister…

Are We Impoverishing The US Anti-Poverty Effort?

My concern, now that we have earmarked multiple trillions of the public purse to bailing out banks and building bridges, is that we will have squeezed the money available to meet the goal established by Barack's new Domestic Policy Council Director, Melody Barnes, to cut poverty in the US in half within 10 years.

In my opinion, that goal will require not only new resources, but a totally new way of approaching the task, both of which may now be in jeopardy.

When Barack's economic stimulus package was first touted, my concern was that there would be so much money floating around that it would require a blunderbuss approach to distributing the money, and that blunderbuss approach would upset the delicate and intricate networks of support that are already doing such amazing work at the grassroots with at risk communities.

That was when I began talking about Offices of Direct Venture Development (http://geoffgilson.wordpress.com), to act as a buffer between well-meaning but over-powerful national and state government efforts and those well-balanced community initiatives.

I saw the Offices not only helping to target and distribute sensitively resources downwards, but also acting as focal points for translating upwards the actual needs of the troops on the ground and their successful experiences, so that policy-makers would be as much informed by community experience as by the input received from Washington think tanks.

Now my worry is that there may be too little money available from the Obama Administration to fund anti-poverty programs - new and existing. So it is that my focus has shifted to finding ways to use what little money there may be, whether from private or public sources, to fund both existing and new programs (government and non-profit), all of which suffer from their own paucity of funding. I have posted a couple of articles about this on the same blog.

Whatever may be the eventual outcome with the availability of resources for the anti-poverty effort, there are other issues which I see complicating any successful effort to achieve the Half in Ten goal.

First, the main emphasis of the mainstream anti-poverty movement has generally been about addressing the causes of poverty. I welcome all the initiatives that are proposed, whether it be improving education, affordable housing or the availability of union membership. But my personal emphasis is on addressing the immediate consequences of poverty.

I have a separate blog which deals with this in more detail: http://focusonpoverty.blogspot.com. The bottom line is that I want Barack, along with Half in Ten, to commit his Administration to the proposition that every man, woman and child in the US deserves access to adequate food, clothing, housing and healthcare.

By all means, let's do what we can about cause. It may take ten years, it may take thirty. But all it takes is willpower to commit to allowing everybody below the poverty line to have access to adequate food, clothing housing and healthcare - tomorrow.

And money. My four part radio series calculated about $200 billion a year. And that's why I'm worried that we have mortgaged so much of the public purse to bailing out banks and building bridges.

The next wrinkle is that many of the most at risk communities are located in rabidly conservative (both religious and political) parts of the country. It will require enormous delicacy and respect to go into those communities and negotiate with their pride and independence to help them be empowered to help themselves - under a liberal President, most of them despise.

And make no mistake, we let ourselves down as true progressives if we do not meet that challenge, and allow these neighbors of ours the same opportunity to help themselves - on their terms - as we would rabidly liberal communities.

It's precisely these sorts of challenges I relish having the opportunity to meet. I'll be honest. I am actively looking to find or create a role for myself that allows me to help in this fashion. If any reader has any suggestions, please do not be shy about contacting me or passing the message around your own networks.

But whether it is me or someone else, whether it is supported by Barack, his administration, a set of non-profits or private sources, I hope that we take the opportunity of this truly progressive administration to realize the vision of Robert Kennedy and Martin Luther King, and eradicate poverty once and for all in this, the richest country the world has ever known.

And I genuinely pray that I am proven wrong, and that the money we have allocated elsewhere does not impoverish the anti-poverty effort in the US.

Are We Over-Stimulating The US Economy?

I believe that we are where we are because governments around the world have been over-stimulating their economies since the late Eighties. Every time it has come time to pay the piper, we have put off the day of reckoning by literally printing more money.

I’m going to spend a quick moment wondering whether we in the US are about to do the same thing again, with this currently much over-stimulated economic stimulus package.

Now, don’t get me wrong. I’m tickled beyond pink that Obama is our President. But he’s one man, dealing with some 750 congress people. And no one man is always right – as even he has conceded.

But we have a couple of economic rescue packages (bank bail-out and economic stimulus) that, last year, were pegged at the low hundreds of billions, and are now edging multiple trillions.

It’s a sensible time to pause and double-check we’re doing the right thing. My doubts are both general and specific.

Generally speaking, as an avowed social economic libertarian, I believe that there is always a price to pay for artificially stimulating the economy.

Provided the price does not outweigh the short-term benefit, and provided those who are less able to fend for themselves do not get left behind, I’m not always closed to the concept.

So long as everyone sees it as a short-term bridge to getting back to the natural economy.

What bothers me is when we start talking about economic stimulus as being a long-term tool. For example, when we say that short-term tax-cuts (Bush) should be made permanent, or ‘government is creating jobs’ (Obama).

Government does not create jobs. What it can do is provide a temporary moment when the economy is in transition, when industry is in transition, and use that breathing space to help people re-locate, re-train – whatever it is that needs to be done to empower people to adjust to a new economic reality.

But when government pretends that there is no new economic reality, and simply encourages people to carry on as before, then government does its people a disservice. And governments, of all political persuasions, around the world, have been doing just that since the late Eighties.

Imagine the wealth of a country is a solid wooden table. That table represents all the products that its people create – their actual value. The actual value of property (not the speculative value).

You can’t drag the table around the world as you try to import goods and services. So, you have currency, with which to exchange.

If you don’t have enough money to buy those goods, you can be sensible and wait until you have created enough of your own products, so that you have enough actual wealth to be able to print more money. Or, you can be reckless, and just go ahead and print more money, and buy the bauble today.

We’ve been doing the latter since 1987. Every time there was an event which reduced the value of our property (Stock Market crashes, economic recessions), instead of waiting until the natural wealth of our economy got back on course, we’ve simply printed more money.

But, we’ve done worse that that. We’ve printed the money in a way that hides the fact that we’ve been doing it. We haven’t printed new dollar bills as such. We’ve increased the amount of digital money. By increasing the amount of electronic credit that is available.

We do that primarily by artificially reducing interest rates. And when that option is no longer available (because our interest rates are close to zero), we come up with other measures, which we grandly entitle ‘encouraging banks to lend’ – sound familiar?

What this does is reduce the value of our currency. We have the same amount of actual wealth, but we’re just telling the rest of the world that it is represented by more money.

Naturally, the rest of the world wants more money to sell its goods and services to us, and so the price of their goods and services goes up. That’s called inflation. And that’s what we had, in rampant version, back in the Seventies.

Nowadays we get around inflation by borrowing from the Chinese and the Arabs. We say to foreigners: here, we’ll give you more money for the same goods, but the extra won’t be coming from us, it will be covered by this nice Chinese gentleman instead.

That way, we Americans are not footing our bill with inflation, we’re getting the Chinese to foot the bill for us, instead. A little over-simplified, but it will do.

The problem is, there is still a price to pay. Interest payments. And the size of those payments had become so large that we don’t have enough money to do the things we want to do, like fix roads and build new schools.

So now we come up with that money by introducing an economic stimulus package. Which will be paid for with more borrowing. Which will put us deeper in debt.

And so the cycle continues. And so it is that I’m generally not in favor of artificial economic stimulus.

Instead, it’s time to get off the train as it hurtles towards the precipice, let the economy heal itself, and focus our efforts on empowering our people to meet the new realities properly prepared, and to ensure that everyone has an equal opportunity to engage in those new realities, and to set in place a genuinely respectful safety net which cares for those in our society, who are unable to care for themselves, in a truly dignified fashion.

It is time to stop acting like children, with a never-ending candy jar. Or better still, it’s time to stop treating our fragile economy like an over-stimulated child.

We wonder why the child will not go to bed, why it engages in behavior which is unhealthy for us, and we don’t realize it’s because we keep on stimulating the child.

Stop feeding Little Joe-Boy caffeine and sugar up the wazoo, and letting him watch action movies at 9.00pm at night, and you’ll find that Little Joe-Boy will simply return to normal child behavior. Same with our economy.

But leaving aside the nauseating metaphors, and my general doubts about economic stimulus, what about the specific packages before us?

Well, cast your mind back to the summer of last year, and the original chatter about bank bail-outs. We were talking then about a measured response in the financial sector, to stop the sector completely collapsing, and a package to help home-owners.

We are now a hiccup away from a slew of nationalized American banks, and the latest piece of candy is a proposal to give a $15,000 tax break to people who buy houses in 2009.

I’m not going to spend much time on banks. There are people out there who know more about banks than me. Besides, it’s no secret that we’re all sick and tired of executives paying themselves huge bonuses out of the bail-out money, and not making that money available to ordinary people. And Obama is doing something about that.

But let’s look at the $15,000 proposal as one which may not be necessary, or not necessary in its current form.

First thing. Why on earth are we encouraging anyone to spend money they do not naturally possess, when that is what caused this problem in the first place?

Ok. I might be persuaded by the argument that we’re in such a stagnant mess, if we don’t do something, it might all become a depression. And that is the only reason I support any kind of economic stimulus/bank bail-out at all.

But I’d be more persuaded by this latest measure if it was qualified by saying, for example, it is only available to buy a primary residence, and the tax break has to be repaid with interest if the house is sold within, say, five years, to prevent speculation.

It’s that same sort of reasonable restraint that I see lacking from the now burgeoning economic stimulus package.

In the early autumn, we were talking about a couple of hundred billion dollars, to put a bit of money in the hands of the hard-pressed middle class, and increasing entitlements to those in poverty, to help them through these particularly difficult times.

Now, we have a trillion dollar pork barrel that makes Sarah Palin and her Bridge to Nowhere look like Scrooge. Whoa. Time to put the brakes on.

The bottom line is that this package should not be, and never should have been, about designing a whole new pseudo-economic paradigm, where the state becomes owner, businessman and capitalist.

Governments do not make good business people. I know. I lived through it in the UK. And Brits have spent the last 30 years trying to wean themselves away from a nanny state, which cuts people off at the knees, rather than empowering or serving them. I do not want to see the same thing happen in the US.

In my opinion, this economic stimulus package will best serve Americans if it limits itself to what it should be – a one-off measure to put some money temporarily in peoples’ hands, to see them through the transition of this horrible recession, and prepare them for taking advantage of what will await us all on the other side.

So yes, let’s give the middle class a break. And I’m delighted we’re doing it by $20 a paycheck. It’s supposed to be a helping hand. Not another opportunity to buy something we don’t need.

I’m delighted that there are measures to increase entitlements to those who are not able currently to fend for themselves.

By all means, let’s create a limited number of temporary jobs, to help those in areas worst hit by the changes underway in our economy – for example, in Detroit.

And yes, let’s invest a measured amount in the future of our country and its economy. In green technology, in schools, in a certain amount of infrastructure.

But beyond that, let’s get back to reality. Let’s reduce this economic stimulus package to something in the order of maybe $600-$700 billion.

Government has no business promising to ‘create’ 3-4 million jobs. That’s the business of business.

This package should not be an excuse for state governments to balance their budgets, for congressmen to offload every pork barrel project they’re been hoarding the last couple of years, and it should stand for more than a dozen more Bridges to Nowhere.

Barack Obama promised us a new way to govern. To do that, he will need eventually to wield a full pen when it comes to executing line-item veto. He can begin with his own economic stimulus package. A package which Congress is merrily turning into next year’s overstuffed Christmas turkey.

I say all of this not to undermine Barack Obama, but to support him. Like him, I want a grassroots administration that listens to its people, and then serves them. I want policies that genuinely reflect the needs of those who are in receipt of the benefits. [see -http://geoffgilson.wordpress.com]

And I want a government that recognizes that there is no such thing as ‘government investment.’

What government invests is taxpayers’ dollars. It’s our money. The peoples’ money. And what I want, and I know that Barack wants it too, is for that tax money to be invested wisely, and on our behalf. Not on behalf of Congressman and their lobbyists. And not on behalf of company executives, financial speculators and foreign bankers.

I’m not sure this economic stimulus package, in its current form, is wise. I hope it will see many changes in the coming weeks. And I care not a fig that those changes may, initially, be proposed by Republicans or Red-Dog Democrats.

One of the most promising features of Barack Obama is that he has shown that he is not afraid to accept advice from any quarter, and he is equally then not afraid to change course if it ensures that the outcome is the one that best serves the American people. It is why I am so encouraged we have him at the helm in these challenging times.

It’s why I supported him last year, and it’s why I will continue to support him. Even when I don’t necessarily agree with every ‘i’ that he dots and ‘t’ that he crosses.

I hope that he will demonstrate that same courage and cool temperament with the bank bail-out and economic stimulus packages, and openly welcome honest debate and bi-partisan amendment. 

I hope he uses this unique opportunity to enable the passage of historic measures that truly break with Washington’s normal ways, and genuinely serve the ordinary people of our country.

The Great American Giveaway [by Paul Aaron]

[Paul Aaron is a well-known poet and progressive activist in Hillsborough, North Carolina. He is also my brother-in-law.

He, like me, believes that the work of resurrecting hope in this country only began with the Election of President Obama.

It will require each one of we citizen activists, through networks like Blogger, to continue to articulate what we want an Obama Presidency actually to do.

And almost more importantly, what sort of a 'feel' we want it to have, and to generate in our country, and around the world.

This is Paul's opening shot on the subject of taxes. I don't necessarily agree with all that he says.

But, he doesn't have a Blogger account with friends. I do. The most important defense of democracy is to be found in the constant dissemination of knowledge. I'm happy to help him disseminate his.]

Who paid for World War I?

“I did,” said John the baker. “I worked hard to feed soldiers and civilians. I didn’t make much money, but I did my part. I was a patriot and saved the world.”

Who paid for World War II?

“I did,” said GI Joe. “I fought to keep the United States of America free. While I was overseas, my wife, Jessica, ran her restaurant and paid her taxes. Kept our country out of debt. That war cost our country lots of money but everyone paid their taxes to keep our country’s economy strong.”

Who paid for the Korean war?

“I did,” said June the factory worker. “I built airplane wings for our fighter pilots. My pay was low but I was a patriot and paid my taxes to support my country.”

Who paid for the Viet Nam war?

“I did,” said GI Jane. “My husband, already disabled in the war, worked from his wheelchair. While I was in Nam he paid taxes to support our country and to make sure our country did not go into debt.”

Who paid for the Iraq war?

“Not me,” said Joe the plumber. “I needed a tax break while our soldiers fought.”

“Not me,” said Jill the stock broker. “I made lots of money here at home while the Armed Services did their work over there. I didn’t have to pay a cent, and now the bailout has covered my company’s losses.”

“And not me,” said Jim the banker. “I bought a second house and then a third. I like it when we fight these wars. I especially like the tax breaks.”

Then who is paying for this war?

“Not me,” said Jewell the political activist. “Our President said that we can be patriots, watching while the soldiers and the security contractors fight this war. Our national debt is huge and someone will have to pay it off.”

I’ve been thinking about the word “tax.” The word “tax” riles us. Yet, President James Madison believed that “taxes are what make a civilized society.” Similarly, the word “king” has a nice image but if we visualize the United States ruled by one, the word is suddenly not so attractive and romantic. Context always changes meaning.

Perhaps “tax” is actually good. We are not taxed to fund a king's dynasty; we are United States citizens and therefore, we the people are the government. By paying taxes, we provide crucial resources for ourselves. How can essential taxes be characterized so negatively?

“Tax cut” sounds so nice in some contexts. We must find a new word to replace “tax” so that we can feel good while we pay for our necessary services. Or we can create a context for Americans that links “tax” to “roads,” “schools,” “safety,” “democracy,” “freedom,” and “liberty.”

How did we get to this desperate economic place? We redistribute wealth by having tax breaks for the upper class—to the billionaire CEOs and corporations—to the hedge fund money managers and the oil magnates, and by increasing every day costs such as gasoline and food. Redistribution of wealth to the super wealthy is still redistribution of wealth.

The rich get richer, the poor get poorer and the middle-class gets squeezed out. Joe the plumber and Jessica the restaurant owner will do just fine if we stop redistributing the wealth to the wealthy through corporate tax breaks.

So who is paying for the gasoline our military trucks use? Who is paying for the security contractors of Blackwater. Who is paying for the Halliburton meals for our troops?

“I am paying,” smiled the president of China. “America has borrowed all its money from me. For China, it is good that American citizens do not pay their taxes for this war. We make money hand over fist from every dollar borrowed to pay for the Iraq war. Then we can buy land in America. We bought a good piece of IBM, too. We own America.”

“No, I am the financier,” smiled North Korea. “America has borrowed its money from me. For North Korea, it is good that American citizens do not pay their taxes. We own America.”

“And I am,” smiled a European tourist on a shopping spree, buying up a piece of Manhattan. “In the last 18 months we tourists bought one-third of all new Manhattan condos that were for sale, while native New Yorkers remained worried about bonuses and the economic climate,” (paraphrase from Christine Haughney of the New York Times of December 21, 2007).

“And I am,” smiled the United Arab Emirates. “Abu Dhabi Media is flush with oil cash. We reached a $1 billion deal to make movies and video games with Warner Brothers, the big Hollywood studio owned by Time Warner,” (paraphrased from Tim Arango of the September 3, 2008 New York Times). “For the United Arab Emirates, it is very good that American citizens do not pay their taxes for this war. We, too, own America.”

“And I am,” smiled Saudi Arabia. “China pays us for oil from money they make investing in the Iraq war. We, too, own America.”

Wow! So you all get rich because of our tax breaks. Is that right?

“Oh, but we like your corporate tax breaks,” say China, North Korea, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates (but not Europe, who is now suffering their own recession). “Your corporate tax breaks make us money.”

OK, so you’re saying corporate tax breaks come from thinking that if the rich get richer, money trickles down all the way to the poor, and we all share the wealth.

“Yup, but the only people who are sharing the wealth are us,” say China, North Korea, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and the billionaire American CEOs and hedge fund managers. “And we like it...”