The Obscurer

Perhaps someone could help me out here, but was Fagin, from “Oliver Twist”, a hypnotist as well as a pickpocket? I’ve never read Dickens’s novel, and it is a few years since I last watched “Oliver!”; but I don’t remember anything about hypnotism. There certainly isn’t a song called “Look into my eyes”, I know that for sure.

The reason I am asking, of course, is because of the minor furore that has reared its head following a couple of Labour Party political adverts. The first, depicting Michael Howard and Oliver Letwin as flying pigs, alongside the words “The day the Tory sums add up” was criticised since both Howard and Letwin are Jewish, and of course the pig is not considered kosher. Now, if Jewish people are genuinely offended by this sort of thing, then who am I to argue? Personally, I think it is just a lame idea and that is the end of the matter. Yes pigs might fly when the Tory sums add up, and pigs might fly when one of the parties thinks up a genuinely clever advert. I would like to think, in this day and age, that people don’t go around thinking of Howard and Letwin as Jews anyway; I certainly don’t, and much as I dislike Alistair Campbell (whose ranting email to the BBC was hilarious, and illustrated why I have missed him really) I doubt he does either; I cannot imagine he would deliberately come up with an anti-Semitic poster. As I say, I cannot argue that the idea isn’t offensive as I am not Jewish, but I am pretty sure it is not anti-Semitic; the thought that Labour would purposefully indulge in such a campaign seems ridiculous.

Having just recovered from that, out comes the next idea, showing Michael Howard swinging a watch, and the words “I can spend the same money twice”. Now I would think that this is a not particularly sophisticated allusion suggesting that for you to believe the Tories’ sums you would need to be hypnotised, but it seems I have not looked deep enough into it. Apparently, it is said, this is a reference to the famous hypnotist Fagin; I would say it might as well be a reference to Paul Mckenna or some even less famous act currently playing to empty houses on Blackpool’s North pier. Even stranger, it has also been suggested that this advert may be a reference to Shylock. Who next? Maureen Lipman from those BT adds? Well, I have read “The Merchant of Venice”, although it was a while ago, and I am pretty sure there is nothing about hypnotism in the play.

Anyway, if the advert is meant to show Howard as Shylock, it does make me wonder just how many 16th century Venetians carried pocket watches around with them; presumably more than I thought. If the advert said “he wants to pick a pocket or two”, or “he wants a pound of flesh”, then perhaps the critics would have a point.

I hope that this is mainly just about politics; Labour have come up with some ideas for a negative ad campaign, and the Tories have found a way to try to discredit them. In itself this is fair enough; I have no problem with a bit of negative campaigning (why not show the folly in your opponents policies?) so long as there is some positive campaigning too, and some adverts, like the 1979 “Labour isn’t Working” poster can rightly be considered as classics. Bruce Anderson in The Independent considers that “this election campaign is already one of the dirtiest ever” and the “Tories have a problem. Will they retaliate in kind, or do they try to take the moral high ground?” This suggests he is already trying to claim the moral high ground for the Tories – “they started it” – and so when the Tories inevitably do attack Labour they can claim this in their defence.

But you could say that the Tory negative campaign has already begun; the charge of anti-Semitism against Labour is negative in itself. Anderson even says that one of the Labour tactics is “the repeated use of Michael Howard’s name in Labour election material aimed at Muslims. Michael Howard, Michael Howard: if the name is repeated enough, Labour assumes that Muslims will get the subliminal message. The leader of the Tory party is a J.. – is Michael Howard.” If even mentioning the Tory leader’s name is anti-Semitic, then Labour really are in trouble.

Whatever the reason, whether it is out of genuine offence, or political point scoring, I think that the accusations of anti-Semitism are unhelpful; it is a term full of historical meaning, entwined with evil, through the pogroms, through the holocaust. Genuine anti-Semitism is nasty and ugly, but it is also a terrible charge to make against someone; and if it is going to be bandied about in the way it has been in the past week or so, then I think it that as a term it will become devalued.

PostScript: the latest Labour idea is for Howard and Letwin to be standing holding a blackboard with the sum “2+2=5” written upon it in chalk. Well, I am sorry, but this is simply outrageous. How can 2+2=5 unless there is some interest charged, unless there is some usury afoot. This is a clear reference to Shylock. I don’t know if you know, but both Howard and Letwin are Jews! This is an affront to our intelligence. I demand the adverts withdrawal.

I haven’t written about the Tsunami before, because I haven’t written about much at all recently; the Christmas period has found me ridiculously busy, and when it hasn’t found me busy it has found me poorly. Also, my young son is now walking a lot more and sleeping a lot less, which impacts upon my free time and may well ultimately challenge the whole viability of this blog; but for the time being I am still here.

However, specifically relating to the Tsunami, I somewhat agree for once with Mark Steyn when he says that, initially at least, “It didn’t seem the kind of thing to have an ‘opinion’ on, even for an opinion columnist – not like who should win the election or whether we should have toppled Saddam. It was obviously a catastrophe, and it was certain the death toll would keep rising, and other than that there didn’t seem a lot to opine about.”

But of course eventually Steyn has found something to comment on, as have I; and it is about the way people have reacted to the crisis, and the issues surrounding it, specifically the whole issue of aid and how it is administered. I have been amazed about the petty, trivial issues which have aroused comment in the wake of such a terrible event.

For one thing there has been the relentless criticisms of the Government. Now, I speak as someone who thinks of Blair as a sickening, self-obsessed individual, leading a party about which the best that can be said it that they are not the Tories; but the constant sniping about whether or not Blair should have cut short his holiday just leaves me baffled with the irrelevance of it. I have my own ideas, as I’m sure does everybody, about whether Blair has acted correctly, but in the grand scheme of things, when we are dealing with a matter which has left 150,000 dead, the whys and wherefores about Blair’s holiday rate for little; and yet this theme has been returned to again and again. Then there have been the continuous updates on how much money the British public have raised for the Tsunami appeal, which is all well and good; but this is then used as a stick to beat the Government with over its own contribution. Why? Who are the people criticising how much the Government (in reality, of course, the Taxpayer) is providing? They are not the charities themselves, or the Governments of the affected peoples, who you would imagine have some idea of what sums are required, but journalists, happy to sow some discord in order to fill column inches or air time. Then when Gordon Brown floats the idea of debt relief for the affected nations, before he has even closed his mouth we hear questions about “how can we ensure this debt relief will be spent wisely?”; a valid question perhaps, but one which surely can wait until the proposal is actually accepted. It seems more important to criticise and pick holes than actually report the facts. One valid point is the questioning of the 3 minutes silence for the victims of the tsunami; why 3 minutes, it has been asked, rather than 2 minutes, or 1. This is actually something I can understand – I would say a 2 minutes silence is sufficient – but it seemed totally unnecessary for there to be criticism of the 3 minutes on the day of the silence itself; for example, the Daily Mail interviewed a war veteran, asking him his opinions in the light of there only being a 2 minutes silence on Armistice Day. Was it not possible to do the decent thing, to just observe the silence, and to hold the post-mortem some other time?

Regarding the amounts of aid money which have been provided around the world, there is something unpleasant I think in so many reports giving space to tables showing who has given what, as if there is some sort of competition going on to prove who is the most generous. This meant that originally some accused the United States of being stingy due to their small initial aid pledge; this despite the the fact that US Armed forces were some of the first to deliver aid, and that the aid pledge itself was then massively increased, making the critics look rather silly. In turn, however, this initial raw data was then endlessly analysed by people who don’t like the conclusions drawn from some of these tables, and they sought to re-interpret the figures to prove their own point. It all seemed like an unseemly scrabble to justify your position to me, and for what? Do the people who write these thing poll their friends on how much they have given to charity, then adjust the figures based on each persons income, then expenditure, then saving, and keep playing around with statistics until there is a table of generosity with themselves sat at the top?

Others have used the Tsunami to defend and support their own world view, however inappriaoriate it may all seem; so we have my dear friends at Biased BBC hitting out at what they perceive as the corporation’s anti-American bias in their coverage (presumably this is a different BBC to the one I have heard referring to the US as leading the aid effort). One way to support your world view is to talk about who is best (and as a consequence, who is worst) at administering the aid; so, Tim Worstall decides the situation is useful ammunition to criticise what he sees as failings in the UN, the EU, the State in general…basically everything he argues against anyway; Clare Short uses the tragedy to attack the US, Blair and the Iraq War; and Mark Steyn, apparently stung by what he sees as criticism of the US response, answers with some of his own, well worn anti-UN rhetoric.

Now I don’t know exactly what is going on in the relief effort in South East Asia – I’m not there – but I don’t feel I am gaining much from such reporting which generally seem light on fact and heavy on bias, is largely anecdotal, and is more comment than commentary. Of course the media do have an important role in highlighting genuine problems in administering aid, but much of what has been written seems vague and one sided. I understand that Steyn’s article, for example, was written in response to what he felt were unfair comments by Jan Egeland of the UN, but in all it begins looking like a tit-for-tat exercise, “my aid is bigger and better than your aid” and I just don’t see the point. And even if some of the criticisms are valid – and I dare say all parties could be criticised to some degree if you want to look hard enough – is this really the time to climb aboard your favourite hobby-horse? Jim of “Our word is our weapon” is surely right when he says “Why should it be so hard to say that everyone who is helping those affected by the tsunami – be they local people, Australian marines, American helicopter pilots, and yes, even United Nations staff – deserve our thanks and admiration?”. An obvious point you would have though, but one which looks like it has to be made.

It used to be said that crises brought everyone together, however diverse our opinions. Whether this was ever true I don’t know, but it certainly doesn’t seem to be the case judging by some individuals’ take on the terrible events of Boxing Day. You would think that the silly things that divide us would count for little in the face of such a monumental tragedy. But it seems not.

Eagle-eyed reader(s?) may have noticed the NØ2ID button which has been added to the sidebar of this site; between the search box and the adverts (which you are free to click on, by the way, and so provide me with another 10 cents revenue!). This is because I have decided to finally get off the fence on the issue of ID cards.

I should explain that the reason I have been reluctant to take sides up until now is because I have been one of the “I’ve got nothing to hide” brigade, as ridiculed recently by Jarod Borries. If people really want to collate a load of information about me, I thought, then good luck to them; I can’t imagine it being of any interest to anyone. I have always thought that, should I attract a stalker, rather than trying to hide away and be secretive I would welcome them into my home, talk to them and tell them all about my life. They would soon be so bored that they would just leave me alone and pick on some other, more enigmatic prey.

On the other hand, although I haven’t any huge civil liberties fears, I have always thought it would be a complete waste of time. Once ID cards are up and running, I’d give it about 6 months before there are forgeries out there; perhaps sooner. With regards terrorism, unless you have to specify on the application form that you are a member of a terrorist group, I cannot see why terrorists are not perfectly legally entitled to hold an ID card; after all, most Irish Terrorists held British Passports. Concerning social security fraud, I don’t know how an ID card will have any effect on those employers who currently illegally employ people on a cash in hand basis.

So it may be a harmless waste of time, but should it be actively opposed? Well, the more I think about it, yes. For one thing, the “I’ve got nothing to hide” argument relies on the fact that we don’t live in a South American Dictatorship; but the recent Queen’s Speech, with a heavy accent on more authoritarian law and order measures, along with recent legislation which has resulted in the situation of the Belmarsh Detainees (terrorists so dangerous that they are free to go to any country that will have them!) makes me wonder just what direction we are going in; the lazy phrase “the thin end of the wedge” springs to mind.

And then, this week, there was the news that the authoritarian wing of the Conservative Party had outflanked its libertarian wing, in deciding to support the Government in next weeks vote on ID cards. All of a sudden it seems like a done deal, and to prevent ID cards we are going to have to rely on Liberal Democrats and whip-defying backbenchers. This is the shock which forced me to make up my mind. When I then read on the “NO2ID” website that there are over 50 pieces of information which could be accessed via your ID card, it confirmed my opinion that this is something to be fought against before it is too late.

Of course, it won’t be David Blunkett, but Charles Clarke who will implement the ID cards scheme, following Blunkett’s resignation last night. I can’t see there being a massive change in the direction of the Home Office under Clarke, but we shall see. He seems to exhibit a similar sort of arrogance to that which Blunkett displayed, and which to my eyes made him a poor Home Secretary and the worst kind of politician. It is often said that the best ruler is one who would have to be reluctantly dragged to the despatch box; in fact we we often seem to get egotists desperate to flex their muscles, and to expand and display their own powers. That certainly appeared to be the case with Blunkett; someone who introduced rafts of legislation conveying more power to the state and to himself. An illustration is the 2002 Police Reform Act, which allowed the Home Secretary to suspend a Police Forces’ Chief Constable. Once it was introduced I always got the impression that Blunkett couldn’t wait for an opportunity to put it into practice, and indeed he didn’t wait long; requiring Humberside Police Authority to suspend Chief Constable David Westwood following the Bichard Enquiry into the Soham Murders.

However, I do feel a certain sympathy regarding the manner of his exit. His paternity battle was unpleasant and ugly, but I understand and can empathise with his position. This led to the allegations surrounding the visas and train tickets, and which ultimately led to his resignation; but how many other people have fiddled their expenses or given preferential treatment to friends in a professional capacity? I am not saying it is right, but it is hardly a hanging offence. In the end I think it was the daily accumulation of negative headlines, along with the incredibly ill-judged criticisms of his colleagues in Stephen Pollard’s biography which left him friendless in Westminster, and so made his position untenable. He probably went for the wrong reasons, but he has at least gone.

However, as I said earlier, I don’t I think it will make much of a difference to the behaviour of the Home Office; and judging by Tony Blair’s eulogy in accepting his resignation (“You leave government with your integrity intact and your achievements acknowledged by all. You are a force for good in British politics and can take great pride in what you have done to improve the lives of people in this country”) I doubt he will be out of Government for long.