Whoring for the people

No.57: Democracy - The meaning of this word should be unambiguous. Derived from the Greek Demos (people) and Kratos (government), democracy should mean one thing: government by popular mandate.

Although MPs enter politics to serve the people, conflicts of interest are bound to occur at some point. They might wonder, are they in Parliament solely to serve the people? Or do they also have a duty to help out the lobbyists who hang out in Westminster. These lobbyists will often encourage MPs to see the world through their eyes. They might wave cash in front of them, thinking this'll help them focus. But instead the cash can cloud the judgment of these tired, overworked souls, leaving them listless and confused. Many become so disorientated they find themselves unwittingly working for the lobbyists, occasionally even influencing legislation in their favour.

This trend has inevitably altered the original meaning of the word democracy. And it is high time modern dictionaries reflected the fact. Here is our own breakdown of past and present definitions:-


Earliest definition:

-  Athenian democracy - voting rights for all who are deemed 'citizens' - a relatively small proportion of the population by today's standards.

Later definitions (between C17th and C20th) :

- Government of the people, by the people, for the people. Ideally a contract (or compact) between the people and those governing on their behalf

Current definition:

- "The People's Government!! Whatever we do, we do it for you!" (Please refer to the Government handbook, Terms and Definitions for more about how it defines "The People".)

Why MPs are NOT whores

Channel Four's Dispatches has revealed Senior Labour politicians are willing to offer their services for cash. Despite the outcry this has caused, it is nevertheless wrong to liken MPs to whores simply because they are 'for hire'. Here are some points worth considering:-

- Whores are by and large willing to adopt any position - relative to pay. MPs are by contrast principled men and women who enter Parliament having adopted a specific position, and from this they rarely shift. It therefore follows that no amount of money would encourage an MP to, say, role over and "take it from behind" - unless, of course, that were already their adopted position.

- Whores NEVER give money to clients, whilst MPs do freely. We saw for example how the Chancellor Alistair Darling handed billions of pounds to investment bankers from 2008 onwards despite the "dangerous games" they wanted to play. The average whore would almost certainly expect a premium in return for such games, and some might even refuse to offer their services altogether.

- Whores can be unreliable. They can also leave clients with "nasty surprises". The shame of going to the doctor or explaining a rash to a partner can often make a client wonder whether the visit was really worth it. An assignation with an MP is an altogether pleasanter experience, with the client being entertained in the Houses of Parliament, treated to to the best food and receiving stellar treatment courtesy of the UK taxpayer. Very rarely are such clients disappointed - and very few will feel the need to see a doctor.

- Prostitution is illegal for both the client and the whore. Whereas being an MP - albeit an MP for hire - is not.

- For whores, prostitution is the sole source of income. MPs, as we all know, have many sources, all of which are considered highly respectable.

- MPs often pay visits to whores, and as legislators they will gain a rare insight into the nature of the client / whore exchange.Therefore they are bound to know the difference between prostitution and being an "MP for hire". Are they not?

What good did drugs ever do anybody?

-
(Conversation heard in pub - two guys discussing the dangers of "mephedrone".)


Dave: I don't understand why these young people need drugs, Paul. What do they get out of them?

Paul: (Raising glass) Well, this beer is a drug, isn't it Dave? You take it for granted because you grew up with it. You like it because it gives you a glow and makes you more sociable. But drunk in excess its as harmful as any other drug. That doesn't stop you having a pint or five at the end of the day now does it?

Dave: Okay, I grant you that. Wine, beer, you can call them drugs. But they're also part of a meaningful culinary experience, Paul.

Paul: Yes they are Dave. But you like getting pissed at least once a week. And that's when it becomes a drug, I'd say.

Dave: OK, Paul. Say I accept the point you're making. Alcohol's a drug. But why can't people stick with alcohol then? What more do they need?

Paul: Well, Dave. You also like to pop out for the odd fag now and then, don't you? That's a drug as well. You don't smoke for any other reason. And smoking kills tens of thousands of people each year.

Dave: But it was okay to smoke when we were growing up, wasn't it? We didn't know it was bad back then.

Paul: But we do now. And anyway, we always knew smoking was addictive and made us smell horrible.

Dave: Okay, okay, Paul. Cigarettes are also drugs. But apart from those two, what more do people need. Can't young people be happy on those?

Paul: Happy? Good question. Those pills your daughter Deidre's taking, they're basically happy pills, aren't they? She needs those drugs, as do millions of other people.

Dave: But the doctor gave them to her. She doesn't get high on them.

Paul: Wouldn't be happy without them, would she?

Dave: They're therapeutic, Paul. She got depressed with her last job and what with all the stresses of becoming a mum and all that.

Paul: So anti-depressants are ok if a doctor gives them to you, but not if you just want to get happy yourself, that's really what you're saying, Dave.

Dave: I suppose...

Paul: But even then you've got to admit, mate, that's still a reason why people take drugs.

Dave: Well, I'm not sure I'd agree with that - but even say I do - then apart from alcohol, cigarettes and antidepressants, what do people get out of drugs? What more do they need?

Paul: What about the tranquillizers my doctor prescribed for insomnia? Valium. Couldn't live without them, Dave. And very, very tranquillizing they are too.

Dave: Yeah, but that's another one people've been taking for years. I accept its a drug...

Paul: A mind-altering drug in fact.

Dave: Okay, a mind-altering and also a necessary one. But even if I concede that people get something out of those drugs, then apart from alcohol, cigarettes, antidepressants and tranquillizers, what other reasons can you possibly have for taking drugs?

Paul: What about those pain-killers you said Marge's sister takes all the time? They've got all that codeine in them. That's a very addictive drug.

Dave: They were for her headaches, Paul.

Paul: But then she started taking them all the time. She started abusing them, didn't she?

Dave: Alright mate, I catch your drift. The thing is though... what I was really thinking about all along was street drugs.

Paul: Street drugs? That mephedrone was bought on the Internet; its not a street drug. You said: why do people need drugs? Not why do people need street drugs? And anyway, drugs are drugs, when you're asking what people get out of them.

Dave: Okay. Fair enough. All those things you mentioned are drugs and people need them. But just let me finish where I was going to...

Paul: Where were you going to?

Dave: I was going to say... that apart from alcohol, cigarettes, antidepressants, tranquillizers and pain killers...

Paul: (Quickly breaks in) ... And weight loss drugs, beta-blockers, statins, steroids, triptans - to name a few others that aren't exactly without their consequences.

Dave: Struth... Okay Paul, so apart from things like alcohol, cigarettes, antidepressants, tranquillizers, pain killers, weight loss drugs, beta-blockers, statins, steroids and triptans, what do people actually get out of drugs? Why do they need them? That's basically what I'm asking.

Paul: (Puts glass down) Dunno, Dave. You'll have to ask your doctor that sort of question.

Coming tomorrow - The BIG DRUGS debate.

We ask:  DRUGS! Why do young people take them? Are they nice? Are there any 'side-effects'. And, most important, has anyone told young people that the Daily Mail and its readers DON'T approve?

Yes, money DOES grow on trees!

(Transcript of speech from last year's Wealth Narrative Conference. Speaker: Dr. Willie Lehman)

You heard it a thousand times, right? Money doesn't grow on trees. Well I can tell you now, folks, it does. Because we're talking family trees and, as I'm about to demonstrate, if your name appears on one you've got a major head-start in life.

Now, have you ever suspected that meritocracy isn't all its cracked up to be? Have you asked yourself whether its really that revolutionary? Because, if you have, here might be why: Once the "meritocratic" pop star / entrepreneur / crime boss has made his fortune, what follows next is less about meritocracy, more about something we tend to dislike nowadays. Know what I'm talking about? Yep, it's aristocracy. Yuk, we thought that'd gone for ever.

But no, 'fraid not. You see, that meritocrat pop star, he went forth and multiplied. And what class of person did his kids become?

I'll tell you: Those witless, talentless boys and girls who are always appearing on TV and in popular magazines, well, they're essentially 'aristocrats'. And how do I know? Let's just say they didn't earn that money and the connections and those slots on TV. It was down to their rich and famous mothers and fathers. That's what some might call 'proto-aristocracy'.

Of this you can be sure: From the seeds and acorns, from the stumps we call "meritocracy", will grow trees that are, in effect, "aristocracy", that engender dynastic wealth - The lucky, loaded money-laden trees.

And remember: Family trees are the same as any other - hardy, solid, enduring. That's how they'll always be. No doubt about it. Unless maybe... I don't know, you take a chainsaw to them, wherever you find them and you saw and chop, and chop, chop, chop down every last one of them and replace them with some kind of modified, engineered foliage... Ha, just kidding, folks... We certainly don't want that, do we? That is what people used to call Bolshevism... Correct?

Anyway, boys and girls, I hope the thrust of my argument doesn't upset those among you who are still sold on meritocracy. But you couldn't really have thought it something new, a break from the past... something the benign political classes conjured up to help out the little guy, give him a chance in life? Or, could you? Well, I'm sorry. But, its just plain untrue. The family you are, or were, born into is as relevant to your life now as it ever was. Nothing's changed.

I'll say one thing though: some of these singers and celebs and entrepreneurs, they're not so bad.... It seems many worship really cool ideas like peace, and love, and the future of the planet - the kind of ideas that make everyone feel good about themselves... and feel good about the celebs of course! Although, I'll tell you one thing they really don't worship, these guys. And that's taxes. Oh, no! They don't like taxes. They make it clear that taxes are not cool. They tell everyone: Who'd wanna be seen paying taxes? Because that'd be like really uncool - not to mention it'd be like chopping away at your family tree. Okay, maybe not quite as bad as actually chopping it down with a chainsaw. But a bit like cutting off the branches and the pretty leaves and precious flowers and the, er money and... well, it would definitely, most definitely, be UNCOOL.

Mirror, mirror on the wall, who is the freest of them all?

The 20th Century engendered seismic social change - not least womens' liberation. But who, in 2010, are the main beneficiaries? Who appears most empowered? Whose lives has it enriched? The list below is not definitive, just a start. It is broken down into categories - to make pigeon-holing easier, of course:-

Academia - Germaine Greer, Camille Paglia, Susan Greenfield

Politics - Hilary Rodham Clinton, Angela Merkel, Sarah Palin

Literature - Margaret Atwood, Fay Weldon, Naomi Wolf

Entertainment - Meryl Streep, Oprah Winfrey

Popular Culture - Girls Aloud, Lady Ga Ga

Rich Bitches - Martha Stewart, Paris Hilton, Victoria Beckham

The 'People' - Working mums, man-eating sex maniacs, Chardonnay-swilling thirty somethings, teenage girls on a Saturday night too pissed to stand, tattooed dykes living in squats, shopaholics, wannabee pop stars.

Business - Simon Cowell, Ralf Lauren, Sir Philip Green

Second Chamber

Justice Secretary Jack Straw has promised that if re-elected, Labour will transform the House of Lords into a democratically elected second chamber.

"We know we promised this fifteen years ago, but this time we really mean it, as we do everything else we promise."

Two wings and a prayer

Gordon Brown appears somewhat disingenuous in his handling of the BA strike dispute. The Unite union, which is behind the action, is a big Labour donor and its Deputy General Secretary is a prospective Labour MP and the husband of Harriet Harman. But yesterday transport minister Lord Adonis openly condemned the strike. Votes maybe?.

Planes need two wings to fly. And perhaps the same goes for political parties in this day and age. There is one problem: Two wings make planes fly straight, but tend to make political parties fly round in circles."

The PM is probably muttering at this very moment: "Lets hope we can just land the damn thing before the election."

Mens rea? Or medium rare?

105: Hiding bankruptcy through creative accounting

Do some lawyers and bankers think that they're above the law?
Of course not. Nobody is above the law.
But if a particular law hasn't yet been drafted does it really matter?
Later this week we'll be looking at legal 'loopholes' in banking, finance and accountancy, and will be asking whether they are in fact an affront to justice.

You see chaps, if that little accounting wheeze that distorts your balance sheet seems a bit dodgy, and you have to consult your shit-hot lawyer for advice, then it's like saying you're above the law (or at least above questions of right and wrong). And are you really that different to criminals - the only difference being that they simply don't waste their time looking for the 'loopholes'.

Equalities Minister Harman to call time on Woman's Hour.

Harriet Harman intends to call time on Radio Four's Woman's Hour. The Minister wants to widen the scope of her equalities agenda and broadcasting is seen as the logical next step. "There's no room for single sex broadcasting in a modern Britain. The BBC must axe this dinosaur."

Also on the watch list: BBC3,  Dave; celebs; lads mags / chicks mags; sexist tweets; excess newspaper coverage of leaders' wives (Brown, Cameron, Sarkozy etc).

The Minister also intends to appoint a Tsar for women - who will be known as a Lady Tsar Tsar.

A double-think tank will announce more pathetic initiatives in the coming weeks.

The New Adventures of Robin Hood

(It's 2010 and Robin returns to England. "Redistribution of wealth" is once more on people's lips. Robin and his rotund friend, Friar Tuck, pop to a 'cybercafe' to see how it's done.)

Friar: (Scanning a news archive). Nothing has changed. Taxes seem to hurt the poor more than they do the rich.

Robin: There's a surprise.

Friar: Rich men say that, if they're asked to pay more, they'll simply go and live in the land of the cuckoo clocks and strange cheeses.

Robin:  Cuckoo clocks eh? These rascals get everywhere.

Friar: So it appears.

Robin: But still, there can't be much business to be had in this land, if rich men are only here because of lower taxes.

Friar: That is partly true. Manufacturing has gone down the pan; farming's a struggle; and there are few other natural resources... Most wealth comes from money-lending - they call it banking.

Robin: How strange. Men usually borrow and lend to achieve some particular end, not as an end in itself?

Friar: So one would assume. Although, it says here that wealth is also generated from the buying and the selling of houses and from the love of 'toys', from a game called football, and from wine. Oh and one other thing - from 'shopping', presumably for said items.

Robin: A people obsessed with possessions and pleasures of the flesh, it seems

Friar: And if the rich men leave, so it goes, the common folk will lose jobs and houses will be less valuable. Everyone will feel poorer and will cease buying possessions. Then the country will grind to a halt.

Robin: (Scanning another article) It looks as though the country has already ground to a halt, if this piece is anything to go by...

Friar: I was coming on to that, Robin. It seems that these banks stopped lending of their own volition... no fault of the rulers. And then the rich stopped spending.

Robin: (Still engrossed in the article) Yes, but have you seen what happened next?

Friar: What, Robin?

Robin: The rulers gave money to these 'banks', and then yet more money.

Friar: You jest.

Robin: I jest not. They did it even though the banks made the country grind to a halt.

Friar: I don't understand. Why?

Robin: The rulers thought the banks would collapse otherwise. And then ordinary people, who keep their savings in those banks would lose everything.

Friar: How terrible. I keep my money under the mattress

Robin: As do I, much safer... (Turning back to the screen) But look, it says here that these savings will be siphoned off anyway.

Friar: How can that be?

Robin: The government has printed more money to 'revive the country'. That is the same money that constitutes these savings. Therefore the savings will be diluted.

Friar: Dreadful! Taking that money from ordinary folk.

Robin: It gets better. Then government officials have used the printed money to buy their 'debts' back from the banks. And this transaction has made these bankers yet more money.

Friar: So the banks ruin the country. And the rulers reward them by taking money from ordinary folk and giving it to them. Then the rulers take yet more money, this time from the savings of ordinary folk and they give them that as well. These officials are worse even than the Sheriff of Nottingham.

Robin: Indeed, Friar. Indeed

Friar: So there are none here who take from the rich?

Robin: There is this one fellow

Friar: Do tell.

Robin: Goes by the name of Madoff. He stole much from the rich.

Friar: Excellent, this is a start. Did he give it to the poor?

Robin: No one knows. Much money vanished. He perhaps kept it, though he is rich. So this does not look good after all.

Friar: How sad. None like us in 2010, it seems. In fact quite the opposite. All are greedy and on the make.

Robin: There is one good thing, Friar. Folk, even ordinary folk, have the right to change their government. They eventually made good what de Montfort started back in our day: Indeed the men they choose are called 'Parliamentarians'. Therefore, however bad things are now, however much the rulers steal from the poor and give to the rich, the ordinary folk can change things and choose new rulers from among these Parliamentarians.

Friar: How marvelous. There is hope yet for this country.

Robin: (Scanning another article) There would be hope... but it seems that even these Parliamentarians steal from the ordinary folk. They call it 'fiddling expenses'. And more, they are in the pay of rich men and companies even as they make the laws. And they hope one day to work for these rich men - when they have left Parliament. So perhaps they will not want to change anything really.

Friar: How dreadful, Robin. So, in fact there is no hope, whatever folk do?

Robin: Not a lot of hope, Friar. It would seem that we have much work to do here.

Friar: Indeed, Robin. Much to be done.

Class War - Gordon and Hattie's key moments

Part One - Sloane Ranger, no danger. Gordon and Hattie smile as power and influence shift from the old elite (the aristocracy) to the 'new money' (bankers, property developers, party donors etc). Here are the key events:

- Gordon sits back as cheap credit and rising property prices fuel an overheating economy.

- When the market collapses, Gordon bails out millionaire bankers from the public purse. His sidekick Hattie rants incoherently about 'the court of public opinion' and 'judgement day for greedy bankers'.

- Gordon dilutes the savings of low to middle income earners through QE (quantitative easing).

- Gordon sits back whilst millionaire bankers profit from QE-based trades. Bonuses are huge, even though no real value has been generated.

- Newly enriched bankers can continue sending their kids to Eton, St Pauls, Harrow or any other school that will give them a major advantage in life.

- But Gordon really hates Eton - It symbolises class privilege and the Conservative leader, David, went there. His sidekick Hattie hates Eton - she went to St Paul's Girls School. Together they try to persuade the electorate that Eton is synonymous with Tory Party elitism.

- But... bankers love Gordon - he made them rich. Eton loves Gordon - Thanks to Gordon's largesse, it is business as usual at the top public schools.

- Everyone loves Hattie. She's so terribly earnest about her 'equalities agenda'. And that's really funny - because, by and large, it is self-deluding twaddle that'll never address the real problems facing the UK.

- Gordon and Hattie's 'class warfare' has a whiff of 'Bullingdon' about it.

- Gordon and Hattie's 'class warfare' was probably conjured up on 'the playing fields of Hogwarts'.