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'.

Coming soon: Equality - Is it all balls?

In the big debate, we'll be asking:

- Is Harriet equal to Gordon? And if so, has she told him yet?

- Why does the government think religion and equality don't mix? Could God have had something to do with it?

- Who would have been worse off in olden times? A rich bitch with no right to vote? Or a penniless git with it?

- Is anyone equal to investment bankers? Or are they more powerful than the Harriet Harman and can tell her where to go?

- Are all women equal? Or do Jimmy Choos make some more equal than others?

- Is Victoria Beckham what Germaine Greer had in mind?

- Organised crime? Should there be more women running these kind of outfits?

- Eton. Is it just 'toffs' who go there? Or have they let 'new money' in?

- Money? Apart from buying the best start in life, does it really make a difference?

- Or rather... money. If I've got it, do I give a f*** about equality?

Protection for donkey voodoo.

(The Equalities Tsar, Baroness Harmony, summons her docile legal flunky, Willie, to her office. She plans to extend 'access to justice' far and wide and wants to run a few thoughts by him.)

Harmony: As you know, Willie, I am of the opinion that everything that can have rights should have rights. Right?

Willie: Yes, mistress.

Harmony: And if big government is about anything, it is about offering protection not just to the larger groups like women and gays. We want legal protection for the smaller groups, even the tiniest ones.

Willie:  But, it must be groups, not individuals, right?

Harmony: Absolutely. Never individuals - they're out. Society has no reason nor obligation to protect those who are without some kind of social classification. This is about protecting groups of people, classes... collectives. And of course they must be people who together, who united can demonstrate their understanding and appreciation of our policies at election time.

Willie. Unite and rule, as they say. (She looks mystified, so he clarifies) As in, they unite and we rule.

Harmony: I see, yes Willie, very good... Anyway moving on. Religious groups. We're fine there, are we not?

Willie: More or less. It'll be illegal to discriminate against religious groups, but religious groups can discriminate against women and gays, as you know.

Harmony: Yes, not great of course. But, as we know, Rome wasn't built in a day. So don't you worry, one day there'll be a Lesbian Pope, you"ll see.

Willie: I can't wait, I really can't.

Harmony: Me neither.. Now who's next?

Willie: Vegans and teetotallers?

Harmony: Yes, vegans... So I assume we're saying it'll be illegal to discriminate against a vegan who applies for a job in a steakhouse... or against a teetotaller who applies for one in a wine bar.

Willie: Assuming they would want to apply.

Harmony: You never know. This is not about probabilities. It's about leaving no legal stone unturned, it's about sending out a message... Anyway, who else? ...

Willie: Pacifists, humanists, environmentalists...

Harmony: Cyclists?

Willie: European Court is probably taking care of that. Motorists will always be in the wrong - even when they're in the right.

Harmony: Good. Think we'll add cyclists to our group anyway... What about agnosticists, altruists?

Willie: Still seeking clarification on those 'ists'. I think that people with philosophical views such as pacificism and humanism will get protection from discrimination. But the Equalities and Human Rights Commission has suggested that scientific or political beliefs such as Marxism and fascism should not be covered.

Harmony: Good, so no protection for Darwinist evolutionary beliefs, or that other horrid phallo-centric concept - rationalism. Yuk!

Willie: Rationalism... who needs it, eh?

Harmony: Now the Swiss are considering protection for dogs and cats. Worth considering? I'm devoted to my purring beauties - my gorgeous Persian Blues. If anyone so much as considered calling them 'moggies', I'd want to throw them in jail.

Willie: Waiting to see how the Swiss referendum goes. But it's certainly on the agenda. Maybe other animals too - horses, donkeys and other beasts of burden. Anything that can be maltreated. Obviously the money to prosecute wrong-doers would need to come from somewhere. But then it also would for other groups.

Harmony: All we can do is give people the laws. Whether they use them or not is up to them...

Willie: You can lead a horse to water etcetera...

Harmony: Indeed... Right, that list covers a wide spectrum. But our political adversaries will not be protected, which is the most important thing.

Willie: Yes... no protection for conservative groups of any sort, even conservationists, NIMBIES etc... or, as you said earlier, rationalists. None for phallo-centric objectivists and scientists... but subjectivists and relativists will be okay - they're very personal views, you see. Oh, and of course, most important... solipsists will be covered.

Harmony: Marvellous. We really are going to build our new Jerusalem, our new 'solipsist collective'!

Willie: We are indeed, mistress.

Harmony: So, one last thing, Willie. Assuming that we might be a 'minority' after the next election - a minority government, that is. Could we also protect ourselves against discrimination?

Willie: I suppose it's possible. The apparatus would be there - Surveillance, national databases, identity cards - all things designed to ensure people have the right sort of rights, not the wrong sort of rights

Harmony: And let's face it, people like myself have convictions, principles, policies that need protecting. We can't have them being ridiculed and trampled under foot. It would be good if we could legislate against attempts to subvert, or even just criticise the government and its policies. Just think... the next time Fathers for Justice trespassed on my land, we could have them on two new counts - one, upsetting the Persian Blues and two, expressing opinions designed to cause offence to a cabinet minister.

Willie: It might be possible to extend the law in that direction.

Harmony: Could you do some probing, Willie?

Willie: Right away, mistress. Right away.

Harmony: Thank you so much, Willie. That'll be all for now.

Coming soon - Will dogs, Gods and electronic lizards have rights?

Tomorrow's post will look at changing attitudes to legal rights. At a time when government is accused of eroding hard won human rights and freedoms, why is it lawyers are asking whether legal rights should be extended to domestic pets? And where will this lead? Could intelligent robots have rights one day? And could the government that introduced the 'Religious Hatred' bill one day try and argue that... even Gods, Saints and Icons have rights?

Faith Value

Following reports this week that public forums on the website, Dawkins.net, have been closed, there has been a swift response to one of the questions that had caused a problem: How do I persuade religious believers to believe in black holes?

Question - "This question has two parts. It's to do with your average, poorly educated member of society. He’s the kind of guy who could believe in anything and everything. But for now let's just say he believes in God. So first, how do I, a physics teacher, get that kind of individual to take on board esoteric ideas like "black holes" and "wave-particle duality", when - and this is key - the mathematical proofs behind those ideas are beyond the reach of ordinary folk? And second, if I ever do get this guy to grasp these ideas, how can I really be sure that his grasp is actually what we call knowledge?”

Answer - “Well, we all need faith in some things.”

Financial news in brief

Banker "gives back".

An investment banker has announced he'll stand for Parliament. This comes after the revelation this week that bonuses prior to 2008 could have paid for the entire - taxpayer funded - bail-out of the same year.

"I did a lotta soul-searching, and decided that after what Gordon Brown had done for us in 2008, it was time I gave something back. That's why I've decided to enter politics."

He was then asked: "In view of the fact you lot pocketed your bonuses but never paid a penny towards the bail-out, do you also intend to give your bonus back to society?"

The prospective candidate, who has "flirted with politics for some time", demonstrated that he is already familiar with procedure on such occasions and responded: "No comment."


EasyPrint

Robert Mugabe has corrected the statement he made yesterday praising David Cameron.

"I did say that I admired Conservatives like Mr. Cameron. But I neglected to say that it was Mr. Brown and Mr Darling who endorsed my economic policies when they rolled out "quantitative easing". Maybe I should now endorse their approach by hiding my print-run in scientific mumbo-jumbo."

Class Wear.

Politicians of all parties have been paying tribute to the former Labour leader Michael Foot who died yesterday. The great political orator and academic famously sparked off a class war in 1981 when he forgot to wear a designer suit to the Cenotaph.

One former Tory grandee recalled reaction at the time. "It was appalling. There we were trying to rebrand the Conservative Party - to make it appeal to the "loadsamoneys", the self made men. And then along comes this lofty old socialist, arrogantly wearing a donkey jacket - and not a designer label in sight!"

The grandee dismissed claims that the Queen Mother complimented Foot on his choice of jacket. "Well she would, wouldn't she? You're talking about someone who asked me on one occasion: "Tell me, what do you do, Signor Armani? Are you a novus homo?" I had to point out that the "Giorgio Armani" on my lapel was the man who'd created the suit that I was wearing, and that it was the current fashion for men like myself to display their designer labels. She replied by telling me how dreadfully vulgar I was and strolled off to talk to some other people."

He added: "People like Michael Foot and the Queen Ma'am had a totally different approach to the whole retail experience, I'm afraid... They were the kind of people who'd never be happy buying their own furniture for example - something about which I am totally relaxed."