Today I heavily undermined my Samizdatista credentials by hanging around the political types. I attended a lunch for Boris Johnson’s, MP, supporters and activists from his constituency. Now, you may ask what I was doing there… well, blogosphere works in mysterious ways…
The lunch was rather pleasant and I found those I had a chance to talk to refreshingly switched on and open-minded. The shock was made bearable by copious food and wine.
The politicians’ lair
Now, to the heart of the matter, Mr Boris Johnson, MP. I was most intrigued, after many months of Tory bashing on this blog, to find myself on the inside and on the receiving end, so to speak. Although the House of Commons is not an unknown territory, this occasion was different as I went curious to meet the one Tory that seems to break the ranks and is not afraid to mention the notion that dare not speak its name in current politics – freedom.
Boris, the Strangely Illuminated Statesman
The speech Mr Johnson gave at the end of the lunch, before he had to dash off to his statesmanly duties, was… excellent. This is what he had to say (reconstituted from my, by now largely unreadable notes, so please give the man a break and challenge me on the detail):
There were three points to note. The first was that freedom is important and needs to be seen as an end in itself, to stop its erosion for other political ends. The Labour government has been spending an increasing amount of taxpayers’ money while reducing their freedom. This is bad for the society. The result is an even more intrusive state under Labour. [So far, so good.]
Boris called for a new style of government, which would get that freedom back. He mentioned a rather scary statistic, the size of the public sector is now at the same level as in the 1979 – when Thatcher came in, ending an era of rampant and shameless socialism in Britain – and is 739,000 people working for the central government (excluding local government and other public bodies). By the time Labour came in the number had shrunk to 430,000. The Tories’ agenda is to shrink the size of the state again.
The second point was democracy. Democracy means that the Tories get rid of unelected regional authorities and the whole tier of government that has not been approved by the democratic processes. The term constitutional non-sense was mentioned in the context of the health secretary having no say about health.
The third issue was taxpayer value. Huge quantities of taxpayer money have been lavished on the public sector and on socially useless projects. New approach to government is needed. [I especially like this one – it was mentioned twice.] Mr Johnson got rather animated when he called for a stop of the ongoing transfer of wealth from the productive sector of the economy to the non-productive. I hope this was a go at wealth redistribution, as his moved on to recommend that the Tories should the party of lower taxation.
Mr Johnson understands that the size of the cake is more important that the equal size of the cake portions
There was the usual pep talk before the elections, which did not come out too badly as it was based on realistic expectations and the belief that Tony Blair should be expelled from the office, which is impossible to disagree with.
More issues were discussed, which are either too local or related to the constituency and as such would probably bore the pants off our ‘global’ readership. All in all, talking to Mr Johnson, one could almost believe that politics can be a way forward. They must have put something in the wine…
Due to sheer coincidence of seating arrangements I had a chance to exchange a few words with our Honourable Friend and mentioned the distinction between the state and the society that dictates so much of our ‘editorial policy’ on political engagement. It seemed to resonate and I could not help but wonder to what extent the Tory party message could coalesce around such a notion. For the record, I am not holding my breath.
Shame, Adriana, shame, fraternising with undesirables…. tut tut!
There’s a lot you can say about Boris for good or ill, but even on the other end of the world, it’s clear that Johnson is the only Tory with an iota of intellectual self confidence and drive. All political careers, I am told, end in failure, however Johnson will be a very interesting failure one way or the other.
However, I suspect that Johnson’s outlook is very much the minority in his party, or, at the very least, many of his collegues do not have the courage to go public in their belief in such subversive notions as ‘freedom’ ‘tax cuts’ and ‘productive sections of the economy’.
So why isn’t there more Boris Johnsons in the Tory Party?
Interesting, Scott. I view Boris differently. He is soft left, he likes Tony Blair “personally” … a quote from some time ago, but nevertheless, a blinding lack of insight.
He may be turning, and I hope he is, because he’s star quality no matter what he is saying. He has charisma.
BTW, drinks on the Members’ terrace is nice, and the food for lunch is always good, as is the service. I once wandered into a different MP’s pre-luncheon cocktail do by mistake and had a very pleasant time over two or three large Chardonnays making new friends and contacts. I was later kindly directed by the bouncers to my real host’s luncheon party and had a good time there too. Didn’t win the whisky, but you can’t have everything.
I agree with Verity, the terrace is very pleasant. I went to a breakfast bash there hosted by then Chancellor Ken Clarke several years ago. (Yes, I know what you are thinking – Ken Clarke, aaarrgggghhh).
But is Boris’ some new kind of hairstyle?
Yep, hairstyle over brainmatter. Or something…
Boris is a rather bright man who plays the jester to allow him to continue on in the Tory Party. Bright lights like Boris generally get driven out these days. And Boris is the best speaker that the Tory Party has at the moment.
Merciful heavens! If the number of state employees has reached 739,000 without counting local government and other “workers” then we are in even deeper trouble than I thought.
Those jobs advertised in the Grauniad. Just think how many of them are for local government blood-suckers.
As for Boris? I went off him years ago – for very similar reasons to Verity’s. Moreover, his clown act means he will never be treated seriously by people, even if he deserves to be.
Well, he did not strike me as a clown yesterday. Not in the slightest.
It’s all an act as far as I can tell, which I do not particular like myself but whatever works for him.
Wot G Cooper said. I too assumed that the extra number of state employees bolted into place at the trough included the real nappy outreach counsellors and street football coordinators (real jobs – well “real” in the sense of the alternate reality of The Graundiad and Tony Blair) and other flights of fantasy. Now we are told that this 739,000 extra people all are doing something else! What could it beeeeeee? What are they doing?
OK, say 100,000 have been taken on as special advisors to Tony Blair with their own swipe cards into Downing St and their own place on the couch in Tony’s “den” to make their contribution to Tony’s “rolling meetings” – or maybe it’s a rolling place on the couch, as they’d have to take turns, or a rolling place on a rolling couch. Whatever, that still leaves 639,999 extra employees on the payroll (and pension roll) and not a single one of them, I’ll wager, interviewed by anyone who contributes to Samizdata.
What are these people doing?
To answer my own anguished cry, I made a sign of the cross and entered The Graudiad’s job section. The lead ad was for local government, so doesn’t count on the government’s new job statistics:
“Strategic Partnerships Service Director
Nottingham City Council, Nottinghamshire
Circa £80,000 p.a.
We need a credible, persuasive and passionate leader who can also be a facilitator, a negotiator and an ambassador. Someone who is as comfortable with customers as with chief executives, with minors as with ministers.”
Does anyone have the faintest idea what these runes mean? They want someone “passionate”. And as “comfortable with minors as ministers”. Is it for a new companion for David Blunkett?
What kind of “customers” does Nottngham City Council have? What are they selling and what are people buying in these commercial transactions? What is this person going to “facilitate”? The creation of more jobs?
Isn’t Nottingham the city in which the police chief threw up his hands in despair because the police are required to spend 90% of their time filling in forms? Facilitating, really …
And, cor blimey! The ad directly under this is for Nottingham City Council, too! Talk about being on a roll! This gig pays £70,000. It’s for our old friend the Human Resources department:
“Human Resources Service Director
Nottingham City Council
Nottinghamshire
Circa £70,000 p.a.
We need a strong and dynamic HR professional to lead change in our large and complex organisation. We’ll need you to focus on improving our skills mix, developing and inspiring our leaders and managers. ”
So, if you’re strong and dynamic, love to lead change – or change leads, who cares? – and are adept at focussing on improving skills mixes, while at the same time inspiring leaders and managers (how many leaders and managers does Nottingham City Council have?), this is the job for life for you!
A couple of jobs further down, we find four entries for critical jobs for London Transport: Customer Accessibility & Inclusion Manager, Customer Environment Development Manager, Customer Standards & Experience Manager and Revenue Development Manager, each paying £50,000.
Scrolling down through the impenetrable thicket of meaningless jobs with meaningless titles, I note that Harrow Council is not only looking for a Scrutiny Officer, but also a Senior Scrutiny Officer. Brent Council’s looking for a Deputy Overpayments Manager who is promised: “… you will be part of a vibrant overpayments team”, Haringhay’s looking for a Home Visitor – Hints Worker … nah, it’s too easy … And on and on through all 525 non-jobs listed.
And Social Care has 510 openings. And these are all for local authorities and therefore are not numbered in these 739,000 new public sector jobs to which the government admits.
I entered the word “diversity” in the search field of the Guardain’s “Society” jobs web site today.
There were 753 jobs found (202 in Government, 167 in Education, 120 in social care and 100 in charities).
Just so you know where your taxes go.
I entered the word “diversity” in the search field of the Guardain’s “Society” jobs web site today.
There were 753 jobs found (202 in Government, 167 in Education, 120 in social care and 100 in charities).
Just so you know where your taxes go.
I entered the word “diversity” in the search field of the Guardain’s “Society” jobs web site today.
There were 753 jobs found (202 in Government, 167 in Education, 120 in social care and 100 in charities).
Just so you know where your taxes go.
Under Major the public versus private sector employment was about 11% against 89%. Since 1997 Phoney’s minions have increased that to about 22% (estimated current – ONS figures are cut off at March 2004) against 78%. Bearing in mind that this 22% figure is as a percentage of the actual employable UK population we are looking at a realistic combined bureaucracy at local government and at national levels of around 5,750,000 (look at the pdf in the ONS link above). Now consider that this figure is based upon 2004 Q1 statistics then the sad reality is that our bureaucracy is now most likely well over 6,000,000.
Now is becomes clear how Oliver Letwin can pluck a figure of £35Bn savings from thin air – you only need to lose 1m junior parasites to save that sort of money.
Julian – Any idea off the top of your head what percentage 6m is of the total working population?
It would seem at first glance that we have now reached the critical public sector mass of France: one in three is in a position to dictate rises, longer holidays and higher pensions out of the taxpayer trough.
Adriana writes:
“Well, he did not strike me as a clown yesterday. Not in the slightest.”
Possibly not. But the great mass of voters is, regrettably, more likely to form its opinions from his appearances on Have I Got News For You.
I’m not at all sure Boris’s act does work for him. Not in the long term.
Verity writes:
“It would seem at first glance that we have now reached the critical public sector mass of France: one in three is in a position to dictate rises, longer holidays and higher pensions out of the taxpayer trough.”
It does seem that way, doesn’t it? And when you add in the number of middle class families who are being bribed with Brown’s Family Tax Credits to vote New Labour, it’s had to see how the tide can be turned until there is a serious economic collapse – at which point people will start to wonder why it has happened.
I suppose the saving grace is that such a collapse is an absolute certainty if we continue at this rate.
Great work from Verity and Julian Taylor, there, incidentally. It takes nerves of steel to enter either the Graduina or government statistics!
Verity and GC, if this is expressed as a true percentage of the current labour market then these figures possibly indicate how dire our situation truly is. The current labour market statistics, again from the UK’s ONS, are a 28,570,000 total workforce aged between 16 and 65. This figure, interestingly enough, does show the political massaging of unemployment figures – you take the total unemployed (1.41m) and deduct the average number of real and potential jobs on offer (645,200) mix it up in the Alan Millburn cocktail shaker of distorted reality and you get your unemployment figure, of 764,800.
However one looks at it 6,000,000 of a workforce of 28.5m being employed in the parasitical sector is a somewhat horrific statistic and I think that in this respect we have most likely surpassed the French system.
Verity
Yep, the figures are truly horrific. Gordon Brown’s client state is well down the road to success and when it all collapses the brain dead will of course blame free markets and capitalism.
You asked what these people actually do. A couple of my friends actually are lesbian football outreach workers (something like that) and I know they do fuck all. I serously mean they actually do fuck all. One of them was recently supplied with a new laptop, a new blackberry and a new mobile phone on the same day. At the taxpayer’s expense she was given new equipment worth about (my estimate) £1000 to do a nothing job and she is simply one individual.
Since 1997 the Prince of Thieves at the Treasury has more than doubled the annual tax take to £500 billion. Happy Days.
Julian, thanks for that. Addressing Alan Milburn’s cocktail shaker of distorted reality, what does “workforce” mean? If Britain’s population is circa 60m, it looks as though Milburn is trying to persuade voters that around half the population can be classified as “workforce”.
I am guessing, but it seems reasonable to assume that at least half the population is children under the age of 16.
So, is this 29m or so the entire adult population of Britain rather than workers/jobseekers? Including millions of pensioners? Including hundreds of thousands on “disability” who will not be seeking work? And the mothers who stay home and look after their own children? Looks like it. In other words, it looks as though they are plumping up the “workforce” by including everyone over age 16 in order to make the proportion of people working in the public sector look like less formidable percentage.
Especially when you factor in this new 739,000 new public sector workers plus all the local government workers who, heaven help us, were intentionally not counted as being “public sector workers”. I have a feeling the true figures would reflect the public sector as having expanded from 1/4 to 1/3 of the employed population of Britain. Even one-quarter is much too much, but when it gets up to one-third, this, as we have seen in France, is the point of no return. I cannot see France ever getting back on the road to capitalism. Their public sector has coiled itself round the economy like a giant anaconda.
It is perfectly reasonable and sane to assume that Bliar and his cohorts and minions are lying again.
Pete_London wrote:
If they ‘do fuck all’, wouldn’t that make them bisexual, and not lesbian, outreach workers? 😉
Verity:
If you re-read Julian’s comment, he mentiones that the 29m figure is for people aged 16-65. Apparently half the British population is either children or pensioners, which surprises me slightly. I thought that here in the States, approximately 25% of the people are under 18, and 15-20% are over 65. I can’t imagine the UK having a larger percentage children in its population.
After looking it up in my 2003 almanac, I see the UK listed as having 19% of the population under 15, and 16% 65 and over.
Ted, Julian wrote, quoting official sources: a 28,570,000 total workforce aged between 16 and 65.
Not total adults including pensioners, disability recipients, married mothers who stay at home and look after their children, unmarried mothers who slag around and are most assuredly not counted as part of the workforce. I am saying, deduct all these people (were the figures available) and you would get a much smaller “workforce”, meaning the public sector and local government sector (which is apparently not regarded as the public sector in Labour fantasyland) and you would see that those at the public trough constitute a much larger percentage of the true total workforce.
Jake asked: So why isn’t there more Boris Johnsons in the Tory Party?
There is. Boris’ s dad Stanley is standing as a Tory in Devon. He seems to be as lefty lite as Boris. He’s a former MEP and he’s an environmentalist.
Is there an argument for saying that people who draw their salary from the state should not have a vote? Voters are meant to hold the government to account, and how can they do this if their jobs depend on big government?
Lady Porter had to flee the country and pay millions in fines because of her amateurish efforts at gerrymandering Westimister City Council. Gordon Brown seems to be using the entire economy to entrench a class of parasites who depend on him for their livelihoods. Who is the bigger criminal?
Is there an argument for saying that people who draw their salary from the state should not have a vote? Voters are meant to hold the government to account, and how can they do this if their jobs depend on big government?
Lady Porter had to flee the country and pay millions in fines because of her amateurish efforts at gerrymandering Westminster City Council. Gordon Brown seems to be using the entire economy to entrench a class of parasites who depend on him for their livelihoods. Who is the bigger criminal?
John K, I have made this argument several times, but no one ever take it up. Of course people who are paid by the taxpayer should not have a vote in how taxpayer funds are appropriated. They can thwart the will of their paymasters, the electorate.
Sounds about right. Those specifically forbidden to vote in any election include, convicted prisoners, any member of the House of Lords (Bishop, Archbishop, Life or Hereditary Peer), anyone with learning difficulties, learning disabilities or anyone incapable of making a reasoned judgement.
Apart from the obvious jibe that John “Slimboy Fat” Prescott certainly can’t be accused of the ability to make a reasoned judgement on anything, one might be able to rule out a large chunk of the parasite class from voting, by simply holding a spelling test to check on their learning abilities.
Anyone who enters politics to ‘reform’ it is
deluded.
What’s to reform?
They’re all some form of totalitarian.
And they’re all some degree of socialist.