My political views are informed by the theory that all ruling
majorities have fascist tendencies.
You have to be careful when using the F-word because it can easily
be translated as the defamatory "Nazi", though during
my lifetime Europe has not been short of fascist regimes which,
though undoubtedly unpleasant, didn't follow Hitler's Germany
into the pit.
I can think of Franco's Spain; Salazar's Portugal; and even Mussolini's
Italy as examples.
And that is by no means an exhaustive list.
Unfortunately, 'fascist' is difficult to define with any precision
and has become a term of political abuse to be applied to any
government of which we don't approve.
George Orwell said that the word fascism has now no meaning except
in so far as it signifies "something not desirable"
and settled, himself, for "bully" .
My own definition involves contempt for the rule of law and a
determination to get their own way by whatever means.
Naturally, ruling majorities don't quite see it like this.
They rationalise their bullying behaviour by claiming that, as
the democratically elected majority, they are carrying out the
will of the people.
The arithmetic doesn't support this argument.
At the last general election Mr Blair won a 60 seat majority on
the back of 33% of the votes, which means that, by a majority
of 2:1, the people would have preferred someone else to be in
charge.
If you take the electorate as a whole, as opposed to those who
actually voted, the figures are 22% and 3.5:1.
The fact is that, in first past the post electoral systems with
more than two parties, the government is almost always formed
by the largest minority.
That is why we have constitutional checks such as judicial review
and a second chamber with delaying powers.
Unfortunately, with the advent of the cabinet system, these checks
and balances are absent from local government where we have, contrary
to our democratic tradition, what can only be described as a Supreme
Leader - Kim Il John as one contributor to the WT's website put
it.
At a recent meeting of the corporate governance committee Cllr
John Allen-Mirehouse explained that this system was designed "to
streamline decision-making"
though it doesn't seem to have occurred to the deputy leader that
"streamlined decision-making" and democracy are uneasy
bedfellows.
For an example of streamlined decision making at its worst, google
'Wansee Conference'.
The whole point of democracy is that ideas are kicked around and
debated with a view to arriving at the best decision.
Of course, there are occasions when streamlined decision making
is the order of the day.
If you are lying on the operating table when something goes wrong,
you don't expect the consultant to take his team off to a committee
room for a two-hour debate on what to do next.
But that is a life and death situation where the consultant and
his team; by virtue of their education, training and experience,
have acquired the ability to quickly decide on the most appropriate
course of action - you hope.
Local government rarely needs to act with that sort of urgency
and, even if it did, it is difficult to see where the the likes
of Cllr John Davies and his two deputies Cllrs Allen Mirehouse
and Jamie Adams might have acquired the expertise to make the
right decisions.
Not the education system, I would venture to suggest.
The Western Telegraph website reports that the county council's
Cabinet has decided to go ahead with consultations on a proposal
to close Hayscastle CP School.
The report quotes Councillor Tom Richards; chair of governors
at Hayscastle School, as saying: “Obviously there is grave
concern. We have to continue with the consultation but at this
stage I am disappointed with the outcome."
What the newspaper failed to make clear is that this is a decision
of the ruling Independent Political Group of which Cllr Richards
(chairman of planning) is a leading member.
Meanwhile in Milford Haven there is widespread disquiet over the
plans to move the town's library to Havens Head.
Again I would stress that this is a decision of the IPG of which
Cllrs Danny Fellows (chairman of children and young persons scrutiny
committee) and Anne Hughes (vice-chairman of council) are prominent
members.
It always amazes me how these people can reap the benefits of
membership of the ruling party without being held to account for
the party's policies.
No doubt, when the school closure proposals come before the council
for final approval, Cllr Richards will be up on his feet making
an impassioned speech rubbishing his party's policies on small
village school.
Having satisfied his constituents sitting in the public gallery
that he has done his best for them, he will return quietly to
the fold.
That is the advantage of belonging to a party that has no purpose
outside the acquisition and retention of power.
Just before Christmas, the WT reported that Grumpette's notice
of motion calling for an independent audit committee had been
rejected by the county council after the leader, Cllr John Davies
told members that the proposal would cost £1.2 million.
They say you shouldn't believe what you read in the papers and
that is certainly true in this case because the notice of motion
was submitted by me and the leader said nothing about it costing
£1.2 million.
My notice of motion was based on statutory guidance issued by
the the Welsh Assembly which encourages local authorities to set
up audit committees free of cabinet members and chaired by a member
from outside the ruling group.
Presently, the audit function is carried out by the 12-member
corporate governance committee which includes the Leader and three
of his cabinet colleagues and the four (leader-endorsed) scrutiny
committee chairmen.
As most of the things audited concern decisions taken by the cabinet,
this seems to breach the principle of Natural Justice that a man
shouldn't sit in judgement of his own cause, which is, presumably,
why the Welsh Assembly recommended the change.
What the leader actually said in opposition to my proposal was
that it wasn't a legal requirement.
Now this is an interesting ethical approach because there are
all sorts of things that are perfectly legal yet not considered
wholesome.
Take lying for instance which is not illegal except in certain
defined circumstances.
I wonder if the two Baptist preachers in the cabinet tell their
flocks on a Sunday morning that lying is perfectly acceptable
provided you avoid doing it in the witness box (perjury) to the
police during the course of an inquiry (perverting the course
of justice) or for monetary gain (fraud).
Then there is the case of the police raid on the offices of Tory
MP Damien Green which was found to be perfectly legal by an inquiry
conducted.by the Head of British Transport Police, though he did
conclude that it failed to match up to best practice.
Naturally, the Tories latched on to this last bit.
Why is that the two Tories in the cabinet (and that's only the
card-carriers) don't take a similar stance where their own activities
are concerned.
Do I feel the word "hypocrites" on the tip of my tongue.
But mustn't be disrespectful of my fellow councillors - Code of
Conduct, and all that.
One the more attractive human traits is our concern for the
underdog.
This can be seen in our delight whenever some team from the lower
divisions knocks a bunch of highly-paid Premiership stars out
of the FA Cup.
And it probably explains why, despite his record of failure, Tim
Henman was more popular than Andy Murray is ever likely to be.
For all I know, there may be Welshmen out there who are hoping
that England will win the forthcoming clash at the Millennium
Stadium.
After all, it wouldn't be healthy for the game if Wales won the
Grand Slam all the time.
Or am I taking too rosy a view of human nature?
One underdog who certainly didn't get the credit he deserved was
Alfred Russel Wallace who co-authored the paper on the Theory
of Evolution presented to the Linnean Society 1n 1858.
Most people outside the world of biology will never have heard
of Wallace, though they will almost certainly have heard of his
co-author: Charles Darwin.
It appears that, at the time, Wallace was given full credit for
his contribution, but, as the years have gone by, Darwin has been
awarded sole proprietorship.
Interestingly, some authorities believe that Darwin was so concerned
about the theological repercussions of his theory that, had it
not been for Wallace's intervention, he might have postponed publication
until after his death.
As it was, when Wallace wrote to Darwin in 1855 outlining his
version of the theory:
"An antelope with shorter or weaker legs must necessarily suffer more from the attacks of the feline carnivora; the passenger pigeon with less powerful wings would sooner or later be affected in its powers of procuring a regular supply of food . . . If, on the other hand, any species should produce a variety having slightly increased powers of preserving existence, that variety must inevitably in time acquire a superiority in numbers. . . . Now, let some alteration of physical conditions occur in the district — a long period of drought, a destruction of vegetation by locusts, the irruption of some new carnivorous animal seeking "pastures new" . . . it is evident that, of all the individuals composing the species, those forming the least numerous and most feebly organized variety would suffer first, and, were the pressure severe, must soon become extinct."
Darwin realised that he either had to publish, or risk being
scooped.
As the biologist Elaine Morgan said: “If Darwin had not survived
his Beagle voyage, the most influential scientific idea of the
last two centuries would have been credited to the Welshman from
Usk.”
Old Grumpy is always surprised that Wales doesn't make more of
one of its most distinguished sons.
Now, had he worn a Number 10 shirt and dropped the last minute
goal that beat England, the bookshop shelves would be groaning
under the weight of his biographies.
Interestingly, Darwin's mother was a Wedgwood and he married
a Wedgwood - so a bit of inbreeding can't be all that harmful.
His cousin was Francis Galton, who is often referred to as the
father of eugenics - the improvement of the human species by selective
breeding.
And we all know where that perfectly respectable study eventually
led.
It is interesting to note where the politicisation of science
can lead.
Pre Wallace/Darwin the predominant evolutionary theory was that
of the Frenchman Lamark, who believed in the inheritance of acquired
characteristics.
Thus the giraffe got its long neck through successive generations
stretching to reach leaves on low-hanging branches - these minute
acquired elongations being passed on to he next generation.
The last serious Lamarkist was the Russian Lysenko who was the
Soviet Union's leading biologist during Stalin's reign.
Lysenko claimed that it was possible to train (vernalise was the
technical term) wheat to grow in Siberia by cultivating successive
generations in ever decreasing temperatures - the offspring of
such plants acquiring an increasing ability to withstand the cold.
When I went to university to study biology in 1958, Lysenko was
a hate figure among the scientific community.
Not only was he accused of peddling false theories about inheritance
and evolution to curry favour with his political master(s) but
there was an idea about that Stalin had concluded that Lysenko's
research could be used to vernalise the Russian people.
The theory was that the Russian people, as presently constituted,
were not fit to live in in a socialist state, but with a with
a bit of forced labour, starvation and vacations in the gulags,
they could gradually be vernalised into become model citizens.
Talking of the Wedgwoods, when we were first married Grumpette
and I lived in Basford; less than a mile from Josiah's original
factory in Etruria Stoke-on-Trent.
The building firm I worked for, Axon and Brown, had its offices
and yard just across the road.
In 1965, all that remained of the works were two magnificent bottle
ovens alongside that Trent and Mersey canal.
Even in those days of real nappies and no washing machine, Grumpette
found the time to paint and I well remember her impressive oil
of Wedgwood's two fat ladies.
Now the firm has closed, this work of art must be worth a fortune
- even if only for sentimental reasons.
Unfortunately, a thorough search of the attic has failed to reveal
this masterpiece and we have concluded that professional art thieves
have been at work.
As for me, I am fast losing faith in the prospect that Grumpette's
artistic genius will eventually allow me to live in the manner
to which I would like to grow accustomed.