"A Bit of Local Colour"

On that 45 minute claim:

"That is my personal explanation of why, as it were, people fell on the 45 minutes - at least that was something the secret service would allow to be used," Sir David said.

"And, with hindsight, one can see that adding a bit of local colour like that is asking for trouble but we didn't really spot that at the time."

Really, what the fuck? A "bit of local colour"? This was part of a report that sent British troops to kill and die in a foreign land. You don't add a "bit of local colour" to a report like that. You try to make it as accurate as possible! Surely, by definition, "intelligence" should at least aspire to be intelligent?

"A little bit of local colour" deserves to become as notorious as Alan Clark's claim to being "economical with the actualité". It simply adds to the sinking feeling I have that the film In The Loop actually wasn't a satire on how we chose to go to war, but rather a documentary.

Don't worry about the truth of any claim being made by the government, people. See, they might just be adding a "bit of local colour" to what they present as facts.

Debate and Definitions

A few weeks ago, I asked the question "what to do with the railroad?" There doesn't appear to be a clear solution but, as DK notes, talk of privatistion and nationalisation hides the fact that the railways weren't transferred back to the private sector under Major:

And that's all I wanted to point out: that the railways are not privatised. But maybe, just maybe, we might look at whether proper privatisation could work.

But it would have to be proper privatisation—without the constant and crippling interference and condition-setting, occasional nationalisation (e.g. WWI) or commandeering (e.g. WWII) or the companies and network that the state has indulged in almost since the very inception of the rail industry.

Quite. The railways weren't privatised properly; it is disingenuous to refer to them as privately owned and privately operated. And it isn't just the missed classification of the railways. Across the board, words and phrases are being twisted in their meaning to allow the government to get away with murder. For example, we've heard a lot about the failure of free market capitalism since the recession began - something that hides the fact that we have a mixed economy in this country that is anything other than free. We are constantly told that the banking sector needs to be regulated - yet it already was massively regulated when it went tits up and strangled the rest of the economy. We hear about how the War On Terror is about increasing our security and bringing "freedom" and "democracy" to other parts of the world, even though it does anything other than achieve security, freedom or democracy.

This bastardisation of terminology may sound like a tedious point of semantics, but it really isn't. It allows the ruling elite to control the debate with our democracy through misusing simple words. Privatisation can be painted as a bad thing based on the failure of the railways; even though they haven't been privatised. The banking crises can be used as part of the argument for regulation - even though regulation did nothing to prevent the collapse of certain banks. And so on, and so on, and so on. Until the terrified and terrifying rictus grin on Gordon Brown's face sums up the "progressive" movement in this country, and the ever preening David Cameron apparently leads a "conservative" party offering nothing other than utterly empty concepts of "change".

It isn't even a question of arguing with our elected elite; it is more about telling them to shut the fuck up until they learn what very basic terms mean and use then use those terms correctly.

Spinning Spending

Witness The Guardian rushing to the aid of Gordon, when the nasty Tories call him a liar over spending cuts:

Again, the Karl Rove down-and-dirty playbook has proved handy. Seeking to rubbish Treasury statistics, the Tories have gone for Brown's character and reputation, with accusations of dishonesty, lying and untruths happily bandied around. This week's try-on by the Tory frontbench about being denied access to government figures was all part of the same pitch. And, what is more, they are helped by a well-oiled and well-mobilised blogosphere who quickly wade in behind the Conservative line to take. The loyalists at ConservativeHome; the bright young Turks at the Spectator "Coffee House" site; the cloyingly sanctimonious Iain Dale; the masterful Guido Fawkes – not quite the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, but nonetheless a dedicated cadre of Conservatives dominating the new media and immediately following the central office talking-point. And their most resonant line of attack is to accuse various members of the government of lying. It is nasty, negative and yet surprisingly effective in taking attention away from Tory party policy and setting the agenda for the mainstream media. By the middle of the week, the BBC's political editor Nick Robinson was asking Brown whether he was a liar!

Now, the eagle-eyed amongst you will have noticed the problem with this paragraph. The problem is that, when Gordon and his drones talk about increasing spending when the government coffers have been spent on propping up failed banks, they are lying. On this issue, Gordon is a liar. Of course Nick Robinson is asking him about it - it is a valid question!

Which may also account for the paranoid alliance detailed above. I doubt that there is any effective union between Dale, Gudio, the Spectator and ConservativeHome - the fact that they are all reporting on the same story in the same way is a result of the story itself. When Gordon claims he won't cut spending, he is lying. Of course people who aren't slavishly and insanely loyal to Gordon are going to comment on that. 

Perhaps the charge that could stick against the Tories is that they have finally worked out how to spin things effectively. Lansley puts foot in mouth, the Labour party rubs their hands in glee, only to to find moments later that they are the ones in trouble with the media. Yet Labour getting the hump about someone else being good at spinning really is the pot calling the kettle black, given their behaviour under both Blair and Brown. And besides, what is this Guardian article if not spin - on behalf of the Labour party rather than the Tories? I mean, it even invokes Karl Rove - the master of the political dark arts who helped Bush Junior into the White House on two occasions. And referencing him (when there are other examples from the Labour camp like... ooo, I don't know, Peter Mandelson) is simply a piece of emotive, cynical spin. A bit like calling Gordon Brown a liar...

All we have here is an indignant yelp as Labour lovers everywhere realise that the Tories have suddenly got better at playing politics than them. And all this article represents is yet another distraction from what should be the key political question of today. Not whether spending cuts are coming, but rather where the spending cuts are going to fall. Yep, Gordon Brown is a liar if her claims that he won't have to make cuts - he's a deceitful, delusional lunatic if he refuses to now start talking about where the Labour party will make those cuts.