Wine for Christmas…. Again….Already….. by Wiggiatlarge

Writing this is a wonderful example of how realising that it is time for another listing, is that the years go by ever quicker. If I didn’t have a calendar I would have guessed it was around August Bank Holiday, at the latest, but it isn’t and time for the annual suggestions. Unlike the tasters in the magazines and online who have access to unlimited wines, my list is from wines I have purchased and tasted/drunk with very few exceptions.

Christmas is the time for celebration, or should be, though this year there is very little in this land to celebrate. All the more reason to buy a few bottles for the festive season and enjoy that warm feeling you will not get if you read the dead tree press or watch television news.
_________________________________________________________________________________

Celebration means sparkling wine and Champagne, and as before I have to confess this is an area I have the least input on. I do like the odd bottle of Champagne/sparkling wine but have with very few exceptions found it difficult to justify the price for the pleasure it gives; but I am in a minority, so believing in the main these bottles will be used for family gatherings and parties I have kept the price down to manageable levels as one bottle will not usually suffice.

In no particular order:

• Sainsbury's Taste the Difference Cremant de Loire Brut - I can genuinely recommend this at around £11.
• Aldi do a very presentable Champagne at the ridiculous price (for Champagne, that is !) of £12.49: Veuve Monsigny Brut Grand Reserve NV
• Asda ditto with their own Extra Special Louis Bernard Champagne.
• Morrisons Adrien Chopin brut Champagne at currently £15

      and at Waitrose a couple or so of goodies from a very large choice:

• Cave de Lugny NV sparkling Burgundy at £13.99.
• Juve & Camps seleccion reserve Cava £11.99, which is very good at this price level.
• L’Atzar Cava Reserve at £10.99 - another great value Cava.
• Bird in Hand Sparkling Pinot Noir  at £15.99 for something a bit different from Australia, in effect a rosé
• And a goody from our own vineyards if you want to push the boat out a bit more: Ridgeview Bloomsbury NV  - £28.99.

There are some good Proseccos among all the rubbish but not having tasted any apart from one, they stay unmentioned. This is now a very popular and large category and there is something for everyone if you like sparkling wine. The one was Tesco's Finest Prosecco Brut at £8: I thought it decent and good value. Critics thought a lot more of it and gave it best value bubbly, which shows how tastes can vary, I just did not think it was ‘that’ good.
________________________________________________________________________________

We follow with Port and Sherry and the fortified section. Sherry has been struggling with sales in recent years but the figures for this year show a very welcome and decent increase in sales. The depressed market has meant depressed retail prices for many years but this could all change so take advantage of some of the bargains of the wine world while you can. Port on the other hand is still struggling to sell and again there are some relative bargains in the sector.

If you like vintage port and don’t want to spend the £60-100 pounds needed to buy the best examples like Taylors and Grahams then look for the lesser brands, often the Portuguese owned ones such as Kopke, the oldest Port House of all, Ramos Pinto and Calem, or the single vineyard vintage ports put out by the likes of Taylors, Grahams and Warre normally seen as Quintas (single vineyards), some in wooden gift boxes and often as low as £20 when on offer. Taylors Vargelas is a good one and available at Waitrose and elsewhere.

Port is not difficult to evaluate, it changes little as to what is on offer year on year, and many of the more popular ones are made to standard that varies little each year, nonetheless the quality is high across the board.

If you want a ruby port to please Granny when she appears at Christmas, Morrisons Ruby Port as last year is still the option that is easiest on the pocket and within the bottle is real quality, a bargain.
I would go for something a bit better at this time. All the major players, Taylors, Graham, Warres, Cockburn, Sandeman and so on do very good LBVs, late bottled vintage, crusted and tawny ports with age. The tawny versions are probably the best in this category and the ten-year versions from all of them will not break the bank though my favorite and that of many who have tasted it is not so cheap: Grahams 20 year Tawny will set you back the best part of £40 but is worth every penny, again available at Waitrose and elsewhere.

For a sweeter tooth some very good Marsalas such as those from Pellegrino and Marco de Bartoli are worth looking out for and again won't break the bank at well under £10, they also double up as a drink and a wonderful addition to pour over ice cream and certain desserts, plus many of these dessert wines are in half bottles so no waste if you just want a glass. Look out also for Madeiras: they are not in fashion at the moment and the vineyards are going through a hard time, but the likes of Blandys Duke of Clarence is available at ASDA for a tenner and Henriques & Henriques Full Rich Madeira is available at Waitrose for £10.99, another out of fashion bargain.

As I said sherry is apparently on the up, there are certainly more of the better higher priced sherries coming onto the market but not really in supermarkets, in fact supermarkets seem to be cutting back their ranges. Sainsbury’s has for instance gone nearly all own label and no longer include a fino or manzanilla at all in their range !

For the dry finos and manzanillas the choice is stark unless you are a member of the Wine Society or have a good independent merchant near you.

So the choice comes down to Morrisons own label fino which is amazing value at £5.50; and Waitrose own label fino and award winning manzanilla at £7.65 - both are reliable and way above their price in quality. Another quality manzanilla available at Waitrose and elsewhere is Solear by Barbadillo, lovely wine for little more and Hidalgos Pasana Pastrada Manzanilla.

For Amontillados and Olorosos the choice is better if you shop at Waitrose, every where else is cutting back on sherry and introducing own labels. Sainsbury's no longer do a Fino own label and Majestic have all but abandoned sherry altogether apart from one Amontillado by the very good firm of Hidalgo, Napoleon Seco (dry) at £14.99. Tesco have one stand out Oloroso under the Finest label: a half bottle of Pedro Ximinez at £6.00. A standout Oloroso is Morrisons the Best, made by Lustau one of the great sherry houses this, dry nutty and recommended, £5.50, a bargain.

Waitrose is fast becoming the only supermarket that does a decent range of sherries and their own label Amontillado at £7.65 is to be recommended, they also stock Lustaus East India Solers Oloroso an old sherry in a 50cc bottle at £11.99, plus a very good 12 years old oloroso from Williams and Humbert at £11.99, they also stock the Gonzalez Byass range in half bottles with which you cannot go wrong.
________________________________________________________________________________

Bargain wines: the "five pound ceiling", so called by the trade as buyers here are reluctant to spend more on a bottle of wine has not stopped the trade continually pushing for people to spend ‘a little more’ and reap the benefits. All things being equal it makes sense, it is true that the actual value of the wine in a five pound bottle is as low as 30p, the rest taken up with tax, marketing, packaging and of course profits for all involved. If you spend a tenner on a bottle the value of the wine rises to around £1.60, so you can see where they are coming from. As usual that presupposes that the wine is any good so spending a tenner does not guarantee quality because of the price alone.

Five pounds for a bottle: are there any good ones out there? For those throwing parties, five pound bottles make sense as few will care much about the quality as long as it is drinkable, yet there are some decent bottles at that price or near even now so it does no harm to look for them.Most of that bracket is controlled by the huge wineries such as the American giant Gallo, and the Australian equivalents, the Barefoot, Yellowtail etc bottles dominate, yet you can see on the shelves some other more distinctive bargains. You have to be careful in this sector as often new wines are put in competition to win awards and recognition and that year's production can be very good for the money, but subsequent vintages have a habit of sliding down the quality scale as the initial vintage is in effect a loss leader.

Anyway, here's a few reds to get you started:

• Sainsbury's Rioja Era Cosana Crianza at £5.85 is a steal and seems to keep up the standard vintage to vintage
• Tesco do a gluggable Nero D’Avola at £5.50
• Waitrose do an own label Romanian Pinot Noir at £5.50 which for a decent PN is ridiculous
• Morrisons do a equally good Pinot Noir from Argentina by Trapiche at two for £10, perfect party wines.
• Aldi do an ‘Exquisite’ Malbec at £5.99 that just squeezes in and is decent, plus Toro Loco organico Utiel Requena at £4.99 is the bargain of them all and the best of several Toro Loco wines. Aldi in fact easily outstrip everyone on VFM cheapies.
• Lidl manage a couple of decent cheapies: their Winemakers Selection Barrosa Valley Shiraz  £5.99 is a bargain for a fruity full on Shiraz, plus there is a ridiculously cheap (at £3.99) Cimarosa South African Pinotage, cheap enough to fill everyone's boots.
• A late addition and a very big prizewinner from ASDA is Wine Atlas Feteascu Neagra for £5.25 a bottle, berry flavours fresh and a terrific party wine, from Romania - we are at last going to see more good wines at fair prices from the eastern bloc.

Whites in this cheap grouping offer a much more varied choice for reasons I simply don’t know, they easily outstrip the reds. I’ll start with:

• Aldi - under the Exquisite label they have a very good Rias Baixas Alberino and a Sauvignon Blanc from Freemans Bay both £5.99, plus a Sauvignon Blanc from the Leyda Valley (Chile) £5.49. Add to that a very drinkable Muscadet Sevre et Maine sur Lie £5.69 and again under the own label a Limestone Coast Chardonnay £5.99 and you have if you want pretty well covered the needs of white party wines.
• Morrisons own Sauvignon Blanc from Chile at £4.50 is if nothing else drinkable and at that price you can fill up your guests' glasses without feeling your wallet draining.
• Waitrose have a Hungarian Hilltop Estate Pinot Grigio that has been reduced to £5.99
• Lidl stock a very good value Soave Classico £4.49, a Cimarosa Torrontes from Argentina £4.99 and another under the Cimarosa label, a Sauvignon Blanc from Marlborough £5.99.
• ASDA have a Viognier if you would like something a little different: La Grand Clauzy, currently at £5.00.

_________________________________________________________________________________

Right, let's get away from the party cheapies. Better wines: here are some wines red and white that you might fancy over the festive period either with food or on their own, no particular price points though the expensive stuff is not usually stocked by supermarkets anyway.

Some new finds among this selection, there could be many more but I have tried to whittle it down to something manageable.

Just a point before I start: it is no surprise and I voiced such some years back, now that the supermarkets have cornered the everyday wine trade the choice is being throttled and more own labels are taking over. Tesco in particular have gone from what was a good high street wine retailer to an extremely, in the main, boring one with more own labels and big brands than anyone else, but the others are not far behind. It was inevitable with their buying power this would happen. Given nothing to compare with, own labels are not inherently bad but do give the supermarkets the chance to price without comparison.

Firstly Waitrose, the last supermarket to still have a decent range of wines from individual growers. Starting with their reds:

• Wirra Wirra Church Block a blend of three grapes from the Barrosa very reliable - £13.99
• Vinalba Reserve Malbec from Argentina also £13.99, Vinalba do a very good range of wines at or around the ten pound mark.
• Kilikanoon Grenache Shiraz Mataro £10.99
• Castilo de Olite Collecion from Spain very good price-quality ratio at £9.99
• Chateau Maris Organic Minervois £10.99 very upfront fruit but fresh, and from the same stable
• Chateau Maris Les Planels Cru La Liviniere £17.99 - I really liked this one
• Le Sabbie dell’Etna Rosso £12.99
• Baiocchi Montefalco Sagrantin - an unusual grape but very nice wine: £15.99

Waitrose have quite a few others more than worthy of inclusion plus their fine wine section, but I have tried to keep the selection fresh.

White wines from Waitrose:

From a large range of New Zealand Sauvignon Blancs that do little for me despite their popularity, the best I have tasted are:

• Astrolabe Awatere £19.99
• Craggy Range Sauvignon Blanc £14.99 
• and a Pinot Gris as good as I have tasted outside of the Alsace, from ARA Single Vineyard at £10.99.

Waitrose whites from elsewhere:

• A better Italian, Terredora Greco di Tufo £14.99
• From Bordeaux. Chateau La Louviere is a classic blend of Semillon and Sauvignon Blanc, lovely with fish dishes £24.99
• and a Chardonnay from California: Frei Brothers Sonoma Reserve £17.99.

Majestic are going through a time of takeover so I've no idea what lies ahead. They have suffered for a variety of reasons, the main one being the strange pricing policies. Nevertheless there are some good red wines there:

• Rioja Alta Vina Ardanza Reserva 2009 £19.99
• Valpolicella Superiore Ripasso 2016 La Casetta £14.99
• Nero Oro Riserva from Sicily £11.99
• Gnarly Dudes Shiraz from Two Hands winery £18.99
• Vinalba Touriga Nacional-Malbec Reserve £11.99 - the pick for me of five different Vinalba wines Majestic do, all good.

Whites:

• Greywacke Sauvignon Blanc is for me as good as any from NZ with that grape £17.99
• Domaine Saint Ferriol Viognier is a cracker at £12.99
• a spicy Gerwurtztraminer from Schlumberger, Les Princes Abbes, great firm nice wine £14.99
• a lovely Chardonnay from Domaine Begude ‘Arcturus’ from the Limoux region: expensive but worth it £36.00
• a better than average Gavi La Raia ‘Il Borgo’ £11.99 finishes those that I have tried from Majestic.

The Sainsbury's whites that caught the eye during the year:

• Stellenrust Chenin Blanc from SA at £8.50 is a good buy 
• also from SA the Bellingham Bernard Series Rousanne makes a change £10.25

Tesco have just introduced a Rhone white from Guigal who do not seem to make a bad wine, Guigal Cote de Rhone White is £12.00.

Aldi have a rather good white Grenache, Baron de Ley Garnacha Blanca at £8.99 and a Kirkberg from Austria Gruner Veltliner £8.99 a favoured grape with many.

In reds Aldi actually have found a Barberesco for £9.99 Roversi normally I would steer clear of cheap wines from this part of the world but this one bucks the trend amazing value for a prestigious bottle.

Whereas ASDA can offer Cascina Valentino Roero Arneis, a difficult grape and rarely true to type but here they managed a good stab at it at a very good price £9.50.

Morrisons are not known for top end wines, yet in their offerings

• the Vinalba Malbec and blends are a good buy and usually at least one is on offer at around £10
• Contino Reserva Rioja is a top rate version at £22.50 
• and they usually have the Cono Sur 20 Barrels Pinot Noir at £14.00 which is cheaper than anyone else for a good South American version of the grape.

Anyone looking for a Riesling will struggle to find anything in these stores, only Majestic have few, the best being from Australia. The ones they have I haven’t tried but by reputation for quality the Greywacke version would be the one I would go for, otherwise the choice is dire.

I no longer have a decent Co-op near me. The last one had a very good range of wines and many rather surprising ones, it was always worth a browse, but from their web site I see a very good Bordeaux, Ch Senejac 2012 £17 pounds is available, not the sort of wine you expect at the Co-Op but you would be wrong, lovely wine to go with the Christmas dinner. If you like spicy Rhone reds they do a couple from the firm of Perrin, a Chateauneuf de Pape Les Sinards £20 and a Vinsobres Les Cornuds at just £10.
_________________________________________________________________________________

Pudding or dessert wines are not everyone's taste yet again there are many lovely bottles to be had, if you have  sweet tooth or want something to go with the Stilton or any other strong blue cheese. These are wines that I have had over time and they are normally very reliable, just a few then:

• Aldi have an Australian ‘sticky’ De Bortolis Liquer Muscat at £8,
• Sainsbury's do a rather special treat Royal Tokaji Late Harvest in their Taste the Difference range 50cl bottle at £10 a real value buy for such a prestigious winery
• Waitrose again have easily the biggest range in these wines: a Sauterne from Ch Liot a half bottle at £13.99 is good value, plus from the Loire Chateau Gaudrelle Vouvray Reserve Especial Moelleux, another half bottle at £10.99 makes a change - a lot of very good sweet wines come from the Loire but are rarely seen.  

_________________________________________________________________________________

You may have noticed there are no rosés shown, that is because I rarely drink them, but instead a photo of a rosé will have to suffice !

Perhaps "pink wine" would be a better term...

What this past year has shown is the contraction in many areas of wine within the supermarkets. Own labels and big brands now rule.

If you want find interesting wines you are going to have to look elsewhere, I have mentioned before The Wine Society have a wonderful range at all price points the £40 life membership is worth every penny and you get £20 back on your first order they are well worth a look.
https://www.thewinesociety.com/

I hope there is something there for everyone, not including £20-plus wines apart from one or two is a deliberate move as I imagine drinkers who regularly spend that sort of money don’t need any help from me !

So Christmas beckons to all...

Cheers!
Salute!
Prost!
Sante!
Salude!
Skal!
Na zdorovie!
Kanpai!

... and whatever else fits the bill

Happy Christmas to You!

Brexit and EU: Mind Your Language!

Good evening, class!

(All: good evening Jeremy, bonsoir, guten Abend etc)

Tonight let’s look at the difference between what words mean and what different people think they mean. A really good way to do this is to read the EU’s Treaty of Rome – after all, we’re never going to leave the EU.

Pliss, why you say that?

Because three Tory Prime Ministers have promised we will.

Now, if you’ll log on and go to https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/FR-EN-DE/TXT/?uri=LEGISSUM:xy0023&from=EN you’ll see side-by-side translations in English, French and German – the EU’s Big Three. Got it?

In 1957 it was only six countries, and among their aims – see that section?  - was a famous phrase, ‘ever-closer union’. That’s the English version. What feelings, associations do you think English people have about the word ‘closer’?

Like, getting very fond of a girlfriend?

Yes, it’s a warm word, isn’t it? Anna, what’s the German translation there?

‘immer engeren Zusammenschluss’

And the word ‘eng’ in German means?

Vell Jeremy, it can mean ‘close’ but really I think more ‘tight’, like my clothes after Christmas.

Very good, Anna. In French, Danielle?

En français, ‘une unification politique plus vaste de l’Europe.’

‘Plus vaste’? That doesn’t sound tight or close. Why would that be?

No, it means bigger, wider – like, I don’t know, Napoléon’s empire?

And that idea still appeals to French people?

We like power and influence, grandeur, vous savez? Indépendance! We said to NATO we would have our own Bomb. We are happy to be in a Union, but only if we can run it.

Yes, Anna, you wished to say something?

For us it is different. Ve like to be together, like a big family. To share. ‘Eng’ is not all bad - if ve are closer, ve are also warmer und safer. Ze Romans never really conquered us, in our forests. For us it is not ‘la Gloire’, it is Bruderheit.

Meaning?

Brotherhood – you know, like ‘Alle Menschen werden Brüder’?

‘All men will become brothers’ – that’s Beethoven, isn’t it?

Nein, Schiller. Originally, ‘beggars vill become brother-princes.’ But it has become the anthem of the EU, nicht? That is vot ve stand for. Brotherhood…

-        -  But not equal brothers!

Maximilian?

Brothers like Cain and Abel! Look at Greece today!

Hmm, going a bit far, Max, perhaps Jacob and Esau might be a better fit. But we’re not all Bible-readers here. Anybody think of a more contemporary analogy? Yes, Juan?

Phil and Grant Mitchell (chorus of ‘who?’)

Eastenders! The brothers, they are like love-hate, fight. In east London.

Filmed in Hertfordshire, actually, we built the Cockneys out of the Capital long ago. This isn’t going quite as I’d hoped. Any suggestions for another bit to compare? Yes, Max?

How about number five?

Which is?

‘Reduce the economic and social differences between the EEC’s various regions.’

Ah. Oh well. Anna, Danielle: same meaning in your languages? (Oui, ja.) Exactly the same. Okay, class, what have we learned so far? Yes, Ranjeet?

When you use different words to different people, it is to persuade. When you use the same words to everyone, it is to delude.

You know Ranjeet, I think you’ve gone as far as our class can take you. Anyone for a drink?

FRIDAY MUSIC: Eileen Ivers, by JD

Eileen Ivers is an Irish/American violinist. Born in New York she began playing fiddle/violin at the age of nine and over the years has progressed from traditional Irish fiddle playing to being perfectly at home in virtually every genre of music. As an example see the video below in which she is more than a match for the great American jazz violinist Regina Carter and the classical player Nadja Salerno Sonnenberg. (By the way, she also plays the banjo, and why not!)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eileen_Ivers

On her website, The New York Times describe her as "the Jimi Hendrix of the violin.
A ridiculous comparison. She is a virtuoso on violin, Hendrix was flash and mediocre even by rock's low standards.
http://www.eileenivers.com/about

BREXIT: The Political Declaration - Fifty Shades Of Yea

The post below has also been published on The Conservative Woman:
https://www.conservativewoman.co.uk/the-eus-written-a-bloc-buster-but-will-boris-rip-it-up/
________________________________________

The Political Declaration contains divorce terms so amicable that the opposing parties ought to get a room. Yet if the General Election forecasts are correct, the next Conservative government should have a majority that will let Boris Johnson radically revise the WA/PD or scrap them altogether. Will he do it?

Should he do it?

The hubristic European Union is already gloating that May’s Withdrawal Agreement hasn’t been modified, merely clarified. I haven’t yet studied the documentation, so I can’t say – but then, how many MPs and spads have done so? How many, rather, are like Douglas Hurd at Maastricht, who jested (and was it a jest?) ‘Now we’ve signed it – we had better read it’? Still, they’ve had two years to go through what was 599 pages and is now only 541 – not much longer than an airport bonkbuster; and it’s their job, after all.

The Political Declaration, on the other hand, is merely 26 pages in both the original and revised versions; the length of a short story. Even the layman can read that, and what a story it is!

This sketch of the future relationship between the divorcees is half lawyer and half lover. In the first version the word ‘ambitious’ appears seven times, ‘close’ sixteen, ‘to the extent possible’ (and similar phrases) thirteen, and ‘align/ment’ four. One feels the bonds being tied already. So masterful… and so yielding!

And the atmospherics are not much changed in the revision. Yes, the Irish backstop has been taken out – including the twice-used commanding phrase ‘on a permanent footing’ (how did that get past May’s negotiators?), but disputes are still to go to the EU’s Court of Justice for a ‘binding ruling’ (tighter, please!)

Here’s an odd detail: the original spoke of ‘administrative cooperation in customs’ but left out VAT. Not insignificant: we sent £3.1 billion (pre-rebate) to theEU last year, which is like winning the 10 biggest-ever jackpots on the Euromillions, twice over, annually. Oops, or not?

As for the UK-fisheries-strangling ‘level playing field’, here’s the new (longer) paragraph – even if, like me, you’re not legally trained, how many carefully ambiguous – and entangling - phrases can you find in it?

‘Given the Union and the United Kingdom's geographic proximity and economic interdependence, the future relationship must ensure open and fair competition, encompassing robust commitments to ensure a level playing field. The precise nature of commitments should be commensurate with the scope and depth of the future relationship and the economic connectedness of the Parties. These commitments should prevent distortions of trade and unfair competitive advantages. To that end, the Parties should uphold the common high standards applicable in the Union and the United Kingdom at the end of the transition period in the areas of state aid, competition, social and employment standards, environment, climate change, and relevant tax matters. The Parties should in particular maintain a robust and comprehensive framework for competition and state aid control that prevents undue distortion of trade and competition; commit to the principles of good governance in the area of taxation and to the curbing of harmful tax practices; and maintain environmental, social and employment standards at the current high levels provided by the existing common standards. In so doing, they should rely on appropriate and relevant Union and international standards, and include appropriate mechanisms to ensure effective implementation domestically, enforcement and dispute settlement. The future relationship should also promote adherence to and effective implementation of relevant internationally agreed principles and rules in these domains, including the Paris Agreement.’

Back to Johnson’s revise/scrap option. Can he do it?

Fair stands the wind for Boris: Corbyn's Labour Party has culled smoothie crypto-Marxist Blairites - who unlike him have actually held power and foisted real constitutional damage on us - but also repelled Old Labour by openly espousing a Marxism that would have Cassandra crying in the streets. Accordingly, Electoral Calculus predicts (as at 9 November) a 96-seat Conservative majority. This is not counting the pact offered by The Brexit Party (and favoured by TCW readers) that could split the working-class Labour vote in many key seats.

So far, Johnson rejects Farage's offer, but the risk he is taking is that enough traditional Conservative voters will understand and reject the hurriedly-made-over May deal to split their vote, too. Should they be convinced that Corbyn has no chance whatever, then anything could happen in the polling booths.

If Johnson wants a 1997-scale landslide, then like Blair he should shun presumption and over-engineer his campaign. There is still time: unless I'm mistaken, a new Parliament might pass a fresh Meaningful Vote in favour of an ironclad real deal on the slipway, instead of launching a paper boat into a stormy sea with BJ's huff-and-puff in its sails.

In short, the choice on 12 December is not between Citizen Smith and the Blond Bombshell; it's between Bullish Boris and Blowhard Boris. If he doesn't deliver Brexit, it won't be because he didn't have the chance. And then we shall know him.

FRIDAY MUSIC: Amos Lee, by JD

You may not be familiar with the name Amos Lee but he is an extremely talented young singer/songwriter and fully deserves a place in our mini hall of musical fame here at Broad Oak Magazine. You will understand why when you listen to the selection included here.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amos_Lee

Walking protohumans started in Europe?

According to research published in Nature, the first bipedal ancestor of modern humans may have come from southern Europe. Dubbed Danuvius Guggenmosi, the remains were found in Bavaria and date from c. 11.5 million years ago.

Only a few weeks before this discovery, another research team speculated that a 10-million-year-old pelvis belonging to another species called Rudapithecus Hungaricus may have enabled it to walk upright, too.

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-03418-2

Before now, says the Daily Mail's report, the earliest evidence of two-legged hominids came from Kenya - the 6 million-year-old remains of Orrorin Tugenensis -  and some fossilised footprints on the island of Crete.

"The discovery of Danuvius may shatter the prevailing notion of how bipedalism evolved: that perhaps 6 million years ago in East Africa a chimpanzee-like ancestor started to walk on two legs after environmental changes created open landscapes and savannahs where forests once dominated."

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/wires/reuters/article-7658067/Prehistoric-ape-Germany-pioneer-two-legged-walking.html

So rather than coming from Africa, it's possible that some of humanity's ancestors may have gone there before re-migrating northwards.

______________________________
Cross-posted on The Polynesian Times: https://polynesiantimes.blogspot.com/2019/11/walking-protohumans-started-in-europe.html

Remainers softening? A straw in the wind

Two years ago, the world-famous broadcaster David Attenborough was comparing opposition to the EU to spitting in each other's faces, and 'criticised the decision to put leaving the European Union to a referendum because people had not been given “the facts"'.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/david-attenborough-brexiteers-spit-europeans-eu-leave-uk-bbc-michael-gove-experts-a7967591.html

More recently, without publicly declaring himself a Remainer or Leaver (and that in itself indicates consciousness of enduring public division), he has said:

“I think that the irritation of the ways in which the European community has interfered with people’s lives on silly levels or silly issues has irritated a lot of people who don’t actually understand what the advantages and the disadvantages are.”  ...

“They’re just fed up with somebody over there who doesn’t speak their language, telling him how much money they’ve got to charge for tomatoes or something silly.”

Asked if he was more of a Brexiteer than a Remainer, Sir David said he believed “there had to be a change, one way or another”.

https://www.itv.com/news/2019-08-21/sir-david-attenborough-people-are-fed-up-with-european-union/

It's interesting that he understands that there may indeed be disadvantages in our EU membership, and that the EU attempts to micromanage in a counterproductive way.

I read this as a sign that at least part of the Establishment is becoming aware that the Referendum result was not merely a flash in the pan and that there is much settled feeling against the European project.

Granted, in the quotation above the speaker seems to say - as so many Remainers said, immediately after the vote and persistently from then on, that such people 'don't actually understand' the issues (though I really don't see much clear, logic- and fact-based argument for the advantages, from Remainers).

But I sense a shift. And I think the traffic is more this way than that.

This post also appears on All About Brexit: https://allaboutbrexit.blogspot.com/2019/11/remainers-softening-straw-in-wind.html

All About Brexit: new blog under construction

I think it's becoming clear that Brexit is going to be a long-drawn-out process, even after (or rather, because of) the "deal" that PM Johnson seems set to push through Parliament and the EU.

There's plenty of detailed academic-type discussion available online, but I think there is a gap in the market for a more simple, user-friendly vade mecum. So I am working on a blog that will provide information, links to documents and websites etc and act as a plain guide to the issues and history.

I would like to show both sides of the argument, but I wonder whether, like me, you have found it difficult to find sources that make the case for Remain anything like as thoroughly as the many proponents of Leave? So although - on the whole - I think we should leave the EU, it would be helpful to have links to logical and factual arguments from Remainers.

Your suggestions are warmly welcomed - can be an O/T comment on any post here or on the new blog, All About Brexit: https://allaboutbrexit.blogspot.com/

Thanks!

Eco Loonery Addendum, by Wiggiatlarge

Shortly after my post on Eco Loonery was posted, two of the most cynical statements were issued by the government. Two aims can be gleaned from these measures and neither is for the benefit of the country, only for themselves.

Firstly they announced a halt to fracking amid fears of earthquakes. The fact no earthquakes have emanated from fracking sites world wide gives credibility to Jeremy Corbyn's statement, of all people. This is an election stunt. Why we should sit on 400 years of coal and shale gas but buy expensive Russian gas is a complete mystery. We are evermore going down the road of expensive and unreliable energy with wind and sun as the main suppliers.

I can only assume with no real evidence of earthquakes, just unfounded fears, that votes in the area with an election in the offing are more important than future independent energy supplies. Why are we not investing in clean coal and gas and preferring to buy in supplies as we are with gas and nuclear power from France? We are at the mercy of pricing over which we have no control. Madness.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-50267454

The second item is even more daft. It would appear that Extinction Rebellion's desire to have "citizens' assemblies" to dictate or advise on eco policies has been given the green light, by the same government! 30,000 people will be asked at random if they wish to participate and then people will be selected to put forward their views.

Thirty thousand would seem like a large number but is a very small segment of the population at large.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-50264797

The obvious and deliberate flaw in this is that you can bet no one who is not a climate change believer will be selected. So the likelihood is that those on the assembly platform will be almost certainly rabid eco loons as they will all be pushing to be selected, whereas others will not bother and the so called denier faction will be filtered out. We will then have XR actually pushing their agenda through a supposedly democratic means which of course it won't be.

You would think a government responsible for treating the country with contempt for three and a half years and rising would start to see the light but no, reverting to type and ignoring the people and giving in to minorities whatever the issue is now de riguer it seems.

Can we do anything ? Well voting them all out would be a start, but it will not happen. We seem to have an elite that is determined to ruin this country in so many ways, and they are succeeding.

More Eco Loonery, by Wiggiatlarge

At this moment in time it seems that every Brexit report, ad nauseam, is matched by another launch of "save the world for the children" or alternatively another green measure, some think tank backed by government (our) money has come up with to further ensure more penury for the little people in the not too distant future, usually following some new report of a climate model that spells out doom for all, yet no climate model has been correct on anything.

Naturally all these schemes come with the approval badge from those who either gain from it financially or find comfort in doing the ‘right’ thing regardless of consequences they will never have to endure.

I notice that any ‘good’ news on the sustainable front is given priority in the news. A report that for the first time sustainable energy provided more than 50% of the total needs omitted to tell that the quarter they were referring to was the three months of a very hot summer and the longest days when demand was at its lowest; of course when those still overcast drab and very cold winter days come come along and the sustainables only provide zilch there is no headline, only the threat of power cuts, which neatly brings me to the next nonsense in the eco world.

The 2050 target for zero emissions cannot possibly be reached with our current infrastructure. The National Grid report here talks of the need for 85 gigawatts needed by 2050 as against 60 now. In the light that they can’t get a single new nuclear plant built in twenty years, that can never be achieved with a combination of running down coal-fired power stations and replacing them with the weather-reliant wind and solar systems. And none of the figures show any allowance for the expanding (forever) population: official figures say that the next ten years will bring in 3 million extra, enough for another 3 Birminghams alone, never mind the endless illegal migrants that are reckoned to be anything from 1 to 10 million according to which report you want to believe.

These are basic facts. Silly claims that smart meters will make an eight gigabyte saving are pie in the sky: there is no proof for that assumption and it is just another push to get control of your energy so they can decide what you get and what you pay, never believe anything else on that front. Smart meters give the power companies the ability to decide what you can have at a given time and ramp up the price during peak periods, like the motor car in whatever form that takes it will be priced to dampen demand and use, they will have no choice because of the lack of the right type of infrastructure.

This quote from a government minister on smart meters….

‘Eventually, residents would be able to choose real-time tariffs, to switch on appliances when energy is cheapest' - i.e. you can use your kettle and save money if you put it on at 1 o'clock in the morning, plus he gives a veiled threat to those who have not complied and sought to have smart meters fitted…..

‘Lord Duncan admitted there had been "hiccups along the road", but there were potentially "big incentives" for people to agree to a smart meter being fitted. He added that those who stuck with "relic meters" risked "very high" maintenance costs.’ There are so far no advantages in smart meters for the consumer,  all the advantages are for the supplier and the veiled threat is just that. What high maintenance costs? Or are they going to charge us an exorbitant rate for meter reading as you have failed to toe the government line?

Still we will all be able to travel by train when we are priced off the road….



The contrasting views on future needs were highlighted in a Times business report on the aviation industry, in which it was stated that world-wide the number of aircraft expected to be in operation by 2050 will have doubled to around 44,000 - interesting in the light of what we are told re travelling by air, could it be just us being stopped from flying as it appears no one else will be ! And certainly not those celebs who happily pose with the likes of XR (Extinction Rebellion) protestors to boost their green credentials while at the same time totally ignoring the same advice regards themselves. (The Guardian forecasts 48,000!)

Naturally the population explosion world-wide is left out of any energy plans, yet how can that be? Every extra person on the planet will require feeding and will have have an energy requirement. Both needs are now being strangled at source by the green lobby yet they believe this is good for us, the same people who claim we are at fault as a prime industrial nation for the ‘horrors’ of climate change - which we aren’t - also benefited and are where they are in the pecking order because of the industrial revolution started in this country.

An interesting short video on where the population is going from the beginning of man on this earth or at least from when significant numbers had established:



Unless another form of propulsion is advanced as with hydrogen to become practical the EV (electric vehicle) will become the status quo, and I don’t oppose that; but with all the pressure from the green lobby groups and the energy companies who see the long term future and another fuel bonanza it cannot be done. The costings for the infrastructure involved are enormous - one estimate showed around 180 billion for the charging infrastructure - and we already lag far behind many other western nations in that respect.

The retail price of EVs is simply not on. Very little R&R is required to produce ICE (internal combustion engine) cars, yet despite manufacturers' claims of huge investment, electric motors have been around longer than the combustion engine, and still a recent report gave a figure of around £800-900 for an electric motor to power an average EV. Electric motors require no expensive gearbox and very few engine ancillaries, only the battery is expensive and the price there has plummeted as they become main line; so why the ridiculous cost? To which we know the answer: as with all 'new' technology the initial launch period is where manufacturers  make their money, as with e.g. mobile phones and cameras.

No one yet has given a solution to the recycling of the enormous amount of batteries that will start to end their useful life in the near future; not just car batteries but the already surging popularity of cordless, battery-powered tools and appliances. Anyone looking at the battery collection points in supermarkets sees overflowing containers of just the small batteries used in items like phones etc. The thought of car batteries being on that scale makes the mind boggle on that scale and as I've said, apart from mouthings in some quarters no evidence of a solution has appeared.

One of the more interesting and ludicrous aspects of all this Greta Hamburger attack on everyone to 'save the planet' has been people calling out the hypocrisy spouted by resource-wasteful celebs who then back track to the position that although they carry on doing what they do, they have warned the rest of us. A typical statement came from Lewis Hamilton of all people, who will no doubt claim that the ridicule heaped on him is because he is black or at least half black. This is what he said.

"It's not easy as we're travelling the world and our carbon footprint is higher than the average homeowner who lives in one city," said Hamilton. "That doesn't mean you should be afraid to speak out for positive change."

Hamilton used his Instagram feed last week to say he felt "like giving up on everything", that the world was "messed up" and to ask people to follow his example in taking up a plant-based diet to help the environment.”

So in his case eating beans makes his air travel and driving cars that guzzle fuel perfectly OK. "Bizarre" doesn’t cover it. 'Give up on everything' - we shall see, that is one of those statements like, “I will leave the country if we exit the EU”:  it never happens,  and he is far from alone. Most of the XR leaders have been found to be a long way from following their own diktat, but it was forever thus.

It could be that all the above is not worth worrying about anyway, just the demographic part. It might well be the case that those third world countries that are expanding at these alarming rates will simply decant to the west in numbers that are never sustainable and we all go back to third world living, something else there seems to be scant concern about in the minds of those who govern us.

Mad Max, anyone?

(cusp of) FRIDAY MUSIC: Samhain (Halloween) by JD

Our modern Halloween festival is really an American invention which takes the Christian festival of All Saints Day (or All Hallows) and takes its more ghoulish appearance from Mexico's festival Dia de los Muertos which is a three day festival and sometimes more than three days, depending on local traditions (and exuberance).

Halloween is often mistakenly thought to have its origins in the Celtic festival of Samhain. This is not true because the Celtic tribes of these islands, of Hibernia and Caledonia, left no written records. The only written records come from the Romans 2000 years ago and they are not exactly reliable or unbiased.

Some people have claimed that Samhain was actually a Celtic god. In fact there is no convincing evidence to support this. It seems likely that this is a misinterpretation of Celtic paganism by those of a theist persuasion. And the word 'pagan' is itself also the subject of wild speculation.
The word comes from the Latin 'paganus' which was used to describe country dwellers; then, as now, city dwellers regarded those in the countyside as ignorant yokels. The Roman influence in the UK has been long lasting.

Samhain was absorbed first by the Romans into their Feralia, a festival of the dead, and also with their harvest festival in honour of Pomona. This merged Roman festival was itself incorporated by the Christians and rebranded as All Saints Day, leaving the night before to become all hallows eve, hallows e'en, thus Halloween. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samhain

It was a standard practice of many early religions, especially the Christian church, to take local customs and places of power and co-opt them into their own belief system. This was probably one of the earliest known examples of the "embrace, extend and extinguish" strategy that (unfortunately) is so commercially successful today.

You can forget about any of those 19th century inventions of Druidry or Paganism or witchcraft, all of which claim to be a direct lineage from the past but are, in reality, based more on the Romantic movements of recent European history.

Samhain has survived in the oral traditions and the music of the Celtic tribes.

Why We Should Have A Second Referendum

The article below has since been published almost verbatim on The Conservative Woman under the title "Deal or No Deal – let the people decide."

I wish to argue for a second, binding referendum to choose between the final draft Withdrawal Agreement, and leaving the EU without one. I hope this case will be brought to court and succeed.

There must be no option to remain. The decision to leave the European Union has been comprehensively confirmed:

• ·         The 2016 Referendum, in which a record number of citizens participated, was preceded by oral and (in the Government’s pamphlet) written assurances that the result would be binding. The majority was for leaving, by 52% to 48%.
• ·         In the 2017 General Election 579 Conservative and Labour MPs gained their seats https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_United_Kingdom_general_election on manifestoes that committed them to exiting the EU.
• ·         Parliament then passed the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 on the Third Reading (17 January 2018) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union_(Withdrawal)_Act_2018#House_of_Commons_Report_Stage_and_Third_Reading .
• ·         An attempt in the Lords to pass an amendment allowing a second in/out Referendum was decisively defeated on 30 April 2018 https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/953298/brexit-news-eu-uk-house-of-lords-second-referendum-final-deal-defeat-lib-dem-theresa-may .

Quite rightly then, ex-PM Theresa May told Parliament last week that any attempt to overturn the 2016 result would be the “most egregious con-trick on the British people” https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/1192892/Theresa-may-speech-brexit-vote-today . That is putting it mildly: if Parliament breaks this, it breaks its moral right to govern. Pace Matthew Parris https://www.spectator.co.uk/2019/10/the-question-a-second-referendum-must-ask/, there is no revisiting that part of the nation’s decision.

Yet that is only the first part; the second is to address the terms of withdrawal.

In the “Miller I” case of January 2017, the Supreme Court ruled https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R_(Miller)_v_Secretary_of_State_for_Exiting_the_European_Union#Judgment_2 that unlike with other international agreements, the Government could not withdraw from the Lisbon Treaty without reference to Parliament, because constitutional issues were involved. Leaving entailed the loss of certain EU member citizen rights, and ECA 1972 had not expressly conferred a power on the Secretary of State to alter them. Hence the right to a “Meaningful Vote.”

But this raises the question of whether Parliament itself is fit to make that choice without reference to the people, whose interests they supposedly represent. The 2018 Withdrawal Act was passed 324:295 (52% to 48%, again!), but if the division had been according to the number of constituencies in which the majority voted Leave in the Referendum, the Ayes would have been 406; and if all Conservative and Labour MPs had honoured their manifesto commitments, the Ayes would have risen to at least 579 (or 89%).

Why these discrepancies?

• ·         First, Parliamentary parties juggle issues for electoral advantage. Currently https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-50194685 the SNP and Libdems want an extension to the Article 50 negotiations, an amendment to the Fixed Term Parliament Act to allow a mid-term General Election to be authorised by simple majority, and an early GE date, in order to unseat Johnson as PM and "remove the risk of a devastating no-deal Brexit," so leaving us with no alternatives; and Labour opposes an early election outright “unless a no-deal Brexit is taken off the table.” The PM thinks a GE will give him a secure mandate; the Opposition parties think they may gain instead, but use Johnson’s desire for an election as a lever to close down options on an issue of the most profound importance.
• ·         Second, politically there is internal division and philosophical confusion. In part this arises from the nature of the EU itself, which seems to stand for international cooperation and free trade, yet at the same time is a protectionist trading bloc, and yet through enlargement has undermined pay levels and security of employment for its Western European workforces. Hugh Gaitskell explored the ambiguities for Labour back in 1962 https://www.cvce.eu/content/publication/1999/1/1/05f2996b-000b-4576-8b42-8069033a16f9/publishable_en.pdf .
• ·         Third, individual MPs and Lords may have personal interests that could be affected by Brexit – investments, business dealings, possible future employment and preferment etc – even, under certain circumstances, EU staff pensions https://fullfact.org/online/EU-staff-pensions-criticism/ . Rudd and Letwin are already making money https://order-order.com/2019/10/25/bank-america-pays-remainers-rudd-letwin-10000/ on the talk circuit.
• ·         Fourth, there are foreign powers who have long taken an interest. For example, the US Democratic Party is siding with Ireland against a hard border https://euobserver.com/foreign/144688 , thus combining America’s CIA-backed policy of ramming us into Europe https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2016/04/27/the-european-union-always-was-a-cia-project-as-brexiteers-discov/ with their old green-Chicago-River paddiwhackery https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/9935908/River-turns-green-for-St-Patricks-Day.html .

We ordinary people feel more and more like Lewis Carroll’s Oysters, trying to gain the attention of the Walrus and the Carpenter while the latter are only interested in having enough bread and butter to eat them with.

The consequences of Brentry and Brexit are usually couched in economic terms. Even Wilson bribed us in 1975 with the promise of “FOOD and MONEY and JOBS" http://www.harvard-digital.co.uk/euro/pamphlet.htm (we then got more expensive food, less money and fewer jobs) while not telling us that in time we were to be absorbed into a sprawling new country. If the debate were to centre itself on democratic principles, our Remain politicians would be embarrassed at their own exposure, like Adam and Eve after eating from the Tree of Knowledge.

For it is clear that the electoral system is dangerously flawed. Democracy depends on the acquiescence of the losers. The winners do not win convincingly – no party has held power on the basis of a majority of votes cast nationally, since 1931 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_general_elections_overview#1929%E2%80%931951 ; in the 2005 GE only 220 MPs won an absolute majority in their various constituencies and in 2010, only 217. Conscious of the exclusion problem, Parliament debated electoral reform in 1931, but failed to agree because the Commons wanted AV and Lords preferred PR. In the 2011 Referendum both major parties opposed the Alternative Vote because they felt it would cut into their portions of the cake, and let the LibDems starve amid plenty.

So, Parliamentary seats do not accurately reflect voter preferences, and MPs and Lords feel free to ignore them anyhow. Brexit and the choice of ratification or rejection of the terms cannot safely be left to this Parliament, nor can a General Election with all its complexities properly resolve the matter.

We have already accepted the principle that this is no ordinary issue but a great Constitutional one. Even our entry into the EEC had to be validated post facto by a referendum, though the result was skewed by political pressure on Fleet Street at a time when there were fewer alternative sources of information and analysis. If Gina Miller won her case because our rights were involved, then we should also remember that joining the EEC not only conferred rights, it took them away, and what we lost thereby in democratic terms is far more than what we gained. Implicitly our leaders had agreed to a progressively huge loss of power – not only the British State’s over its own affairs, but of the British citizenship’s over its rulers.

And we now know for certain that Heath lied. He knew from 1970 on that the project was for a superstate https://campaignforanindependentbritain.org.uk/britain-europe-bruges-group/ . How many in Parliament knew this? We certainly didn’t – Con O’Neill’s briefing was kept secret for 30 years. It could be argued that lacking Parliament’s and the people’s informed consent, we have never validly been a member nation of “Europe.”

As far as my own rights are concerned, I say that HMG no more has the power to strip me of my British citizenship and make me a citizen of the EU, than it has the right to make me a Russian or Kazakhstani without my consent.

And because there are aspects of the current draft WA/PD that bind my Government’s hands on many important and enduring sovereign matters such as foreign policy https://www.brugesgroup.com/blog/the-revised-withdrawal-agreement-and-political-declaration-a-briefing-note , it will not be valid unless I and a majority of my fellow citizens agree.

There must be a Meaningful Vote; a People’s Vote; a New, Confirmatory, Second Referendum – on Deal or No Deal.

FRIDAY MUSIC: Capercaillie, by JD

With all the wonderful music currently available I seem to have overlooked, so far, the wonderful Capercaillie one of the best of the traditional Scottish folk bands. Hailing from Argyll, the band was founded in 1984 by Donald Shaw and led by the voice of Karen Matheson, a voice which is as clear and pure as the waters from a highland spring.

They performs traditional Gaelic and contemporary English songs. The group adapts traditional Gaelic music and traditional lyrics with modern production techniques and instruments such as electric guitar and bass guitar, although in recent years they have returned to a more traditional style and their repertoire includes music of the Celtic diaspora from Cape Breton to Galicia.

The final two videos here are from a broadcast of Radio Galega on Galician TV. The "Skye Waulking Song", is used in the Edexcel Music GCSE Specification from 2009 onwards. The song is in the world music section, and is used as a representation of traditional folk music combined with rock music.
https://www.capercaillie.co.uk/the-band/

Brocodile: New post on The Conservative Woman

Yesterday's post here has been published on TCW, with some side-glances and some of my more inflammatory stuff sensibly edited out to spare the public and guilty parties.

https://www.conservativewoman.co.uk/never-smile-at-a-brocodile/

Never Smile At A Brocodile

A version of this has been published on The Conservative Woman - edits are highlighted in green.

Well, they’ve voted for the WA (and PD) at the Second Reading, though not for the accelerated timetable  https://www.theguardian.com/politics/blog/live/2019/oct/22/brexit-boris-johnson-deal-leave-eu-live-news?page=with:block-5daf4c148f08142786c4ffcd - they need to make sure the egg is fully addled before stamping the lion mark https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egg_Marketing_Board  on it.

Some call this BRINO (Brexit In Name Only), calling to mind a horned but myopic and generally placid herbivore. No, it’s a Brocodile: a sly and lethally patient raptor, waiting for a bumbling gnu new Prime Minister to blunder into its wide, toothy smile. Old and crafty, it strikes with saurian speed at a negotiator’s vulnerability, and Boris is just a guy who can’t say no https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A18kYnP4Pec , which is why his domestic and our public affairs are in a terrible fix. (Yet De Gaulle could say “Non,” which is fifty per cent longer.)

At this point, the waterhole metaphor breaks down, for it’s not BoJo’s neck that will be twisted off in the EU’s death-roll. He spoke airily of dying in a ditch rather than delay Brexit; now we do have that delay, and absent a miracle we shall certainly not have Brexit. But ABdeP Johnson will be all right – perhaps he’ll take his little black book of contacts to an investment bank, like ACL Blair.

No, it is we who shall pay the price. In cash, in EU disenfranchisement, in the semi-detachment of Northern Ireland, in ceding control over fishing, taxation, business subsidies and other areas. In financial ruin, if the Eurozone collapses while we are still co-guarantor for the EIB’s debts; finally, perhaps, in blood and wreckage, if the EU’s ambitions for Empire and command of UK forces tempt them into fatal overreach.

Our leaders were never going to outwit the EU’s, who resemble the kind of lawyer who could write your will and surreptitiously make himself the sole beneficiary. The incompetent amateurism of HMG’s half-hearted efforts to free us are matched only by the Heath government’s in the process of joining.

Nor does our Government have much to fear from the Opposition, who are only determined that whichever way Pussy goes through the catflap she should still be stuck in the house. With all their procedural tricks, they are not an Opposition but a Subversion. Yet it’s not HMG that they are subverting: really both sides are after the same result – one is playing for time to complete their sabotage, the other is signing surrender terms while trumpeting victory.

No, it is we who are the enemy. How long and at what cost did we fight to cage an overmighty Crown within Parliament; and how much longer was the battle for universal suffrage, even now less than a century old https://www.parliament.uk/about/living-heritage/transformingsociety/electionsvoting/womenvote/case-study-the-right-to-vote/the-right-to-vote/birmingham-and-the-equal-franchise/1928-equal-franchise-act/ ? We are John Major’s “bastards”, we, who opted to Leave, with our stubby pencils.

Yet so powerful are our combined votes, our Horton’s Who voices https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horton_Hears_a_Who! , that they, too, must be muted. First Past The Post and the Boundary Commission result in a House of Commons where only some 220 MPs secure a majority of votes cast in their constituencies. In 1931 the HoC was for the Alternative Vote, but the Lords wanted PR, and the matter fell https://api.parliament.uk/historic-hansard/commons/1931/jun/02/representation-of-the-people-no-2-bill ; 80 years later we reopened the issue https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_United_Kingdom_Alternative_Vote_referendum but by then it suited both major parties to keep things as they are, whereby psephologists and their databanks can calculate how to sway the swing voter in the swing seat.

But that’s not enough. Democracy depends on informed consent, and Power wants it to be managed consent instead. Enter mass communication technology (from newspapers to radio, TV and beyond) and mass psychology; and the counter-evolution of the masses’ awareness of power relations. Over the last few years, growing numbers of us have become sceptical about mainstream news, feeling that our perceptions are being moulded by selection and suppression of facts, and spin.

The new social media have allowed a hundred flowers https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hundred_Flowers_Campaign to bloom, briefly - some of them hermetic and rank, but that’s democracy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overton_window ; now policed in the West, and suppressed in China in their tightly-controlled Internet. After the flowers, weeds: online disinformation campaigns have sprung up – the paid political trolls, the 77^th Brigade https://www.wired.co.uk/article/inside-the-77th-brigade-britains-information-warfare-military and so on.

Moreover, in our modern atomised society, where we drive to the supermarket in closed cars rather than rub shoulders in the classic forum, offline we have limited direct experience of what our fellows are thinking. So the dead tree Press have an opportunity to shape public opinion by the way they report the results of opinion polls.

For example, The Sun said “Brits tell MPs to vote for Boris Johnson’s agreement” https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/brexit/10165122/brits-back-boris-johnsons-brexit-deal/ based on a YouGov poll https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2019/10/18/two-thirds-leave-voters-say-parliament-should-acce which also revealed - further down – that only 17% of the general population thought it was a good deal, as opposed to 23% who considered it a bad one!

Or how about the Daily Mail, which did a savage handbrake turn on Brexit when Geordie “independence for Scotland, but not for the UK” Greig took over the editorship? It commissioned a Survation poll and concluded https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7589705/Daily-Mail-poll-reveals-Britain-wants-MPs-stop-delay-Boris-Johnson.html that half the nation backs Boris’ deal. Yet if you drill into the poll https://t.co/kiRyQXmIJA and look at Tables 59 and 60, you’ll see that more people “strongly opposed” the deal than “strongly supported” it (and only two-thirds of respondents answered that question anyway).

This is a complex issue, one where facts do matter and as Thoreau said https://www.nytimes.com/1987/10/25/opinion/l-one-man-s-majority-654087.html , “Any man more right than his neighbours constitutes a majority of one.” I wonder what results we'd have got if respondents were restricted to those who did more than read the Daily Mail or watch BBC News, and instead looked at the online commenters' analyses of the pros and cons of the full deal.

It’s Them v. Us, I’m afraid. It was deeply ironic to watch ex-PM Mrs May castigating the Opposition in Parliament https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/1192892/Theresa-may-speech-brexit-vote-today for failing to honour the statutes they helped enact - withdrawal from the EU, and the triggering of Article 50.

Did they mean it? she asked. Well, did she, when she then came to the Commons three times with her Withdrawal Agreement? Or her successor, who has returned with much the same, plus lipstick? Or those who now call for another Referendum, with a choice of a rotten deal or Remain - the latter being the one thing that was definitively ruled out in 2016?

Yes, we are being pushed into the jaws of the Brocodile. And I’m not smiling.

Guido's Chinese Whispers

I have combined and edited two recent posts to make one that I am submitting to The Conservative Woman. Here is what I have said:

“News is something somebody doesn't want printed; all else is advertising,” as Randolph Hearst said. https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/77244-news-is-something-somebody-doesn-t-want-printed-all-else-is Over the last few years, growing numbers of us have become sceptical about the mainstream media, feeling that our perceptions are being managed by selection and suppression of facts, and spin.

So we season our understanding with a variety of alternative sources, many online. One such is Paul Staines, aka “Guido Fawkes,” who gives us a stream of Westminster gossip and up-to-date news. Some of us appreciate his support for Brexit, all the more valued since the Daily Mail did a savage handbrake turn when Geordie Greig took over the editorship.

But a couple of Guido’s recent posts have got me worried. I’m hoping it’s just owing to the pressure of constant publication, rather than consciously adopting the Government’s line on Johnson’s “deal.”

****************

On 18^th October, he bannered a piece with “Snap Poll: Public Want The Deal Passing” https://order-order.com/2019/10/18/snap-poll-public-want-deal-passing/ , subtitling it “Two thirds of Leave voters say Parliament should vote to accept the new Brexit deal.”

His source was a YouGov poll whose headline is very similar  https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2019/10/18/two-thirds-leave-voters-say-parliament-should-acce , but whose detail is troubling. Yes, 67% of Leave voters say they want Brexit done; but YouGov’s third table shows they feel they don’t really know enough. 31% think it is a good deal, 11% think it is bad, and 58% are neutral or undecided. This is a complex issue, one where facts do matter and as Thoreau said https://www.nytimes.com/1987/10/25/opinion/l-one-man-s-majority-654087.html , “Any man more right than his neighbours constitutes a majority of one.” The general public is even more conflicted: 17% say the deal is good, 23% say bad – and since the 2016 Referendum involved everyone, not just Leavers, perhaps that should have been the headline. In Guido’s case, his headline and the subheading are at odds – the public is not the same as its Leaver element.

Does this matter? Yes, it does. You can influence people by telling them that most of their fellows think a certain way – isn’t that one of the reasons to own a newspaper? Or to infiltrate the BBC?

******************

Cut to 21^st October: Guido tells us “Brexit Party Supporters Back The Deal” https://order-order.com/2019/10/21/brexit-party-supporters-back-deal/ and crows "Despite Nigel’s continuing opposition for opposition’s sake, it seems his usually loyal followers are abandoning him in favour of Boris’s new deal. Last man in the bunker…”

The facts? Out of 1,025 polled among the general public by Survation https://t.co/kiRyQXmIJA , a total of 15 (fifteen) Brexiteers “strongly approved” Boris’ deal. (Click on the link to see the whole thing – Guido’s stats are drawn from Sheet 3, Table 60.)

I am a little concerned that the survey was conducted on behalf of the Daily Mail – I’m sure that Survation will have done a professional job, but I wonder what the brief was; it covers a lot of ground, rather too much in my opinion.

Table 60 analyses responses to Question 26, which reads, "From what you have seen or heard about the government's Brexit deal, to what extent do you support or oppose the deal?"

Already we wonder what the respondents know – what are their sources of information, and how has it been presented? “Garbage in, garbage out,” as the techies say.

Moreover, the replies in this table are merely a subset of the total respondents - only 674 out of 1,025 - so the margin of error is greater. Even then, not all in that subset replied to all parts: the "current voting intention" line (line #1641, Columns Q-W) adds up to only 601 people, and only 596 people said how they voted in the 2016 Referendum (Columns H and I). We’re now down to a sample of less than 60% of people polled.

And Guido’s news about Brexiteers is not only cherry-picking statistics out of this reduced sample, but combining them to give a misleading impression of homogeneity of feeling. The 15 who say they intend to vote TBP next time and who "strongly supported" Boris' deal (Line 1641, Column T) are added to 36 who only "somewhat supported" it, to make a combined total of 51 people - then reported as "67% of Brexit Party supporters."

Step back: 1,025 people took part in the poll; of whom only 87 intend to vote TBP; of whom only 15 are strongly in favour of the deal. I say, if you really want to know what TBP supporters feel about Boris’ deal, do a more focused poll. 5,248,533 people voted for TBP in the 2019 European Parliament elections – there’s plenty of material there!

Using much the same approach, Guido tells us that 70% of Leave voters and 90% of Tories also back Johnson’s WA Mark 2. Is this a safe basis? I'm not inclined to think so.

In fact of ALL those who responded to question 26 and also indicated their voting intentions in the next General Election, only 137 "strongly supported" the proposed deal, and a further mere 158 "somewhat supported" it. Even adding them together - sheep with cows (Little Boy Blue, you're falling down on the job) - you get 295 people out of a total survey population of 1,025. 295 very variably informed people with probably very differently nuanced stances on their support for "deal".

I wonder what results we'd have got if respondents were restricted to those who did more than read the Daily Mail or watch BBC News, and also looked at the detailed analyses of the pros and cons of the full deal.

********************

We need informed consent, not managed consent; so we need commentators who view sources critically and present their findings judiciously. “If you can keep your head when all around you…”

For we’re not getting the straight gen from our leaders, are we?

It would have been comical, had it not been almost tragic, to watch ex-PM Mrs May castigating the Opposition in Parliament https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/1192892/Theresa-may-speech-brexit-vote-today for failing to honour the statutes they helped enact - withdrawal from the EU, and the triggering of Article 50.

Did they mean it? she asked. Well, did she, when she then came to the Commons three times with a ball-and-chain Withdrawal Agreement? Or her successor, who has returned with much the same (lipstick on a crocodile, I call it)? Or those who now call for another Referendum, with a choice of a rotten deal or Remain - the latter being the one thing that was definitively ruled out in 2016?

Guido, we need people like you to be our compass, or we shall be lost on a sea of misinformation.

Guido Fawkes - "TBP supporters back Boris' deal" - REALLY?

Parliamentary gossip broker Paul Staines aka "Guido Fawkes" confidently transmits this news:

... commenting:

"Despite Nigel’s continuing opposition for opposition’s sake, it seems his usually loyal followers are abandoning him in favour of Boris’s new deal. Last man in the bunker… 

"A new Survation poll out this morning shows 67% of Brexit Party voters want the Commons to pass the deal, a little behind the 73% of leave voters and 90% of Conservative voters. In the country as a whole, the deal has 47% support versus 37% opposition. Theresa May could only dream of numbers like these…"

_______________________

Survation's Tweet makes it clear that their results indicate 51% still wish to leave the EU, versus 45% wishing to remain and 5% unsure.

More usefully, Survation give a link to the full results [https://t.co/kiRyQXmIJA] and it is worth seeing what underpins this apparently overwhelming endorsement for the new Prime Minister's deal.

The context is a worry. The first page of the spreadsheet (see the second and third tabs at the foot for Contents and Tables) show that the survey was conducted on behalf of the Daily Mail, a newspaper that has radically changed its stance on Brexit since Geordie Greig took over the editorship from Paul Dacre. Greig's preference is for Remain, but also for Scottish independence, a stance I find illogical - you either believe in national sovereignty or you don't.

Also, I'm not quite sure who set the questions, and why they did it that way. The answers you get are conditioned by the way you ask the questions.

At any rate, "Guido Fawkes" is picking his sample results from Table 60, which you can check for yourself on the third page as linked above.

Table 60 analyses responses to Question 26, which reads:
"From what you have seen or heard about the government's Brexit deal, to what extent do you support or oppose the deal?"
Already we wonder what the respondent knows - who has provided that information, and how has it been presented?

Moreover, the respondents are merely a subset of the total respondents - only 674 out of 1,025 - so the margin of error is greater. Even then, not all in that subset replied to all parts: the "current voting intention" line (line #1641, Columns Q-W) adds up to only 601 people, and only 596 people said how they voted in the 2016 Referendum (Columns H and I).

And, of course, this news item is not only cherry-picking statistics out of this smaller sample, but combining them to give a misleading impression of homogeneity of feeling. For example, of those who told the pollster they intended to vote for the Brexit Party next time, only 15 people "strongly supported" Boris' deal, as opposed to 36 who "somewhat supported" it. That's a dodgily combined total of 51 people - reported as "67% of Brexit Party supporters." If you want to know what TBP supporters feel about the deal, go and poll them. 5,248,533 people voted for TBP in the 2019 European Parliament elections - that's more than 100,000 times that 51-person sample!

The same kind of game is played with "Leave voters" (those who voted Leave in 2016) and "Tories" (those telling the pollster that's who they will vote for in the next GE - they'd never lie, would they?).

Safe and reliable? I'm not inclined to think so.

In fact of ALL those who responded to question 26 and also indicated their voting intentions in the next General Election, only 137 "strongly supported" the proposed deal, and a further mere 158 "somewhat supported" it. Even adding them together - sheep with cows (Little Boy Blue, you're falling down on the job) - you get 295 people out of a total survey population of 1,025. 295 very variably informed people with probably very differently nuanced stances on their support for "deal".

I wonder what results we'd have got if respondents were restricted to those who did more than read the Daily Mail or watch BBC News, and instead looked at the online commenters' analyses of the pros and cons of the full deal.

It would have been comical, had it not been almost tragic, to watch ex-PM Mrs May castigating the Opposition in Parliament for failing to honour the statutes they helped enact - withdrawal from the EU, and the triggering of Article 50.

Did they mean it? Well, did she, when she then came to the Commons three times with a ball-and-chain Withdrawal Agreement? Or her successor, who has returned with much the same (lipstick on a crocodile, I call it)? Or those who now call for another Referendum, with a choice of a rotten deal or Remain - the latter being the one thing that was definitively ruled out in 2016?

What is "Guido Fawkes" doing, cheerleading this farrago of misleading information?