A Trendy Moniker, by Wiggiatlarge

When I was young a double barrelled surname would indicate someone from the upper crust, rarely did the lower reaches of society lay claim to such a fancy moniker.

The origins of such grandiose surnames goes back in time to when in this country the second surname was incorporated for heritable reasons, when there was no male descendant bearing the name and otherwise it would have become extinct.

In other countries there are other reasons for double barrelled surnames but that does not concern us here.

The use of a hyphen in all cases is optional and at the discretion of the people involved. Some families have both the hyphenated and the non versions in another branch of the family; the non hyphen versions cause the most trouble as often the first of the two surnames is taken as a forename.

There are even triple and quadruple barrelled versions; almost all involved landed gentry consolidating estates by marriage.

Why would I be interested in this rather arcane practice? Well, strangely I have a brother whose son has a double barrelled surname. Why they inflicted that on him with my surname as it is, is a mystery, but the business name of my brother and his wife (they live in Switzerland) is double barrelled and they for reasons of their own have given the son not just the double barrelled surname but a forename he will not thank them for in his adulthood; strange world.

But the current trend in these surnames has exploded of late. Watching Match of the Day I could not help but notice the number of footballers with double barrelled surnames emblazoned with difficulty across the back of their shirts; it now seems every Premier League team has a least one in the eleven, some have two or more. I am not really sure why; perhaps it has something to do with the growing preference for adult 'partnerships' over formal marriage. It is almost as if the non-primary-carer parent is staking a claim by imposing this naming. I could be wrong but there is a prevalence in that group of players; one of the first I noticed was Arsenal player Ian Wright's son, Shaun Wright - Phillips; in this case it is for the purposes of identity as Ian has eight kids by four mums ! Plus Shaun was adopted, all very complicated.

But I would assume that is not the norm ? and is there now a trend in taking two surnames simply because you can. Football would be a natural proving ground for such a trend, perhaps the tattoos and ridiculous haircuts have had their day, and the more trendy footballers or their parents are looking for the next thing, double barrelled surnames. We have after all had plenty of celebrities lumbering their offspring with forenames that beggar belief: certain pop stars and the likes of Jamie Oliver showed complete disregard for their offspring, planting names on them that should never have seen the light of day and will provide ridicule for years ahead for the poor kids, you have to have a serious deficiency to do that to a child.

Of course in the USA they have had the strange habit of naming kids in subsequent generations with the same name as the father and as the generations also have children we get the addition of Roman numerals after the names, the second third fourth etc. God help us if this is revived and becomes trendy here and is tagged onto double barrelled surnames, footballers will have to have enough room on their shirts for a paragraph.

Having a surname that is unusual, well it is in the South, has its moments and I remember a man I worked with in the sixties whose surname was Badcock who spent his time on the phone pronouncing it as in Cockburn's Port; the problem was nobody ever approached him and said that, it must have been a nightmare.

Names can be fascinating. Often they have a historical context and are a rich source of the English language. But they also promote an image: who after all would go and see a film star called Bernard Schwartz (Tony Curtis), or Archibald Leach (Cary Grant)? Not quite the same ring to them there.

And I finish with an oft told true story from my misspent youth. One of my friends had the use of his governor's MK 10 Jaguar at the weekends, but only for himself and direct family, all else was forbidden. But this weekend it was decided that four of us including the driver would go up west and have a night out in said car. All went well, until returning home: just a hundred odd yards from where we all lived we were stopped by police for the obvious reason - it looked dodgy having four youths in such a car.

The usual questions were asked and the driver was near breakdown as he saw this as a way to lose his job having broken the rules of usage. Anyway it then got to the stage of wanting the names of all the occupants and one by one we furnished them: the driver was Irvin Levy, the next was George Archibald, the third was (later my best man when I married) Lew Finesilver - it was a very Jewish area, you may have gathered - and lastly myself, John Wigglesworth. Having reached myself the plain clothes officer threw his notebook down and said, “Stop f****** about, now give us your real names,” and threatened us bodily harm if we didn’t. After much protest I was allowed to hot foot it across the road to get proof of identity from my parents' flat and all was grudgingly accepted.

Names, they can get you into a lot of trouble !

Election Special, by JD

We know this is just another Whitehall Farce https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whitehall_farce so there is no point in taking it seriously -











Dozens more at Dutch Wogan - not sure if any of these are libellous!
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC-DYnJtsTeIYL61yoQrp-0A

Pour yourself a wee dram and look forward to:

GE: Politicians Make A Monkey Out Of Us

On my doorstep stood the chimp and his trainer, asking for my vote. What issues were of concern to me? A referendum on the EU, I said (this was 2010). We had a referendum in 1975, said Bonzo. No! I replied, that was the EEC and we were told it was about trade. The Labour minder’s face – she was obviously the brains of the outfit - betrayed amusement at his ineptitude (Mark McCormack was right: always go into a meeting alone).

This was the first time in twenty years anyone from any party had called in person. Prior to 1997 I had been represented by a Labour grandee and the only time I saw or heard him was when he toured the constituency in a tannoy car to say so long and thanks for all the fish. Then the boundaries were redrawn and the (still rock-solid Red) seat was gifted to a London-based nebbish - even now I have had to Google to get his name.

All went well for the heir, even in 2001, by which time my feelings about Blair had hardened into certainty: Smiler was dangerously mad and so I protest-voted Tory for the first time in my life, not that it was going to make the slightest difference.

Some commenters on my last piece deplored British political tribalism and warned against PR because it breaks the link between an MP and his constituents. I completely agree – and yet, what link? No wonder I went by the headquarters organ-grinder: I never saw the monkey.

Until 2010: another Boundary Commission Etch-A-Sketch job and Lucky Boy was no longer in charge of me. So now a LibDem candidate turned up too, contemplating me owlishly. Issues? Europe: I sensed a sag, a weary contempt. But he got in, and when I emailed him in 2011 about sovereignty he replied ‘The EU has no power over parliament.  In fact the Lisbon Treaty included a change for a provision to leave the EU.  Parliament can simply refuse to incorporate EU law and in my view should be a bit more critical.’ I look forward to expert comment on that.

Aaand… back to the idea of service to constituents. In 2012 I tried to get him to ask a question at PMQs, about restoring public access to NS&I Index-Linked Savings Certificates. At this time I was still an IFA and was concerned that one of the first acts of a new “Conservative”-led coalition government was to pave the way for rogering the people’s money with inflation – which they did, as you will have seen since (only global recession has stopped it really taking off, to date).

Commenters talk about the electoral system being unfit for purpose. It’s worse than that: never mind the promotion, look at the product. The MP’s first response was to recast the query as an official letter, and the Treasury Lord who responded gave me two pages of what-we-are doing-for-savers guff that absolutely did not address the question. I responded, “It is not at all up to the standard that I would expect from a Treasury mind; in fact, it is little short of a disgrace,” and pressed for an oral question.

Well! Would you believe how hard it was to get a Tam Dalyell-type gimlet thrust at a Minister in the debating chamber? The correspondence ground on and almost a year later the MP’s researcher had drafted the following - I think it’s worth recording for posterity:

'To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what steps he has taken or plans to undertake to maintain the value of savings against increased inflation or devaluations of the pound, if he has given thought to the taxation of savings by the Exchequer in various forms putting off individuals from saving some of their earned income by eroding the investments value, if he shares a concern that efforts to tax the small scale saved income of individuals to rescue financial institutions, such as measures debated by the Cypriot Parliament recently as part of the European Union’s and International Monetary Funds’ bailout terms undermine general confidence and what measures he can or will take to reassure individual savers that their investment will not be used to rescue institutions which have grossly mismanaged their affairs and thus be penalised, via the reduction of the value of their savings, for the mistakes of risk takers on a systemic financial level.’

Most amusing. Of course, it never happened and was never going to, though my representative was happy enough to ask other questions of interest to him and to strain Parliamentary privilege while he was about it. I suppose he was reluctant to sow discord in the Con-LibDem love-match then ongoing.

Let’s face it, whoever you get and however you get them (AV is my preference), who are they going to listen to: an electorate misinformed and manipulated once every five years, or the bosses and buddies they encounter every working day in Westminster?

I do like the suggestion of MP recall – perhaps an ‘annual performance examination (APE)’?

Meanwhile, good luck selecting your own!

A choice between traitors - new post on "The Conservative Woman"

Yesterday's Broad Oak post has been published - very slightly edited - on The Conservative Woman:

https://www.conservativewoman.co.uk/labour-traitors-v-tory-traitors-the-choice-were-stuck-with/

Brexit and Electoral Reform

As BoJo approaches the polls, brandishing his hastily amended May’s Withdrawal Agreement – still toxic, even with the mould scraped off - Nigel Farage considers rebranding (repurposing?) his party as the Reform Party.

Political reform is an unfinished work. Pall Mall’s Reform Club was founded after the 1832 Act, not before; it was intended as a counter to the Carlton, one of whose founding members the Duke of Wellington opposed both the Act and the extension of the right to vote (when his men cheered him at Waterloo he said it came dangerously close to an expression of opinion). The Reform is now merely a social venue but it is high time it recovered its radical role; perhaps Farage should be invited to the relaunch.

Because boy, is he right. If the Tory party gets its way, then to paraphrase Churchill, their Faux Brexit is not even the beginning of the beginning, let alone the end of it. We’re stuck with a hard choice: a Labour Party that betrayed the working class, or a Conservative Party that betrayed the whole country (never forget who first got us into this mess). The latter are no more freedom’s friend than the former.

For despite the sloganising, we are in a battle not to recover democracy, but to establish it for the first time. Westminster is manifestly not the voice of the People: remember that Parliament’s Civil War against the King ignited the Putney Debates, but when Rainsborough argued:

‘I think that the poorest hee that is in England hath a life to live, as the greatest hee; and therefore truly, Sir, I think itt clear, that every Man that is to live under a Government ought first by his own Consent to put himself under that Government; and I do think that the poorest man in England is not at all bound in a strict sense to that Government that he hath not had a voice to put Himself under.’

... he spoke in vain: Cromwell’s mindset was ‘when we stood for liberty, we weren’t thinking of you morons,’ and not much has changed since then.

Yes, we’ve come a long way from the Old Sarum of 1802, a constituency with an electorate of merely eleven people yet entitled to two MPs, all of whom including the voters were nominated by the landowner.

But as the franchise – universal for under a century – has widened, the struggle to nullify it has become more systematic, and First Past The Post has been one of the greatest tools. Largely thanks to FPTP, 65 seats have stayed with the same Party since WWI and 192 since WWII; yet in some two-thirds of Parliamentary seats, the MP is returned with a minority of votes cast. For example, theoretically with an even three-way split the victor needs only to win 34%.

So we have a large industry built around identifying and persuading ‘the swing voter in the swing seat’; the reward of the loyal moron is to be taken for granted. All that counts is computerised psephology and tailored messaging: pinpoint-accurate bulldung.

The system is so skewed that on average, the UK voter’s pencil cross is only about 30% effective – check how much power you have in your own constituency here. And so much depends on voter concentration: as of 6 December, Political Calculus predicts that with 3.7% of the nation’s votes the SNP will gain 44 seats (6.8% of the House of Commons total), whereas the Brexit Party with 3.1% of the votes will get nothing.

The arrangement suits the major parties very well, of course. What upset the apple cart was holding a Referendum where every person’s vote counted equally so that a white-faced elite has had to firefight an unwanted result. It turns out that the ‘fruitcakes and loons’ were the ones on the green benches, and an unappetising if edifying spectacle they have made of themselves ever since.

And how they fought against the Alternative Vote in 2011, that mess of pottage for which Nick Clegg sacrificed his university fees pledge and his own credibility. Yet 80 years earlier, AV was exactly what Parliament wished to introduce – the Bill passed in the Commons - being thwarted only by the fall of the National Government.

Until we get a fairer system of representation, in my constituency I could vote for the Man in the Moon, but I’d still get Labour.

And until then, what is the legitimacy of a government without the equitable consent of the people?

FRIDAY MUSIC: Gene Clark (cf. The Byrds), by JD

Gene Clark was a founder member of the Byrds alongside Jim 'Roger' McGuinn but seemed to be 'hidden' within the group, all the media attention being directed towards Mc Guinn and his unique sound coming from his twelve string Rickenbaker guitar. But Clark was undoubtedly the heart and soul of the group as he wrote most of their songs https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Byrds and this short biography gives an account of his life during and after his time with the Byrds. It is a very honest look at his many problems in his short life.



In the following selection of Clark's music there are only two which were not written by him. 'In The Pines' is a well known and much recorded song by Leadbelly and 'Give My Love To Marie' was written by James Talley but Clark seems to bring out something special in this very moving story of a dying coal miner.

Also included is Del Gato sung here not by Clark but by his brother Rick Clark who co-wrote the song and gives a good and understandably emotional performance, after a faltering start, with help from Carla Olson and John York who was also a member of the Byrds a few years after Gene Clark left.

(Gene Clark's son, Kai Clark, sounds as though he has inherited his father's voice, there are a few videos of him available on YouTube. Worth seeking out.)
















___________________________________________________________________
Sackerson adds:

So sorry, but I must include this!

An Unwanted Imposition Averted, by Wiggiatlarge

I thought I would get this in before the spirit of goodwill, over indulgence in alcohol and food stupefies us all for a week or so and quite rightly numbs the truth out there on where we are.

The news that President Macron has said the ‘Dry January’ campaign for France for this coming January has been abandoned, no doubt after much lobbying from the powerful French wine industry, is good news.

It was supposed to follow our own Dry January put in place last year.

https://www.thedrinksbusiness.com/2019/11/french-government-scraps-plans-for-dry-january-campaign/

This is all part of a creeping authoritarian desire by certain groups and organisations through government to get the “little people”  into line on certain issues.

I am pretty sure the government would have liked to follow Scotland with the minimum pricing racket but feared a backlash, no doubt it is still on the back burner should they need extra taxes to fund theirs and all the parties involved in these pantomime elections' ludicrously expensive promises to the electorate.

Behind all of these trendy fads is an industry waiting to get out, in many cases the industry exists and just needs that official rubber stamp to get into full subsidy mode.

The vegan push from what is a small, but as we are constantly reminded ‘growing’ minority is a case in point: never a day goes by it seems without some celebrity informing us of their virtue by having given up meat to save the planet. I wonder if they ever think how it looks when the likes of Leonardo de Caprio tells us to stay at home to save the planet while he jets off to another climate conference, or Lewis Hamilton telling us we should all give up meat to cleanse the air while he hurtles round race tracks world wide burning fossil fuel - the ‘evil’ fossil fuel - at an alarming rate and of course uses his private jet to get back to his Monaco home. All of them, and there are many, must deep down realise that they look ridiculous; or maybe not, it really is for the little people only.

The organisations that want change in whatever form all start with the premise they are saving something, lives, lifestyle, the planet, and all require the little people to help with donations or to change their way of life because x says you should.

Amazingly nearly all have gained traction over the years and all morph into subsidiaries of government, even having the ear whenever they like of ministers and top officials, and even a place at the table for government meetings on relevant issues. None of course have been voted for and very few people who donate realise what they have become.

It is only when a disaster for a ‘charity’ such as the Save the Children’one of a short while back emerge that some relevant truths unfold and the same organisation has been found to only spend 7p of every pound on their actual work and only 3p on the children whilst the CEO rakes in 174k . We have become so used to the adverts on TV asking for the obligatory £3 a month I am sure many just sign up without ever delving into what that organisation actually does. Water Aid or Action Aid has been asking for the £3  a month for it seems decades to supply clean water in in places like Africa; if they have actually spent the money on wells and pumps Africa must be like travelling through a ski slalom course, there must be so many pumps and wells there, but are there ?

So no wonder new organisations are on the look out to start up and get on the gravy train of public largesse whether direct or through government. ER is but the latest to flex its muscles and threaten dire consequences unless we all toe the ER line and give money. St Greta of Hamburger is just the latest icon that vulnerable idiots will get behind despite being a puppet and a fraud: the latest yacht trip that has all eco loons frothing at the mouth turns out to have had the crew flying to the States to bring the sainted one back so she can speak at the climate conference in Madrid.Nnotice how she walks straight into these events, partly because no attendee would have the guts to say what a sham it all was and the rest see $ signs down the road which she can assist in acquiring, through, you guessed it, the tax payer.

The taxpayer, that forgotten ingredient in any spending spree justified or not is a big part of all the major parties' promises for this election. However many actually come to fruition, you can guarantee waste, corruption and pocket lining on a major scale - we haven’t reached Italian levels yet (think of Venice), but we or they are learning fast: MPs' expenses are back above ‘scandal’ levels and not a peep.

The Labour manifesto for what it is worth promises all sorts of eco policies involving huge amounts of other people's money so they can claim to be greener than anyone else; and if these plans are carried out large sections of current production in this country will go to the wall - the Green Agenda will not replace any lost industries other than on paper as nearly all are subsidised, so higher and higher energy prices are inevitable.

The manifesto is worth at least a deep scan as within it further restrictions are hinted at and indeed promised as we 'must' improve our carbon footprint even if the country goes to the wall achieving their aims.

https://labour.org.uk/manifesto/a-green-industrial-revolution/

I don’t think I have ever read as much political unachievable propaganda in one go in my life. It is full of malfeasance, fantasy and downright lies. It is a socialist utopian upland with all living the dream at someone else's expense, and this is just the green part of their spending plans. The sums are enormous and will bankrupt the nation if they take this path, and all for what? We sit on 400 years of coal, and fracking would produce gas, but fracking is dangerous they say despite no danger anywhere having been recorded.

I would lose the will to live if I read the other parties' equivalent to all this but I doubt there would be much difference in approach though the projected numbers may be less. But these are only manifestos; as we are all aware they mean nothing to a party that gets power, after all, that is all they really want.

What we can be sure of in the not so distant future is a further restriction on travel, either by limiting the mode of travel or pricing. Alcohol restrictions as in the Scottish example will no doubt be a starter for ten Then there will be guidance on what food you can eat, as eating the right food saves the planet! and releases land for crops - though it doesn’t as grazing land is not suitable for crops, being mostly thin topsoil over rock. Energy will rise in price and be rationed as our capacity to produce is way below the needs of the eco revolution and will stay that way for decades through our lack of investment in infrastructure.

Having said all that it hasn’t happened just yet so I am putting up extra Christmas lights, at least another two thousand, as a small way of thumbing my nose at the lot of them, a sort of mini Deck the Halls, as I am pretty sure Frostmas or whatever it will be called along with nut roast and candles is not that far away.

Have a good one!