On Saturday, I went to the ASDA just off the A6177 Bradford Ring Road to pick up my other half: she was volunteering there with Bradford Trussell Trust Food Bank. The Food Bank are desperately short on supplies; she and others were giving up part of their weekend to provide shoppers information about their work. I helped in a minor way: I went shopping for boxes of juice and tinned meat on the Food Bank’s behalf. As I pushed the cart through the long aisles, I noted that ASDA was a bit less ostentatious than other supermarkets in the area. The bunting wasn’t quite as “in your face” and the patriotic items on sale had more to do with the Olympics than the Diamond Jubilee; I didn’t see any portraits of the Queen.

After a bit of searching, I picked up some apple juice, orange juice, chunky chicken and tinned steak and then proceeded to the checkout counter. Ahead of me, there was a mother, father and their small daughter. The mother looked thin, pale and somewhat worried. Her curly brown hair was dishevelled. Her blue eyes darted back and forth as if she was tallying up in her head every item that was rolling across the till’s scanner. The father, tanned and muscular, I presume due to long hours spent working outdoors, appeared just as concerned. His eyes were downcast; he quickly grabbed the items and stuffed them into plastic bags as if they would be taken from him. I suspect the grey hair in his bushy moustache had prematurely arrived. The family’s purchases were modest: they mostly were buying ASDA own-brand “Smart Price” goods. There was a clear preference for pasta and sausage rolls; additionally, they had splurged a bit on a £3 family sized pizza. Only the little girl, dressed in a bright pink t-shirt, seemed truly happy. Her bright eyes peered over the stacks of goods sliding down and being quickly packed up. She was too young to know that money was something to worry about, rather, it magically appeared in Mummy and Daddy’s wallets and allowed them to buy milk and chocolate cereal. As they finished packing up, paid, and departed, I could imagine them retreating to a modest home. Perhaps utility and credit card bills lay stacked on the kitchen table, promising retribution if debts remained unpaid. The father had an almost wistful quality to his look of worry: it was easy to imagine him sitting on a sofa quietly, staring into the middle distance and contemplating all the problems he had to face while sipping an ASDA own brand lager.

I thought of the Queen. I saw from my Twitter timeline that the festivities at Epsom racecourse were imminent. In contrast to the couple who were going to treat themselves on £3 family sized pizza, I guessed she and her entourage probably were going to quaff the finest champagne. I suspect even Cristal was too déclassé: perhaps a special jubilee champagne from a distinguished Maison was on offer. No doubt smoked salmon was acquired from a royal purveyor. The afternoon’s entertainment was surely viewed from a comfortable distance, only subject to the vagaries of the weather. Around the Queen, I was sure, there were the gentlemen and ladies of name and fortune: no doubt shirts from Turnbull and Asser, top hats from Lock and Co, and handbags from purveyors on Old Bond Street prevailed. Is it the same country, I wondered: the distance between Epsom and Bradford seemed vast. No wonder our leaders make policy in such a cack handed way, I mused: they don’t see the families at the McDonalds’ concession at the Bradford ASDA. The Big Macs and fries they people are eating there are not some sort of personal indulgence, this is their main meal. This Britain is not a Disney-like pastiche of Victoriana, rather it is a place where deprivation is all around and there are days even when the sky itself seems to hang too low. The clink of champagne glasses isn’t heard here; the jubilee is for an old lady who seems disconnected and distant. Yes, there will be some festivities. And yes, thanks for the extra days off. However, I get the sense that by and large, there is tolerance, not enthusiasm: the Queen is a marginal fact of life and she rarely intrudes on daily existence. There is as yet no confidence in an alternative, no hope that different would be better. So the system survives.

Yet something is deeply wrong. As I waited for my other half to finish up, I read through the brochure the Food Bank was handing out. At the top it stated clearly, “People are going hungry in Bradford today”. It also said that it some wards there is an unemployment rate of 25%; worryingly, the statistic cited is from 2004, prior to the crash. Nevertheless, there were positive stories to be found: a group of students had come into ASDA for some basic supplies and returned with a cornucopia of food to donate. Generosity, warmth and basic decency still exist, despite all the challenges; perhaps, I thought, we ought to take the time to celebrate ourselves.

Bradford does contain glimpses of what such a celebration might look like. My local church had a Jubliee lunch after the Sunday service; the service itself contained barely a mention of the Queen. Rather, the Gospel reading came from St. Luke, chapter 14; specifically, the portion in which Jesus related the parable of a man who invited all his friends to dinner, yet they found various excuses not to attend. Instead, the man invites the poor, the lame, and the blind from his community and decides to shun his rich friends in future; somehow I had doubts this was how the guest list for dinner at Buckingham Palace was composed.

I looked up Luke 14 as I sat in the pew; verse 11 leapt out at me:

“For everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, and he who humbles himself will be exalted.”

The lunch was a homemade affair: it was held in the church hall, which had been painted a lemon yellow probably in the late 1970s. People brought in and consumed sausage rolls, fresh sandwiches and strawberry pavlovas. They drank coffee and talked. Children wore paper hats made out of paper plates and adorned with glitter. The bunting in the hall was modest, just red, white and blue flags: no Union Flags were in evidence. Only one gentleman, elderly and wearing a tweed jacket, stood up and asked us all to toast the Queen. The few supporters of a Republic kept quiet. After all, it was the only praise she’d received all afternoon.

Nevertheless, the Jubilee is just hitting its stride. The Sunday papers were all emblazoned with the Queen’s portrait. The Sunday Times offered a free spotter’s guide to the Jubilee flotilla; its progress was remarked upon in every last minuscule detail on the BBC. Anneka Rice was drafted in to comment on a series of pictures painted in the rain; many of these were washed out. She suggested they were “impressionistic”; she compared one artist’s work to that of Monet. Other commentators spoke of how “normal” the Queen is, as if it was some sort of praiseworthy quality that she would deign to experience the emotions of less exalted souls. The flotilla’s grand fanale was marked by a series of atonal fog horns being blasted at full volume, and carried live on television by the BBC, Sky and CNN. The news channels are unrelenting in their focus on the Jubilee: it’s so much that I slightly wonder if the midnight broadcast will speculate about the Queen’s sleeping patterns, if she lay on her side or on her back. Bradford, so far away, will finish the last of its beer or celebration cava, turn out the lights, and go to sleep.

It’s upsetting to see a defence of tyranny coming from a citizen of a free nation. Lord Haw Haw, otherwise known as William Joyce, did his level best to demoralise English-speaking Allied soliders with his radio broadcasts during World War II; he performed this service for a regime that slaughtered 6 million Jews in the Holocaust and inflicted unfathomable suffering on the nations of Europe.

Apologists for Stalin abounded in the 1930’s. Even the great writer George Bernard Shaw was taken in; he believed that all was well in the Soviet Union after visiting there in 1931. The prelude to his 1933 play, “On the Rocks” contained a robust defence of the Soviet regime, including its use of secret police and liquidation as a method of social control:

But the most elaborate code of this sort would still have left unspecified a hundred ways in which wreckers of Communism could have sidetracked it without ever having to face the essential questions: are you pulling your weight in the social boat? are you giving more trouble than you are worth? have you earned the privilege of living in a civilized community? That is why the Russians were forced to set up an Inquisition or Star Chamber, called at first the Cheka and now the Gay Pay Oo (OGPU), to go into these questions and “liquidate” persons who could not answer them satisfactorily.

It’s just as unforgiveable that a man of Shaw’s intelligence and erudition didn’t know or rather, didn’t allow himself to know about the Russian state’s tradition of organising Potemkin villages nor had sufficient curiosity to delve into the reports about widespread famine in the Ukraine which was created by forced collectivisation of agriculture. To this day, it is difficult to say precisely how many millions died of starvation and the Great Terror, both of which were imposed by Stalin. Estimates range up to 12 million in total.

It’s distressing that denials persist in spite of the truth having been revealed. The mass graves filled with victims of the Soviet famine and purges have been dug up; people can go visit Auschwitz. Kneel among the tall grass near the crematoria. Stick your finger in the dirt: there are still flecks of human bone which were belched out of the chimneys. Yet, neo-Nazis across Europe say it never happened, it’s all a fabrication, or if it did, the death toll is exaggerated. Unreconstructed old-style Communists don’t want to talk about the casualties inflicted by Stalin’s Russia and for the most part the remains of labour camps scattered throughout the former Soviet Union lay rotting. People rarely read Solzhenitsyn’s “One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich” these days and thus are less aware of the grisly conditions once suffered by Soviet political prisoners. Forget, forget, let mass murder be obscured and disappear from the memory of the living, the avatars of fascism and Stalinism suggest. Indeed, the process of forgetting is so pronounced that as the BBC’s Panorama programme recently pointed out, Neo-Nazism has made inroads with football supporters in Poland and Ukraine, two nations which suffered terribly at the hands of the Fascists. It makes absolutely no sense: but then again, perhaps the Polish and Ukranian Nazis don’t mind racism so long as they’re not on the receiving end of it.

Those who defend the current regime in Syria are just as disgusting as their Fascist and Stalinist counterparts. There is no doubt that the Assad regime is butchering its own people. The government even tortured and killed a 13 year old boy, Hamza Ali al-Khateeb. However, when perusing arguments about this online, I’ve found statements such as this one:

Note the words used: the protestors are “losers” and the “Syrian Soldier” considers them “brainwashed”. He could not do more to malign, defame and debase those who have been protesting for both dignity and freedom; he doesn’t want to acknowledge that rising up was the only option left, given that the regime’s response to any form of dissent was arrest, torture and repression. The overwhelming body of evidence is that this is happening: yet servile, feckless and frankly nasty avatars of the Assad regime hope to swamp such arguments in a sea of bile. It is difficult to accurately describe such people without descending into a cellar full of colourful epithets. It would seem opprobrium does not deter them: on my Twitter stream one such individual dared to reply to a comment I made about a documentary concerning the Assad couple. I merely told him that he was a servant of a vile, murderous regime and “Good-bye”. I blocked him.

It would be pleasant to think that merely saying “Good-bye” and clicking a link would push such people to the margins of discourse; what’s frightening is that they share the mindset of those who are doing the killing. “Brainwashed losers”, the “Syrian Solider” says. Dismiss, dehumanise, then ready, aim, and fire.

Houla drowns in a sea of blood: the front page of the today’s Times reminds us that women and children were executed in an indiscriminate fashion by Assad’s thugs. Nevertheless, Russia Today has hitherto spewed forth nonsense backing up the regime and the Russians show continued reticence in dealing effectively with Assad. We in the West sit on our hands, unable to act in a meaningful way, indeed barely able to speak with one voice; the co-ordinated expulsion of Syrian diplomats is unlikely to trouble the regime substantially. The West frets and wonders what might have been while Syria bleeds and the likes of “Syrian Soldier” suggest this is precisely what the “brainwashed losers” deserved.

It’s tempting to think that the facts are too potent for even Assad’s most ardent supporters to deny, that they might cast an askew glance in the mirror and be horrified by their own reflection. However, the kind of arguments one would have with Assad’s supporters or neo-Nazis or Stalinist throwbacks are not the sort of disagreements which arise from a differing interpretation of the facts, rather it is a contest between the truth and falsehood, between objective reality and propaganda. Those who say that the Nazis didn’t kill 6 million Jews are completely inaccurate. Those who say Stalin wasn’t behind the Ukrainian famine and the Great Terror are not being true to history. Those who say Assad and his thugs are not responsible for the massacre at Houla are perpetuating a lie. No doubt they regard themselves as defenders of the truth, an easy, simple delusion which soothes whatever pangs of conscience may remain, but reality does not support their precarious position. Nevertheless, presumably they would rather fall with the lie than accept the rigours of the truth, hence the violence and vehemence in their words.

Perhaps we shouldn’t be surprised. Tyranny only works if people are willing to accept falsehoods, either wholeheartedly or by being resigned to them. The latter category deserves sympathy and support: as it was during Soviet-style Communism, people could not be free without the ability to embrace the truth. Doublethink is a recipe for an ill society, as the last gruesome years of Ceausescu’s Romania showed; those who rise above it are the truly brave. In contrast, the former category are, frankly, monstrous. An alliterative moniker I once heard on American talk radio will suffice in labelling them: they are the “toadies of tyranny”. They aid it, abet it, propagate it. It is with these people that battle is joined: not just by those who resist on the streets of Homs or Houla, but also by those elsewhere who can respond to blatant, twisted propaganda with an unending chorus of fact, reportage, free debate and a stubborn refusal to accept lying.

I have no doubt that Assad will fall; he lacks the guile of his father and the oil revenues of his deceased counterpart in Libya. At some point, the majority of the army will be unable to stomach any more killing of their own people; this was the case during the last days of the Soviet Union when the hardliners attempted an ill-fated coup. Once the Assad regime is gone, then there will be a point of decision as to which way the Syrian people will want to go: the direction they will take is entirely up to them. That moment is laden with hope. Regardless of the path chosen, there will be those who will continue to harp on the days of Assad as some sort of halcyon era, one to which Syria should return: they will hope the passage of time will cloud the memory of Hamza Ali al-Khateeb’s broken remains and the innocent dead of Houla lying in a mass grave. The toadies of tyranny will still need to be defeated long after they are vanquished.

I wish Sir Clement Freud were still alive and serving as the Liberal MP for the Isle of Ely or North East Cambridgeshire (for purely stylistic reasons, I prefer the “Isle of Ely” as a constituency name). I’d like also that he was in a position to speak up about the latest expenses scandal which has embroiled the Conservative Party co-chairperson, Baroness Warsi. No doubt he would say something laconic and brilliant; Warsi would be cut to shreds by his rapier wit, a quality which in contrast she noticeably lacks.

I suspect Sir Clement would point out that she had a deficit of common sense as gaping as the hole in the country’s finances; I can imagine the laughs he would get from some well-crafted witticism which would illustrate this fact. The point, no doubt, would be that given the furore over expenses, it behooved everyone in public life to be completely open. After all, faith in politics was severely damaged by the scandal: politicians earn much more than the average worker, what is more, their income comes off of the toil and sweat of millions. Few receive a gilded pension or work in an exclusive Central London location with a subsidised bar. I dare say Sir Clement would suggest that the taxpayers have a right to expect not just honesty, but also the highest standard of ethics, which is separate from the law. One can step up to the edge of the legality but still be way beyond the boundaries of what is right. It is not right that a well-off person shifts the burden of paying for their lodgings onto the state; it’s worse when the well-off individual gets their room for free and pockets the expenses anyway. Sir Clement could point out that he initially paid for many of his researchers with his own money: he placed a bet on himself winning the Isle of Ely by-election in 1973, a 33-1 gamble which paid off handsomely. Why did Warsi, who is by no means destitute, decide to claim for anything in particular: what part of the term “public service” escaped her attention? Did she not see how austerity was affecting the country? What happened to “we’re all in this together”?

I can imagine the soft echoes of “Hear, hear” in response. Conservative MPs would likely be subdued, their faces fixed with a variety of stony expressions. His time to speak at an end, I suspect Sir Clement would sit down and his thoughts might then have turned to lunch, perhaps he’d consider having quick meal down at the Criterion accompanied by a fine claret. Then he’d be off to record another episode of “Just a Minute”; overall, the nation would be a more jolly place if he were still around.

We’re not sufficiently fortunate to have a notable raconteur amongst our parliamentarians; without such an esteemed personage, the words which must be used to describe Warsi’s imbroglio are sharper, less elegant. Quite frankly, she shouldn’t be in her current job. Her career is a marked by a series of mismatches between her station and actual achievement. First, she was a failed parliamentary candidate for Dewsbury in 2005: even though the Conservative Party’s overall electoral performance was far better in 2005 than in the 2001 General Election, she managed to accrue fewer votes than the last Tory who ran for the seat. This should have said something. Nevertheless, Cameron insisted on having her in a leadership position, and thus arranged a peerage; she was made Shadow Communities Minister. He also elevated her to the co-chairperson role with specific responsibility for cities. Veterans of political television programmes are still confused as to why: her answers to pointed questions mostly indicate a lack of intellectual discipline and depth of knowledge. She is also extraordinarily gaffe prone. For example, she once stated she didn’t want to see any further Muslim MPs as “Muslims that go to parliament don’t have any morals or principles”. Additionally, she once stated that supporters of the racist, far-right British National Party had legitimate concerns which should be taken into account.

It is reasonable to suggest that she is as hypocritical as she is incompetent. It has been reported in the Daily Telegraph and the Mail on Sunday as well as a number of political websites that the Baroness’ second husband, Iftikhar Azam, obtained a divorce from his first wife Massarat Bi by apparently underhanded means. Ms. Bi, with whom Azam had 4 children, supposedly doesn’t have full command of English; nevertheless, it was reported that she was presented with divorce papers she couldn’t understand. Azam’s brother Ghafar stated Ms. Bi was entirely in the dark about what was going on. Shortly afterwards, Azam went on to marry Warsi; according to the Mail, Ms. Bi was left living with her 4 children in a 2 bedroom house. This episode stands in stark contrast to Warsi’s charitable work for the Savayra Foundation, whose aim is to supposedly empower Pakistani women so they achieve a fair deal out of divorce or bereavement.

So why is she where she is? Why is it that she gets to proceed through the iron gates protecting Downing Street and enter through the heavy black door of Number 10? Why does she get to wander through the corridors of power? How did she get the Prime Minister’s ear and patronage? The precise reasons may never be known, but one can take a reasonably educated guess. Remember: David Cameron’s background is in public relations. This implies that he has a predisposition to be mostly concerned with how things look. I believe that he glanced at the white, Anglo-Saxon and almost exclusively male faces of his immediate colleagues and realised that this didn’t reflect the diverse nation he sought to lead. Baroness Warsi kills several birds with one stone: she’s Asian, Muslim and female! What a symbol of how much the Conservative Party has changed! Therefore, her rise could be due to tokenism; her continued presence in government could be due to what has been termed “the soft bigotry of low expectations”. She is presently Minister without Portfolio, yet somehow her making a hash of nothing is expected.

Illusions only work to a point: the most long lasting are the least obtrusive. The general public has only just woken up to the perils of fractional reserve banking, for example: the image of bankers prior to the credit crunch was of grey suited men who take lunchtime dips into pools of money ala Scrooge McDuck. Mirages disappear the moment genuine scrutiny takes place: the financiers were shown to take gambles that Sir Clement would have abhorred, Warsi’s image as a successful Conservative Asian woman in high office was always made of brittle glass. Thanks to this latest scandal, it has finally shattered as spectacularly as a champagne flute impacting on a stone floor. The fantasies are more than merely dented, they’ve dissipated: order her a cab, it’s time for the Baroness to depart.

I don’t remember the first time I saw the Eurovision song contest; I presume it was not long after I moved to Britain. I do recall being appalled: bad, tuneless song followed bad, tuneless song. Worse, the performers were often off key, as if they hadn’t sufficiently rehearsed or were tone deaf. What on earth is going on, I wondered. Why were the nations of Europe participating in this contest? Why were the people around me talking about it so effusively? The only saving grace was the inimitable Terry Wogan’s commentary: he punctured the dreary silliness of the proceedings with sharp and hilarious quips. Nevertheless, I didn’t make a point of tuning into the competition until the advent of the internet: the fun of it is talking about the contest with others, and seeing hundreds, if not thousands continue in the tradition that Wogan set for us to follow. Although his departure from presenting the programme was a great loss which is still keenly felt, at least Twitter is a veritable fountain of verbal barbs that are worthy of the master.

It was in this spirit that I approached this year’s contest. Usually there are camp songs and insane songs and tedious songs. There are ballads sung in languages too obscure to make a dent in the top ten. There are daft costumes and intriguing gimmicks; this year, Russia put forward a group of grandmothers who were trying to raise money to rebuild their church, and Slovakia entered a “hair metal” band which had fallen through a hole in the space-time continuum from the year 1988. Additionally, there is always at least one song that makes you wonder what the people of that particular country were thinking: Montenegro’s “Euro Neuro” was so lacking in musical coherence that it seemed unlikely that anyone had seriously vetted it. It’s very rare that one finds a genuine keeper, like Raphael Gualazzi’s “Madness of Love”, which was Italy’s entry in 2011: this tune was deemed so high quality that it was used as part of the soundtrack for a Robert De Niro film.

The only song approaching “keeper” status this year was the Israeli entry, written by the band “Izabo”; their claim to be European is not geographically justified, nevertheless, their song “Time” seemed to be not only apropos but a winner. It was musically interesting, plus the lead singer Ran Shem-Tov plays the guitar well and has developed a unique style. Of course it failed to get through the semi-finals: this was more than likely due to political reasons.

Those behind the United Kingdom’s entry, which was sung by vintage crooner Englebert Humperdink, probably would love such an excuse: certainly, bad luck had a role in it. Being first in the queue of 26 was not optimal. However, much of the blame should reside with Mr. Humperdink himself: he was terribly off key. I believe he was befuddled for some reason: his answers in a brief interview during the programme were less than fully coherent. Furthermore, his song wasn’t particularly memorable: the title, “Love Will Set You Free” was ideally suited for sarcastic ripostes: e.g., Love will set you free, but not win you anything. Or: Love will set you free, nul points will leave you empty handed.

Even if Mr. Humperdink had been able to summon up the ghosts of melodies past, it is unlikely he would have triumphed. Victory requires navigating a series of voting blocs: he would have first had to climb over the Balkan bloc, which elevated a forgettable song from Serbia into contention and propelled upward an Albanian anthem whose singer essentially yelled for much of the performance. The latter song was so awful that it frightened my cats; they cowered under the dining table as it proceeded and wouldn’t emerge for several minutes after it finished. Had Humperdink been successful in overcoming that group’s lack of taste, then he would have had to vault over the Greco-Cypriot alliance, dashed past the Austrian-German-Swiss nexus and escaped the frosty clutches of the Scandinavian axis. Britain’s only friend in this, generally speaking, is Ireland: however they delivered the coup de grâce in this instance by awarding the United Kingdom only 4 points.

In the end, Sweden won by producing a modern sounding number which was sung by a sub-par Kate Bush impersonator; no doubt it will be played in dance clubs throughout Europe for the several days before people get bored with it. All’s well that ends well? See you again next year? Well, not quite. It’s worth noting that Azerbaijan isn’t a democracy in the traditional sense of the word: the Presidency belongs to the Aliyev family, and has already passed from father to son. Rallies by the president’s political opponents are not permitted. Political prisoners are still being held, despite protests from Human Rights Watch and the European Parliament; Azerbaijan is also noted for its use of torture and blatant police brutality. Oil revenues are what sustain this wretched state: without them, it is likely it would be just as much in ferment as Egypt or Libya have been recently. Azerbaijan isn’t an avatar of free enterprise either: it ranks 91st in the Heritage Foundation’s index of economic liberty, mainly due to its lack of protection of property rights. Hand in hand with this, corruption is rife: according to Transparency International, Azerbaijan placed 143rd in its perceptions index, tied with Nigeria and Belarus. The competition provided a blatant manifestation of this problem: the Azerbaijan entry for 2012 was sung by the daughter of a prominent general.

The organisers of the contest have made no comment; rather, they’ve retreated to the flimsy excuse that the competition is “apolitical” in nature. The artists could have said more as well; when pressed, Mr. Humperdink politely declined to answer. In essence, Azerbaijan received free publicity for the messages it wanted to send, mainly about its new-found modernity arising from its oil wealth. It also utilised the interludes in the competition to advertise itself as an ideal tourist destination. If there was an overriding message, it was “European, just like you”, despite all the evidence to the contrary. Fortunately, as Baku has recently been rejected in its bid to host the 2020 Olympic Games, this was probably the only opportunity they will have to market themselves for the time being. But should they have had the chance at all? In order to join the European Union, a nation must pass certain criteria in relation to economic and political structures: it wouldn’t do the contest much harm if it exercised some discernment of this kind.

But it won’t. The one overriding motif of the competition is that while musical styles may change, costumes may get more wild and pyrotechnics may become ever more grand, its essence never alters. It will remain as a singular form of entertainment, where the pleasure derived by the audience rarely arises from the show itself, but rather from the buzz around it. Next year, it will be held in Sweden: no doubt there will be countries who send singers dressed as forest elves, entries which stretch the English language to breaking point and yet another Maltese anthem that pairs the words “fire” and “desire” into a rhyming couplet. Despite the complaints that are made about voting blocs and the commentariat’s musings about the point of it all, we’ll all be back with quips at the ready.

The stretch of the A647 between Bradford and Leeds is a speed camera trap. At first, the signs are clear: the white circle with a thick black line struck through it tell the driver that the national speed limit applies and all’s well. On a late spring day, provided one leaves early enough, this portion of the journey can be almost pleasant. After a few miles, the signs then change to indicate a maximum speed of 60: this isn’t too bad, just a lighter application of the gas pedal is sufficient to ensure compliance. Two speed cameras go by. Then there is a more sudden drop to 40, which is located around a bend: the sign is followed on shortly by yet another camera.

I’m a careful driver and always have been: I earned my license in 1994. Hitherto, I have never been issued with a speeding ticket; however, this last trap caught me. One morning, I headed around the bend with another car not too far behind me. I applied the brakes, but given the proximity of the other driver, I knew that if I pushed it too hard, I might risk him bumping into my rear. The Bach flowing through the car radio perhaps encouraged me to be a bit more relaxed than I should have been: the speedometer did go down, just too slowly. I passed the camera. I caught the glimpse of a flash in my rear view mirror: I knew I’d been nailed. I fretted the rest of the way to the office.

A few days later, I received a rather severely worded notice of intended prosecution; as it turned out, I’d been recorded going 47 miles per hour. I suppose I could have fought it somehow, but I don’t have a great deal of time to devote to such things nor am I Chris Huhne: besides, Kirklees Council’s enclosed brochure stated that they wanted to “inform, not to punish”, so they offered me another option. If I attended a driving course, then no penalty points would be accrued. The course cost £75 and I’ll be giving up part of a weekend to do it; I repeat, I have been driving for nearly 20 years and yet never had a speeding ticket before this one. Inform, not punish? Pull the other one: I now approach this particular bend with trepidation. I always make sure I slow down to below 40 before getting near the camera; I am certain that more carefree drivers behind me are perplexed by what I’m doing. Because of this incident, I watch the speedometer quite closely: I don’t believe this is particularly helpful, as my driving style up until now has been more focused on knowing the relative positions of other cars. Inform, not punish? You could have fooled me: the reactions of myself and other drivers who slow to a crawl around this curve are precisely because we’re fearful of punishment. There seems to be no flexibility in how the council approaches matters; if you’re over the limit, even marginally, and even if it may be unsafe to go more slowly, it doesn’t matter: you’re busted.

The state can be a Leviathan, pushing and bullying its way into the most intimate corners of a citizen’s life; it can also be clumsy, corrupt and often times it can be a perfect idiot. However, there is a new trend, perhaps due to the harsher atmosphere created by austerity: the state seems to regard the citizens who sustain it with disdain, almost contempt. One gets the impression from some portions of government that they would be happier if they didn’t have to serve anyone ever again: the only exceptions arise when they can charge a fee or collect more taxes. But if one wants the public services that are supposed to come from having paid through the nose, it’s a trial. In response, citizens understandably fear and despise the state.

A case which was described in Monday’s edition of the Liverpool Echo provides a pertinent example: a girl named Poppy Young wrote a letter to David Cameron, saying “I hate the government for what it has done” to her mother. Her mother Wendy, who is disabled and often bed-bound, had been deemed “fit for work” and taken off of disability benefit: this is a very odd conclusion given that the last time she attempted to go out on her own, she apparently fractured her skull. Despite this, two appeals were dismissed. It was only after more pressure and public embarassment was brought to bear did the government relent. Nevertheless, Mrs. Young will be compelled to attend a “work-related activity group” in order to continue to receive her benefit.

Examine the subtext: the agents of the state simply didn’t care that Mrs. Young was obviously disabled. They somehow looked past her infirmity and adhered to the government’s main priority: save money. It doesn’t matter who gets steamrolled by this, just do it: the common good is only ensured by achieving a perfectly balanced ledger. Let compassion, duty, responsibility and even sense be left aside, all that matters is cost projections, financial targets, and at the end of the day, pleasing the bond markets. Never mind that it was the avatars of finance who rule the bond markets which created the bubble and the subsequent recession in the first place; I suggest if Mrs. Young was the CEO of a large bank and able bodied, should she have required the assistance of the state, she would have found it had much fewer strings attached. After all, a bank is too big to fail: a disabled woman is far too small to save.

It would be wrong to suggest that this kind of nastiness is solely a British phenomenon. As anyone who travels to the United States these days knows, entering the country can be an extremely unpleasant experience. I am aware of a harmless looking white haired woman in her late 60’s with mobility problems who was once asked by American border officials if she was visiting the country for nefarious purposes, namely to earn income as a prostitute. This is the same country that was initially willing to let George Zimmerman off the hook for brutally murdering Trayvon Martin, and only reversed course after relentless public outrage. It is also the same country whose House of Representatives recently passed a heavily modified Violence Against Women act, which could potentially roll back protections for illegal immigrants, transgender and gay people.

What are the messages, what are the symbols, what meanings should we derive? John F. Kennedy said in his inaugural address “Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country.” However, we’re beyond being asked: shut up, pay, work harder, pay some more, do as you’re told. Take off your shoes in airports; sorry, Granny, get out of that wheelchair, oh and by the way, are you here because you’re a whore? Sorry madam, because you can actually move, albeit not far without falling and hurting yourself, get out of your sickbed and work: we’re slashing your benefit. It’s OK, George, you can shoot that kid because he looked suspicious and God knows what he would have done with that bottle of iced tea and bag of Skittles. Hey you, Mr. Motorist, deviate slightly from the limit, no matter how safe or unsafe it is, you’ll be forced to pay up and we’ll slap on some penalty points, or alternatively, you can pay more than the cost of the fine to attend a course to be lectured to as if you’re consistently reckless. It is no wonder that some people in America retreat to the wilds of Montana in order to escape the surly bonds of typical society. It’s no surprise that people in Britain vote for whatever viable opposition they can find in order to deliver a good kicking to the government of the day. “I hate the government,” Poppy Young wrote; she spoke for more than she knew.

Nevertheless, a certain amount of disdain is good, even healthy: it means that if the government comes up with nonsense, totalitarian or otherwise, citizens instinctively resist it. It also implies that authority is neither trusted nor revered: this is another rampart of liberty. It can tip over, however: the gap can grow to the point where people want to remove themselves from the political process and surrender to despair. We passed this milestone a while ago: genuine harm is being done to both society and democracy. It would be tempting to say that change will come as a result, but those who take to the streets and raise their voices in protest are a distinct minority. Many people believe that Leviathan’s stumblings and fumblings and gropings and graspings are now inevitable, and they have to merely live with it, tune in the football or comedy on the television for light relief, have a beer with their mates on the weekends to drown out the impulse to think. They sleep as Leviathan rages. They slumber as it derides and devastates. Wake up? What for?

We’ve come so far, only to go backwards. In 1964, the British people elected Labour into power, and more specifically, elevated Harold Wilson to be Prime Minister; his origins were modest, he was born in Huddersfield. His father was a works chemist and his mother was a schoolteacher. He rose through hard work, guile and merit. He was followed in 1970 by Edward Heath, the son of a carpenter. Heath was then followed by Wilson in his second stint as Prime Minister and then by Jim Callaghan, the son of a Chief Petty Officer in the Royal Navy. Callaghan was succeeded by Margaret Thatcher, a grocer’s daughter from Lincolnshire. She handed over the role to John Major, a Brixton lad; his father was a music hall performer. Major was defeated by Tony Blair, whose father was born out of wedlock to two English actors and was subsequently adopted. When Blair retired, Gordon Brown, a son of a Presbyterian clergyman, took over. Given this succession, it was quite possible to believe Major’s rhetoric about “the classless society”: it didn’t matter where you came from, the determination and effort you put into getting to your destination was what counted. The son of a music hall performer could be Prime Minister; the dreams of a Yorkshire lad were not confined to the environs of the West Riding. With grit and a bit of luck, one could ascend to high office, accept a peerage in one’s dotage, and be laid to rest in ermine.

Or so it seemed. Both London and the nation are presently run by Eton educated elitists; as per Nadine Dorries’ apropos quip, we’re being led by “two arrogant posh boys” with “no passion to want to understand the lives of others”. They are denizens of a different world; for example, despite his being the son of a Baronet, because George Gideon Oliver Osborne attended St. Paul’s rather than Eton or Harrow, he was nicknamed “Oik” by his peers; the only brush with manual labour that he has ever had was when he briefly folded towels at Selfridges. This seems like errant nonsense at first glance: Osborne’s qualifications to manage the nation’s finances look paltry compared to those of Dr. John Vincent Cable, who earned a PhD in Economics.

We should be going forward: the barriers to information and enlightenment have come crashing down with the arrival of the internet. Universal education has been around for some time; despite the rise of tuition fees, a far greater proportion of people are going to university than they did when John Major or Harold Wilson were small lads. So what happened? Why is it that Nick Clegg, no stranger to privilege himself, felt obliged to say to the Sutton Trust at their conference this week that “Class still counts. We are a long distance from being a classless society”? Indeed, the figures bear out the Deputy Prime Minister’s interpretation: according to the Trust, the UK’s poorest youngsters are less likely to advance than their peers in Australia and Canada.

Some may believe that this situation has improved over time, regardless; after all, in the 1950’s and early 1960’s, the nation was run by Etonians like Anthony Eden and Harold Macmillian. At first glance, they seem much more stuffy than the “young professionals” Osborne and Cameron. However, I dare say that both Eden and Macmillian were less out of touch than Cameron, Osborne and even Johnson are. Eden and Macmillian both fought in the trenches in World War I: Macmillan was wounded three times. No doubt this experience in the crucible of blood and torment gave them a sensitivity to the common fighting man that Cameron lacks. Macmillian as Prime Minister, for example, did his level best to deal with the unions and improve pay and conditions for the average worker. Cameron feels no such empathy and unlike Macmillan, lacks composure when faced with a genuine challenge. When faced with the Profumo scandal, Macmillan at his worst seemed befuddled; Cameron at his worst turns beet red with rage and lets fly with unflattering epithets.

So why do we have such elitists in any position of power nearly 50 years after Wilson was elected? No doubt part of the explanation is that inherited wealth is still being passed on from generation to generation; this provides an ample cushion for the blue blooded. For example, the UK’s richest native born individual is the Duke of Westminster: his wealth is estimated at £7 billion. But perhaps we ought to think also about structures and symbols, and how they cascade meaning throughout society. As inapposite as it may seem given the forthcoming Diamond Jubilee, perhaps we ought to cast our gaze at Buckingham Palace.

Some may blanch at this: what, blame the Queen? Accuse our professional, well mannered Queen, who seems more like the nation’s grandmother than anything else? Let’s be clear, it’s not her fault: she has done her duty to the best of her ability. Rather, the institution she represents is out of date and worse, it sends a terrible message to the rest of society.

Think about monarchy: what is it its basic principle? Its proposition is that individuals are born into a particular station in life: yes, the Royal Family rely to a certain extent on popular consent, and they are also expected to do good works or in the case of Prince Andrew, serve in times of war. We also expect sufficient displays of human emotion from them, whether it is in expressions of regret from the Queen regarding the death of Diana, Princess of Wales, or in Prince Charles engaging the nation’s sense of humour by providing the weather forecast. Nevertheless, expectation is not the same as obligation: Prince Charles may conduct his private life with all the care of a drunken mule amidst a collection of Ming vases, but he remains the Prince. It takes an extraordinary set of circumstances to dislodge a king, as the English Civil War, the Glorious Revolution of 1688 and Edward VIII proved. Monarchy is a fixity: one is born to it, one lives it, one dies in it. Their place in society is set, and everyone else’s place in the life of the nation is rooted in relation to this. David William Donald Cameron’s position is nearly as immovable as the Queen’s: he is the grandson of a Baronet, a descendant of King William IV, he went to Eton, he studied at Oxford. Given this background, it is highly unlikely that anything truly bad will ever happen to him; rather, because of his privileged station in life, he sits apart from the boy who grows up in Huddersfield or the daughter of Grantham grocer. This separation creates elitsm and worse, snobbery; Mr. Clegg felt obliged to remind the Sutton Trust of a Frank Harris quote, “Snobbery is the religion of England”.

Mr. Clegg is right; he is also correct in saying that the class system is holding the nation back. An idea needs to be judged on its individual merits, not necessarily on the socio-economic background of who proposes it. It is telling that Jonathan Ive, the Chingford-born lad who studied at Northumbria University, could only achieve his dream as the famed designer of the iMac, iPod and iPad in America, not Britain. He’s honoured now: he recently received a knighthood. But he could only be the man worthy of a knighthood by going to a place where his talent mattered more than his class.

Despite all this, enthusiasm for the monarchy has never been greater: according to a poll in the Daily Telegraph, 80% of Britons want it to continue. In contrast, just 13% want a republic. This no doubt will have a chilling effect on Mr. Clegg’s programmes: I am sure that he will advocate measures to reform education and reduce taxes on the poorest and perhaps reach out to the most economically blighted parts of the country. He may even succeed to an extent, albeit against strident Tory opposition. However, he will find it difficult, if not impossible to say what needs to be said: if we want to move on as a nation, if we want to be a country that respects talent over birth, then we must ensure that the principle of meritocracy, not aristocracy, is enshrined in every portion of government. It’s time to say good-bye to the past and its bittersweet mixture of blessings and curses. The sunset of the reign of Queen Elizabeth the Second will come; the Diamond Jubilee may be a brief flaring of the light prior to this. Once night does fall, it will also be an appropriate time for the institution she has carefully and masterfully served to also disappear into the darkness.

It is a time of waiting. If the G8 and NATO summits over the weekend proved anything, it’s that politics have gone into a deep freeze. At the G8 meeting, the Americans and French wanted to emphasise growth over austerity, the Germans and British, rhetoric aside, feel the opposite: this debate is nothing new. The NATO members’ message was “steady as she goes, and withdrawal from Afghanistan by 2014 regardless of what the conditions on the ground may be”: again, nothing to see here, carry on. The emissaries and ambassadors still filter in and out of the chancelleries of Europe, America and Asia; messages are passed back and forth, press conferences are held, platitudes expressed. There is a pretence of normality, but perhaps fear lurks in the heart of all involved: it could be that the principal players in this drama are adhering to the mantra, “fake it to make it”, namely if they put up a brave front of normality, then everything will be normal. In this case, I don’t believe it will work.

This isn’t like 4 years ago, when Lehman Brothers crashed in the blinking of an eye; we can see what trouble lay ahead. The destruction of the current Euro system merely waits for the Greek people to return to the polls, and to tick the box for the radical left Syriza group or the Communists or worst of all, the neo-Nazi Golden Dawn. Alternatively, they may opt for continued stalemate, which in this case, is also a decision of sorts. Few in leadership positions want to talk about this; because once it happens, then the final chapter can begin.

Were this an opera, the music would rise at this point into an overture. I cannot help but think of Wagner’s works, and in particular, the last of the Ring Cycle, “Götterdämmerung”, which translates as “The Twilight of the Gods”. I look at the stock market numbers rising and falling, momentary optimism dissolving into the acids of uncertainty, and in my mind I hear the echoes of Siegfried’s Funeral March. Cameron issues impuissant statements telling the Eurozone “make up or break up” and my imagination drowns his words in the deep roar of brass instruments. From the music, one gets a sense of loss and passing, yet there are also portions that indicate an ending which flares out in a blaze of glory: for death is also a form of renewal, and there may be something which arises from the ashes of today.

But listen more closely. Are the triumphal passages merely an indication of a great door being shut? I read about Athens, its closed shops, its smashed windows, the angry graffiti indicting and cursing the entire political class, unemployment galloping off with a lost generation bound and gagged across its saddle, a nation’s hopes routed. Rage boils on the streets and some of the worst political ideas are in the process of being recycled. Greece had thought it had slipped through the golden door marked “Europe” to a prosperous future, now it is being brutally shoved out. The pretence of modernity and progress has shattered; now what lay left is derelict, burned out, perhaps soon to be abandoned to its fate. Geographically, Greece is eroding, it is being swallowed up the sea; its supposed friends and neighbours seem content to let it sink. One gets the sense from Angela Merkel’s weary visage that she would be delighted if she didn’t have to think about Greece any longer. Let it pass, let it dissolve, let it just go away.

Go back to Götterdämmerung; prior to Siegfried’s death, the Rhinemaidens plead with him to give up the Ring of the Niebelungen, lest he die. He laughs and refuses. There were so many warnings of impending disaster; the European Central Bank could have bought Greek sovereign debt through Quantitative Easing, Eurobonds could have been issued. Both of these moves could have restored some measure of confidence and perhaps helped smooth Greece’s way through this crisis. The Germans seem to believe the thread of destiny is as tight and strong as that woven by the Norns of Wagner’s imagination: it is not mutable. They refused to give Greece the necessary slack, fearful they would unleash the demons of inflation; they may have fashioned destiny’s thread into a noose.

All that those of us who are bit players in this scene can do now is wait; we wait by the television set, tuned to BBC News or France 24 or CNN. We wait for the morning paper, which tries to distract us with ephemera about the procession of the Olympic torch through the West Country. We pass the time by trying to ignore the future and focussing on the present: there is the tragic death of Robin Gibb, the Eurovision Song Contest in Baku is next weekend, and Cameron wants to offer parenting classes which is an odd idea coming from someone who was probably at least in part raised by a nanny. All of it seems preposterous and silly given the present peril; the best we can hope for is that if Greece does leave the Euro is that somehow containment procedures will be put in place for the remaining members. However the Commission is unclear about what precisely it would do; last week, Channel 4 News interviewed Olli Rehn, the European Commissioner tasked with managing this crisis. His answers to direct questions were as opaque as the steam rising within the saunas of his native Finland. This is inadequate. It was Siegfried’s funeral pyre that presaged the firmament being set ablaze: one bank collapsing in 2008 caused the entire financial system to have the monetary equivalent of a coronary seizure. What happens if a country fails? What occurs when the forces of law and order of that country can no longer be paid? What takes its place, anarchy? Looting? The military? Revolution? How can stability and confidence recover in such a situation? Is it even possible? How would we confine the trouble to just inside Greece? Will the last flights out of Athens ferry refugees to Paris, Berlin and London? What’s the plan? We don’t know, Olli Rehn won’t tell us; he may not know either.

At the end of the opera preceding Götterdämmerung (“Siegfried”), Wotan, the chief of the Gods, says that he doesn’t fear the end of the Gods, indeed, he desires it. The emissaries and ambassadors and businessmen and traders are perhaps blowing on the embers of a dying paradigm: one which simply cannot carry on as normal. Something that cannot go on, tends not to do so. The hour of reckoning is about to strike; the lack of vision, planning, empathy and generosity has progeny which are about to be born. The rope of destiny may be about to snap. For the moment, however, we simply wait.

Prior to the advent of the Euro, I lived in the Netherlands and then Belgium. I clearly recall how the money looked: the Dutch Guilder was always emblazoned on beautiful banknotes, each denomination a magnificent manifestation of national probity and pride. My mind’s eye is particularly drawn to the 50 guilder note, notable for featuring a bright yellow sunflower. I also thought the Belgian Franc was a particularly noble currency; the 500 franc note remains my favourite piece of numismatic art as it bears the portrait of Rene Magritte and contains a tribute to his work. I wish I had kept one; I would have tucked it safely in my wallet along with my Hong Kong dollar and Jersey pound notes as a souvenir of my travels.

When I lived there, Belgium and the Netherlands were both in the process of preparing for the Euro. I recall the widespread enthusiasm; in both Amsterdam and Antwerp, dual pricing crept in, even though the new money hadn’t yet arrived. If I remember correctly, some stores had signs posted in their windows stating proudly that they were ready for the change. The mood was bullish: why, with a single currency, it would become much easier for the Belgians, the Dutch, the French, the Germans and the Italians to trade. Pricing would be transparent; it would remove the problems associated with currency fluctuations and arbitrage. Yes, some admitted, it wouldn’t be all a bed of roses: without being able to devalue, one of the key strategies Mediterranean economies had used hitherto to regain competitiveness would be lost to them. But never mind, after the adjustment, we’ll all be as rich as Germans, they thought; the Euro was seen as a magic elixir which would cure the sins of inflation, mismanagement, low productivity and corruption. The markets breathed in the same heady atmosphere: they loaned money to Greece at similar rates as they did to the Germans.

As we all now know, this optimism was misplaced. The books were cooked. A new currency wasn’t accompanied by a renewed sense of responsibility. The Germans became more competitive because their efficient economy was hitched to a keenly priced currency; however Italy, Spain, Greece and Portugal all found that it’s easier to use German money than it is to emulate the German economic model. People believed ridiculous things like the housing market in Dublin would always go up: a fatal assumption. And now we are on the edge of the precipice, waiting until June 17th and the second Greek election, hoping that some sort of resolution will take place: will we see Greek banknotes, bearing the likeness of King Philip of Macedonia, once more? Or will Greece swallow ever more bitter medicine? What price will we pay for having been so optimistic? Will this lead to the collapse of economies? Governments? Whole societies?

I am a curmudgeon; I am often accused by people near and dear to me of being “too grumpy”. “Cheer up,” I’m told. “Always look on the bright side of life,” is a cliché and a song I’m familiar with; the sentiment pervades so far that the anthem has made it to the football terraces across the land, and sometimes it’s even deployed at funerals. “Don’t worry, be happy”, Bobby McFerrin tells us. A popular logo featuring a yellow smiling face advises us to “Have a Nice Day”. In contrast, Oscar the Grouch on “Sesame Street” is shown to be an unpleasant character, who invites visitors to “scram”. To be grumpy is to invite opprobrium, to be called a “killjoy” or “buzz killer”. However I recall a saying a teacher once told me: “The difference between an optimist and a pessimist is that the pessimist is better informed.” Had there been more analysis of the downside risks associated with the Euro, if people had thought about the bad as well as the good that would flow from it, perhaps we wouldn’t be in the current crisis. Pessimistic people are vital in order to ensure that a valid analysis of the hazards takes place: otherwise people have a tendency to float off on clouds of fancy and fantasy which lead them to eventual disaster.

Despite Athens burning, today is yet another day in which optimism is going to take hold; Facebook’s shares will make their stock market début. The company’s current value is estimated at $104 billion. This makes sense from a certain point of view: one of the key problems facing manufacturers and retailers is how to effectively market themselves. At the moment, their approaches are far too haphazard: one can more or less assume that someone watching “Top Gear” on the Dave channel may be interested in car-related products, but what about those who watch murder mysteries? Or people who read a daily newspaper? Market research can help, but it is like throwing a bucket of water over a large crowd, hoping that one or two people will get particularly soaked. Facebook, in contrast, has a vast amount of data about individuals: their age, location, education, profession, family size, relationship status. Theoretically, an advertiser looking to sell, say, a family sized car, could ring up Facebook and target their marketing much more effectively. This could be immensely valuable, furthermore, it might spell the end of advertising as we know it.

On the other hand, what is Facebook’s purpose? When it was founded, it was merely thought of as a means of communication for old friends to keep in touch; this ethos has filtered down to those who use it. So, when someone is utilising Facebook, they are unlikely to be in the same frame of mind as they would be when they go shopping. Google is successful because it catches users at a point at which they are searching for something; the liklihood of finding someone who is in “shopping mode” is much greater. If Facebook and Google found a way to work together, then that might be a fantastic business prospect, a world beater. But $104 billion? On its own? Really?

I have only heard very limited and muted concerns of this type, tucked discreetly away in the middle of early morning business programmes. Rather like with the Euro, traders are already minting Facebook share certificates in their mind, and if the markets are to be believed, these shares are worth much more than their weight in gold. We’ve been here before not just with the Euro but also with dot com bubbles and property bubbles and belief that Enron shares were worth more than sheets of Kleenex. We go through this again and again and again and the sceptics and curmudgeons are told: “Don’t worry, be happy.” “Always look on the bright side of life.” and “Have a nice day.” One wonders when the Nouriel Roubinis and Vince Cables of this world will get a look in before the disaster ensues. How many more lives and nations have to be ruined before we start looking at matters with clear eyes?

We may be at a point at which such focus will come; however, I suggest that it will be temporary. Nothing lasts forever, not even bad times. Some new technology will arrive or some new market will be tapped: perhaps the recent plans to gather valuable minerals from asteroids will be a prelude to the next big thing. The engine of optimism will whirr to life again. At first, confidence will be hesitant, and the grouches and grumps will still have a say in discussions; but knowing people and their downside risks, there will come a point that the dissenters will be ignored as optimism creates its own unstoppable momentum towards its doom. It’s then we will truly need to be worried and prepare for the inevitable crash. And then after that, still no one will sing, “Always look on the dark side of life.”

My weekday commute takes me through Armley, which lies to the west of Leeds city centre. For the past several weeks, a large billboard which generally advertises a pets and aquarium store has been obscured by a poster which stated the following: “Golf is a Passport for a Dirty Weekend Away with the Lads, Wake Up Girls, a Naive Wife”. The sign bore the mysterious initials “TUD”. Today, this sign was replaced by another one, also signed off by “TUD”, which showed some blurry photos of restrooms supposedly taken by Heathrow Airport’s security cameras. The legend on this sign states, “Did you really think Heathrow Airport don’t have cameras here?”

It’s important to state at once that these are fakes. The “golf” sign has made an appearance in other parts of the country, the Heathrow sign utilises precisely the same photos as ones which were used for a similar “Dublin Airport” sign which appeared in Ireland. The mysterious “TUD” is apparently an Irish artist; he has previously challenged people with other signs to “Honk if You Secretly Wear Women’s Underwear” and stated a celebrity named Alexa Chung is a goddess. TUD apparently stands for “The Ugly Duckling”. If this artist has a manifesto, it comes from a one line statement on his or her blog, “I do solemnly swear to fulfill my new years resolution, to cause divilment, general mayhem, be the thorn in the side and foam pie in the face of all those deserving”. Personally, I wonder what Ms. Chung did to merit this attention.

While “TUD”‘s signs are not particularly clever and his repertoire doesn’t improve with repetition, there is nevertheless something to be learned from these billboards. Shame seems no longer to be shame unless it occurs publicly; the fictional vindictive wife in Armley’s narrative blasts her husband to pieces by exposing his frailties to the world. The storyline also implies that the husband feels no guilt unless his sins are open to the public. Furthermore, his conscience needs to be prodded by the presentation of photographic evidence. This story is in perfect keeping with our era; we are presently living in Bart Simpson world in which morality disappears in the quiet, and if caught, the first recourse is to say, “I didn’t do it. You didn’t see me do it. You can’t prove anything.”

Those with a more classical sense of right and wrong may believe that scruples are not dependent on scrutiny: they are there even when no one observes. I don’t speak out of any sense of moral superiority; I am just as much a sinner as anyone else, and I have done some things in my life of which I’m not proud. But the public exposure of my faults is not the only method to provoke my shame, it is the disgrace that comes from having done wrong and been wrong, to have indulged selfishness as opposed to remaining true to principle.

One of the most disturbing aspects of the Parliamentary expenses scandal was the fact that regret, reticence and repentance didn’t arise until the public’s gaze was fixed upon the MPs’ avarice. A refrain was often heard, “we followed the rules”; but adherence to guidelines is one thing, the morality of dipping into the public purse for say, the price of a duck house or even a lemon is quite another. The public reacted strongly to these allegations perhaps because the thought was, “Have they no shame?” Had they no idea that it is simply wrong to do such things, even if one can successfully get away with it?

But this lack of self-control in government may just reflect society’s present predispositions. Earlier this year, I took a weekend trip to Barcelona; there was a long bus ride back from Barcelona Sants train station to the aiport, and three Englishmen were the last to pile on prior to departure. They appeared to be genuinely the worse for wear: unshaven, unkempt, they looked like they hadn’t slept since prior to coming to Spain. One of them had crumpled banknotes in his hand to pay the bus fare and carried his passport in his teeth. There was a problem: the bus was full to bursting. The driver was reticent about taking them given that they would have to stand in the well next to the door. One of the Englishmen, in a sweat stained grey t-shirt, and red-faced from a combination of too much booze and sunshine, shouted in a slurred voice that he had to get back to his wife. I wondered what his other half would make of him; his friend lay down in the aisle and promptly fell into an alcohol induced sleep. Their weekend may or may not have been a dirty one, but it certainly was reckless. There were many tourists like them falling in and out of restaurants and bars on the streets of Barcelona, singing with voices that weren’t designed for the task and downing beer after beer until oblivion or obliviousness overtook them. The sole concern of those on the bus, however, was probably having to explain it all, not from having conducted themselves like drunken fools. True morality should kick in before the first pint glass is hoisted in anger or the initial stirrings of illicit flirtation begin to rustle or the introductory expense claim is filled out inaccurately. TUD’s works are effective only if there is someone out there who has to worry about having gone on a dirty golf weekend; the state of shame is so poor, in my opinion, that I even considered the possibility that the sign was a prelude for advertising. I reckoned that a travel company could use the following slogan, “For a weekend you’ll always remember and forever regret”, and then there would be packages for Ibiza or Malaga in the offing.

I assume that TUD will continue to push “foam pies into the face of the deserving” with other billboards in other parts of the country. I suspect the effect will be limited thanks to Google; the fakery is more than just a fact, it’s a known fact. Nevertheless, the ugly truths that TUD cackhandedly exposes remain. As I write this, a husband somewhere is perhaps perusing Ryanair and plotting a weekend flight from responsibility to Spain. An MP perhaps is looking at a spreadsheet and may be considering what to put on expenses. The businessman may be pricing up his company’s products and wondering what extortionate margin may be added. The stay at home wife may look longingly at a neighbour and feel the slight ache of desire, its indulgence offering temporary liberation from the humdrum. Shame should kick in, bring back thoughts of others: the spouse who would be disappointed, the customers who would be ripped off and had the misery of difficult times intensified, the constituents who would be appalled. What’s worrisome is the frequency with which this consideration is likely to be engaged, if at all; it’s a sign of the times.

[AMAZONPRODUCT=B000P5FH4Y]

Last Saturday, PBS ran a documentary about the Mormons. Lasting in excess of 270 minutes, it detailed the history of the faith and its long struggle to fit in with the rest of America. One of the historians appearing on the programme remarked on how peculiar this epic may seem on the surface: after all, he stated, Mormons were exclusively white at the beginning and mainly Anglo-Saxon. Furthermore, Mormons tended to be hard working and community minded. Nevertheless, their history is one of being shifted onwards by communities and states which rejected them until they landed in Utah.

I don’t share the Mormon faith; personally, I think it’s wildly ahistorical to suggest that Jesus Christ ever set foot in America. However, we all go through life believing in things which are difficult to prove or are in fact absolute fiction: if you’re an athiest, you may want to reach into your wallet at this point and look at what banknotes you possess. The fiction you believe in is inscribed on the money: the central bank issuing the pounds or dollars promises to pay the bearer on demand a particular sum. But a particular sum of what? Actually, it’s nothing: the only value it has lay in belief. Our society simply couldn’t function without items like this, i.e. that which cannot be proven or fulfilled.

Even so, Joseph Smith struck me as an odd sort of prophet. For example, upon arriving with his flock in Nauvoo, Illinois, he apparently more or less established a Mormon government. He took it upon himself to become a general and even ran for President. To an outside observer, this doesn’t look like St. Paul’s dictum which suggests “Not me, but Christ in me be magnified”. But then again, Constantine the Great and the Byzantine Emperors which followed him tried to associate themselves with the Apostles, and Islam’s early years were punctuated by a crisis of authority, so perhaps such an interweaving between political and religious power is not all that far-fetched. It’s not appropriate, however, in a nation that prides itself on separation of church and state; deviating from this deeply held principle earned Smith and the Mormons the opprobrium of their neighbours.

Also, I found the whole business of being a Mormon missionary rather disquieting; the documentary showed two very earnest young men speaking to people on the streets of an unidentified city. There was nothing particularly nasty about it, it was just intrusive; the rhythms of the city and its inhabitants turned staccato as they interrupted. The young men were polite and respectful, but they possessed a certitude which was unnerving. Faith in many respects is a personal journey; surely the Almighty possesses the ability to speak to us all on an individual level? Was it really necessary to go up to random individuals and talk at them? I can recall occasions when I’ve been walking along a similar city street, my thoughts weaving together into a story or a poem and then having the delicate fabric torn asunder by such intrusions. Yes, I love God, but among the gifts he granted was my ability to think: surely I praise Him better by doing that rather than fending off his supposed messengers.

Beyond this, an interview with the South African born artist Trevor Southey was disturbing. You cannot be homosexual and Mormon, and Southey did his best not to be the former so he could continue to be the latter. He married and had children. This was not a sustainable situation; he eventually divorced and his wife had him excommunicated. The pain in Southey’s eyes was evident as he stated that he wanted a religion that was going to accept him as he was constituted, be that as it may outside Mormon norms.

I didn’t care for Mormon excommunication. The documentary explained how deviation from doctrine basically slammed shut the door of heaven on a number of scholars; what struck me as particularly odd was an interview with one researcher who said that the people excommunicating her shook her hand afterwards.

Finally, I was upset by the historical racism in Mormon doctrine. Up until 1978, people of colour were not entitled to receive the Priesthood in the Mormon faith. The change in policy seems to have come rather late in the day.

After I switched off the television, I couldn’t help but think of Mitt Romney. I don’t think it would be useful or even particularly American to question his religion; however, as we’ve discovered, the interests, character and morals of the President do inform his decision making. Bush believed in his own righteousness, and that God was his co-pilot. We have seen the results of his being too certain: violence, death, destruction, destitution. President Obama has been quieter and has been much more willing to embrace doubt: as his position on marriage equality has shown, his thinking evolves rather than is set in stone. If Bush carried the sword of the crusader, President Obama walks alongside the Apostle Thomas, who first questioned the Resurrection, and indeed refused to believe it until he saw Christ’s wounds. For example, I understand that President Obama wasn’t keen on the slogan “Yes, we can” at first; this may have been due to the simplicity of this message being incongruous with a complex world. But just perhaps Thomas was tugging at his elbow. Does Romney want to emulate the example of this less celebrated apostle or does he adorn the general’s uniform and the unabashed certainty of Joseph Smith?

Certainly, Mitt Romney’s positions have changed over time, but these shifts seem more to do with securing advantage rather than an exploration of Thomasian doubts. But we want a Thomas in the office, the one who is sceptical at first glance, checks his facts, but once he is secure in knowledge, carries on to quiet achievement. Thomas is reputed to have covered a greater area than any other apostle, including Syria, Persia and India; he was the only one to preach outside the Roman Empire. In 52 AD, he landed in what today is Kerala, South India and established “Seven and a Half” churches. Even there, Thomas remained doubtful: according to a 3rd century scripture called “The Acts of Thomas”, Christ commanded him in a dream to take his mission to two kings in India, one in the north, the other in the south. Thomas refused and God had to arrange circumstances by which he fulfilled his charge, gathering many converts in the process. Yet Thomas barely gets a look in at any Sunday School; the Syriac “Acts of Thomas” are not part of accepted scripture in most Christian churches. Not for him high praise or grandeur, just the occasional work of art and some quiet rememberance. Who would want to follow Thomas? Who in the pursuit of high office and the exaltation of self that implies would want to emulate his example? Who wants to suggest that doubt is a virtue, and that being too certain implies fatal hubris? In both America and on this side of the Atlantic, we are plagued with people in leadership positions who tell us that there is no alternative and that it’s their way or the highway. But one can follow Thomas and sail in a different direction, remain with faith and yet sit alongside doubt. This embrace of uncertainty could be called prudent in a world that seems more full of data than it is imbued with wisdom. It may or may not sit well alongisde Romney’s Mormonism; quite frankly, I’m not sure.