We all know that, in the political world, enquiries are not launched to discover the truth; rather, the intention is to kick the can of worms down the street. Hence, for example, the lack of surprise - even lack of interest - at the recent ‘findings’ of Lord Geidt after two separate investigations. And hence the quite extraordinary delay in the completion and publication of the Forde Report into Labour shenanigans, the deadline for which passed over two years ago now.

So what can we expect from the investigation currently being undertaken by Sue Gray, a civil servant and employee of Johnson, into Johnson and his serial partying during lockdown?

Frankly, very little. For two reasons.

Firstly because the investigation was commissioned and launched in order to allow Johnson to prevaricate in parliament. We must wait for the findings he proclaims whenever a pertinent question is asked.

This is of course standard practice for all politicians and one factor in the lack of trust which would appear to be shared by the majority of the electorate.

But it is the second reason which is fundamental to our expectations, and it is essentially about marking their own homework.

Sue Gray is not independent. She is a career civil servant. She has no power to sanction anyone. Her role is tightly defined and it is to lay out the facts.

This should not take long. After all, the facts are already in the public domain and have not been denied. Indeed, Johnson has already confirmed that he attended the party on 20 May 2020. (He also spluttered that he thought it was a ‘works do’, which tells you something about his definition of work but ignorance of the law is no defence.)

No schedule has been established for this inquiry. It will take as long as it takes. And if it does its job, Johnson will not be in a hurry to draw a line under the whole sorry episode. Or episodes.

She will not be helped by the fact that staffers at No 10 have been instructed to clean up their phones (an activity with which Ms Gray is frighteningly familiar), and you can bet that Johnson’s diary will be packed with excuses for being unavailable for interview.

This shouldn’t matter. Ms Gray works in No. 10. She knows what’s going on. She is a member of the elite, part and parcel of the cabal. And the more I hear Tory MPs telling us that she is the best person for the job, the more I distrust both her and the process.

But let’s assume that her laying out out of the facts is accurate, timely and damning. Then what?

Ask Priti Patel. The person who will have to act on the findings will be Boris Johnson. And as with Patel’s bullying, he will decide to move on.

Nothing to see here. No action taken.

Today from the everysmith vaults: The death of Bernard Haitink is very sad news indeed. As he said, he suggested rather than instructed. Delving into the vault I am amazed at how many of my favourite recordings were performed under his baton. Today, it is A Sea Symphony by Vaughan Williams, with The London Philharmonic and the wondrous Felicity Lott.

PS Just as I was about to press the post button, news of yet another party at Downing Street emerges. I worked in advertising agencies in the '70s, where and when to say that a drinking culture prevailed would be an understatement. But we never had this many parties.

If anyone mentions 9/11 to me, the television images flood back. The tanks in the streets, the thousands confined in football stadiums, the bombing of the Presidential palace, the torture and murders, the burning of books, the death of Allende.

No, this 9/11 is not the attack on the twin towers. This 9/11 was in 1973 in Chile when Pinochet and the CIA launched a coup d’etat against the democratically elected presidency of Salvador Allende and for nearly twenty years imposed a vicious programme of neoliberalism.

Essentially, the Pinochet regime turned Chile into a laboratory for experimenting with the ideas of Friedrich Hayek. Hayek was primarily an economist, but his economic liberalism forced him into political philosophy. As thousands of trade unionists and leftists were tortured and murdered, Hayek was writing to The Times to defend the coup.

“I have not been able to find a single person even in much maligned Chile who did not agree that personal freedom was much greater under Pinochet that it had been under Allende” he wrote.

He should have got out more. But his small circle was convinced that democracy was an irrelevance. The free market, he wrote, is ‘indispensable for individual freedom … the ballot box is not.’ Small though the circle was and is, this conviction was and is powerful and influential.

Hayek and Pinochet were, of course, both friends of Thatcher, who carried a Hayek manual in her famous handbag. Hayek wrote to her complaining of the slow progress of neoliberalism in the UK, comparing it with the ‘achievements’ in a short space of time in Chile.

We are nearly half a century on and neoliberalism is still hegemonic, although the term itself is not. Its adherents are in denial. Although I have never heard Sunak use the term in public, he is on record as stating that he emphatically favours Hayek over Keynes. And of there is the odious Nick Cohen in a column published in The Observer on the Sunday before the second round of polling in Chile, claiming that not Blair, not Cameron, not even Thatcher herself, were neoliberals.

In his victory speech, Gabriel Boric told us that ‘If Chile was the cradle of neoliberalism, it will also be its grave’.

I profoundly hope so. For Chile, Latin America, and the rest of the world.

Today from the everysmith vaults: I have been revisiting the Airplane and subsequently the Starship. I think the prompt was a proposed live performance of Blows Against the Empire, which is where I started this morning. The mono version of Surrealistic Pillow followed, then Crown of Creation, and right now the final Airplane show at Winterland in August 1972. Love anything with Papa john Creach.

I have yet to meet anyone who lives within the borders of Warwick District Council and also supports the proposed merger with Stratford in order to create a super-authority across South Warwickshire. I assume such people do exist, because WDC has, this week, voted in favour and our future is now in the hands of Head Leveller-Up, Michael Gove, who will doubtless make his decision on the basis of political expediency.

It is a bizarre but not unprecedented issue. The “majority” for the proposal consists of Deloittes and the Conservative councillors on the Warwick and Stratford District Councils.

But the recent consultation demonstrated that there is a real majority against.

Residents are clearly against. Our MP is against. The Labour membership is against. The Greens are against. Parish councils, including mine, are against. Even four Tories are against. And of course I am against.

I scanned the record to see how my Labour councillors voted. Were they for or against?

Neither.

They abstained.

Given the opposition to the proposal throughout the constituency and, in particular, the call by Matt Western for a local referendum, you might think that this was a strange decision. How can the Labour Party not have an opinion on a proposal which will diminish local democracy significantly?

True, it would not have changed the decision, but it does demonstrate to voters where the Labour party stands. Or rather, sits. Which of course is firmly and uncomfortably on the fence.

I have read the rationale from the Labour leader on the WDC. Announcing that he has been led “to a position of abstention”, he stated that:

“I and my group … will want to take part in discussions about the devolution of powers, assets and decisions to towns and parishes. And above all, we will want to ensure that residents’ and other stakeholders’ voices are heard and heeded whether we continue to explore the merger proposed, service integration and transformation, or some other form of political geography.”

Well, yes. But by abstaining in this crucial vote, Labour has snubbed its MP, reneged on its responsibility, and handed the leadership of the opposition to the Greens.

Having sat on our hands during a key democratic vote, I suspect it may be difficult to regain a role “at the centre of the debates about protecting residents”.
​

Today from the everysmith vaults: Ignoring the call of Bob’s Christmas In The Heart, and indeed almost anything that hints of Christmas, I am listening to Shostakovich, the Jazz Suites. Thanks to Georgia Mann of Radio 3’s Essential Classics for reminding me of them.

I had my data stolen a month ago. I had not given any information to the company from which it was stolen, a so-called ‘third party’, and I don’t even know who the third party is. Nor do I know the extent of the theft, except that it is ‘significant’ and serious enough to involve the National Crime Agency (NCA), National Cyber Security Centre (NCSC) and the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO). Which sounds pretty serious to me.

If you are one of the (hundreds of) thousands who received the email from the Labour Party about this ‘incident’, and asked to keep it ‘confidential’, you are not necessarily a member of the Labour Party. You could have resigned, been suspended or expelled. Or - and this is very concerning - you could never have been a member of the party at all.

The fact is your data was stolen because the Labour Party was holding it; not only holding it but also sharing it with ‘third parties’. (I use the plural here because the email referred not to the the third party but a third party, from which I infer that there are more than one.)

It would appear that Labour is in clear breach of the Data Protection Act 2018 and the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), a breach which could justify compensation.

The issue, and this is why the chances of us ever hearing the full story are minimal, is not the breach itself but Labour’s privacy policies. Actually, not the policies but a succession of actions which do not accord with the policy statement. The ICO has already found against Labour innumerable times for its actions or lack of them, notably for its failures to respond to SARs requests. (SARs are Subject Access Requests which, under GDPR Article 15, makes it compulsory for an organisation to reveal the data it holds on an individual.)

It is, I regret to conclude, yet another example of the contempt with which David Evans et al treat the membership at large. We know that the database is used primarily to troll and monitor the activities of members. We even have an ex-Israeli intelligence agent in charge of this.

The email promised to update us. Don’t hold your breath. Like the Forde Report, the issues have been kicked into touch because,  I suspect, behind the hacking ‘incident’ is a plethora of illegalities and witch-hunting which, I am afraid, is the modus operandi of the current secretariat.

Today from the everysmith vaults: As Bob moves from town to town on the current leg of the never ending tour, I am grateful for the recordings that our American bobcats and Dylanologists are sharing with the rest of us, especially the remastered shows from Bennyboy. I'm currently loving Bloomington.

I am writing this on ‘short rest’. A wild card game against the Yankees followed by a fantastic and ultimately successful series against the Rays have conspired to deprive me of sleep and contribute major stress to my extended waking hours. But the Sox are now champions of the ALE and there are two sleeps available before the first of the ALCS against either the White Sox or the Astros. There is a sense in this solitary part of the Red Sox Nation that the Sox are on a roll.

Being a Sox fan in Europe means long nights. Games mostly start after midnight, and even the game 3 afternoon start at Fenway (9pm BST) went to extra innings and continued into the early hours. But during the day and early evening, normal life continues and has its own highlights.

One such took place last Friday, the anniversary of my father’s death. After 18 months or so, the International String Quartet series returned to Leamington, featuring the Sacconi Quartet. I had missed their previous performance at the Pump Rooms, a decade ago, so was keen to be right upfront for their return. In a heavily and professionally Covid-proofed auditorium, I managed to reserve Seat B1.

In fact, the attraction was not solely the Sacconi, nor even the return of live chamber music to my neck of the woods; it was the programme.

The Sacconi were to play (after the obligatory Haydn warm-up) the eighth of Shostakovich’s quartets and to devote the second half of the concert to the String Quartet In C# minor, Opus 131 by Beethoven.

The latter has been one of my favourite pieces of music. I have a dozen or more versions of it at home and one of them will doubtless figure in my list of Desert Island Discs. The Sacconi did it more than justice: they are are a powerful, muscular band and they brought out the grandeur of the fugue, the joy (in the Allegro) and passion throughout, whilst addressing the delicacy and profundity of the Adagio. It is a heavy responsibility to play this masterwork. The Sacconi took it on and triumphed.

But by then, we knew they would. We had already heard the Shostakovich 8th, his 1960 response to a visit to a bombed-out Dresden.

I mentioned that it was the anniversary of my father’s death because he was a bomber pilot in the RAF during the war. And a distinguished one, with a DFC and AFC to prove the point.

I do not know whether he was involved in those controversial raids in mid-February 1945, during which the city was systematically destroyed and more than 30,000 civilians are believed to have died. (Some estimates place it over 200,000.) At this stage of the war, the only ‘civilians’ would have been the elderly and sick, women and children.

It has been described as a war crime, principally by those of my political persuasion. But it is significant that Churchill, in his massive 6 volume history of the war, makes no mention of the Dresden destruction.

As I say, I have no idea if my father was one of those involved. He never spoke of it, but then he never spoke of any of his wartime experiences.

But I know enough of him to know that he would have listened to the Shostakovich quartet and, as did Shostakovich himself when it was played to him by the Borodin, “buried his head in his hands and wept”.

Today from the everysmith vaults: Away from performances and mlb.tv, I am listening to English music. Warlock, Delius, Elgar and - currently - Vaughan Williams. It's A Sea Symphony​ playing right now. 

I haven’t done a word count, but the press reckons that it is 12500 or perhaps 14000 words long. Seems longer. When I embarked on reading it, I was looking to take issue with his policies. Unfortunately, I can’t do that, because there are none. Or, at least, none proposed or even mentioned here.


I didn’t vote for Starmer, but I thought about it. I have his Ten Pledges on my notice board and, when they were published, each one made me more open to his candidacy and potential leadership. It seemed I was not alone. Many of those who had voted twice for Jeremy Corbyn were attracted by Starmer’s claim that he would not change track, and that the 2017 Labour manifesto was the basis of the party in the future.


In my case, I allowed my heart to overcome my head. I voted for Rebecca Long-Bailey. But when the results came in, I nevertheless believed that Starmer would be a good leader of the party, perhaps in the manner of John Smith, but certainly not like Tony Blair, under whose aegis the party lost my support (though not my membership subs).


Since Starmer’s election, a great deal has happened to cause concern amongst those of my Labour persuasion. I won’t list them because most of you will be aware of the purge of the left, the expulsion and suspension of Jewish socialists, the lack of opposition to Johnson, and of course the current proposals to change the one-member-one-vote system within the party.


But this much-vaunted Fabian leaflet - an ‘essay’ apparently, but not even a good try - was Starmer’s opportunity to show himself as a positive, forward-looking leader: someone who had a vision which was not confined to purging opponents, but concerned itself with ideas, practicality, policy.


I have now read it. Not The Guardian’s summary. I have read it all, word by word, cliché by cliché, banality after banality.


It is heart-breaking. Not merely because of the style - where is that forensic approach? Where is that legal mind at work? Where are the strong socialist principles? Where, indeed, are any principles at all?


Where, in short, is the leadership?


Perhaps the claim to leadership is to be found here ….

Or perhaps not.

Today from the everysmith vaults: I have of course been listening to Volume 16 of The Bootleg Series, and tbh, one needs to get to the last two tracks of the fifth and final CD to listen to anything new and/or worthy of the man. I have also been listening to a soundtrack of Shadow Kingdom, which is masterful. But I have mostly been listening to James Knight's poignantl and cathartic suite, Close. Quite beautiful.

​A week ago, I started a post entitled Morgan: A Suitable Case For Treatment which concerned the tantrum thrown by Piers Morgan when faced with mild criticism of his arrogance and racism as presenter of a TV show which I have never seen. But I decided that Morgan has had enough column miles. A few days ago, I drafted a some thoughts on the upcoming baseball season. But it would be based on nothing more than TV coverage of half a dozen spring training games. And yesterday, I began a rant about Starmer’s (lack of) leadership and policies, with particular reference to the Spycops and Police and Crime bills. But to continue would be to echo of the thoughts of four hundred thousand or so party members. So today, I wrote this:
 
“Patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel” said Samuel Johnson. “Patriotism is the virtue of the vicious” said Oscar Wilde.
 
What say you? And what say you to those who believe that patriotism can only be expressed by ostentatious embracing of the flag?

​Or rather, The Flag?
 
By order of a scoundrel, The Flag must now be displayed outside public buildings 365 days a year. And other flags must be flown in a subordinate position in order to reinforce our colonial past. Its absence is now regarded as an indication of lack of patriotic fervour, according to a Tory MP who criticised the new (Tory, Tory donor) Director-General of the BBC for producing an annual report without a single image of the flag – a charge which, paradoxically or perhaps hypocritically, could also be applied to the 2019 Conservative manifesto.
 
This flag-waving is trivial and pathetic in itself. But it points to something rather more serious and profound.
 
The flag is no longer an emblem of unity and democracy, but a statement of political philosophy. Or, at least, a statement of a motley collection of prejudices and bigotry.
 
The extreme right, the Tommy Robinsons, the Nigel Farages et al, appropriated the union flag as a form of short hand for racism. Patriotism itself became a synonym for white privilege.
 
It is this manifestation of the flag which has been embraced by Johnson and the Conservative Party. And before we know it, it will be by law propping up classrooms and assemblies of all kinds.
 
Already, it has been adopted in a toadying, servile manner by Starmer and the ‘leadership’ of the Labour Party. And there are many, including me, who fear that this move anticipates the adoption of the policies and attitudes which the flag now represents.
 
Democracy is discussion, debate, disagreement. The flag is about none of these things. In the 21st century, it symbolizes the imposition of one set of values over all others.
 
And when it is flown atop any number of greasy poles, I for one will not salute it.
 
 
Today from the everysmith vaults: I’m listening to the Dead in 1981, a 3 hour plus show from Essen. The band is on great form until they welcome on-stage one Pete Townsend from The Who. It’s not a great mix, I’m afraid.

It’s been a busy week. I know, this is not an opening sentence that you will see often these days but if you extend your definition of the word ‘busy’, you’ll know what I mean. Think of it as a verb rather than an adjective; as in “I have been busying myself with a variety of sedentary activities”.
 
These ‘activities’ – another word I use loosely – are better characterized by the original Old English bisig, meaning careful, anxious, diligent.
 
And it is carefully, anxiously, diligently, that I have been following the news. I have watched and listened, read and wrote, considered, responded and ‘reacted’. I have liked, shared, commented, and re-tweeted far more than my blood pressure can handle. I have busied myself with some thankless and demeaning exchanges on local political forums – “I have photocopied your vile post Mr Smith” – and engaged in a series of WhatsApp conversations without discovering what’s up or down.
 
But then two things happened that transformed my sense of ennui.
 
The first was the appearance on Channel 4 of live test cricket, and those who took the decision to outbid Sky must be very happy. I certainly am, because the test, which finished an hour or so ago with a victory for England, was a superb game from beginning to end.
 
Joe Root batted magnificently and captained well. Given India’s fightback on the last day of their final test against Australia, his decision not to enforce the follow-on was sensible and correct.
 
Of course, Root knew that he could rely on Anderson, and Anderson did what Anderson does. That first over, in which his reverse swing did for Gill and Rahane, was as good as any I have seen. And I saw Michael Holding.

​

​The day the test match began, I received my pre-ordered copy of Empireland by Sathnam Sanghera, and I read the opening chapters between overs. He has done his research on the attitudes and methods of British imperialism, and is not afraid to itemize some of the quite appalling actions carried out in pursuit of power and profit, necessary because, as he points out, this aspect of the Empire is not even mentioned, never mind taught in British schools.
 
But his sub-title is How Imperialism Has Shaped Modern Britain. It’s more specific and personal than this, because the book is actually about how imperialism has shaped Sathnam Sanghera: he is open about his own experience growing up in Wolverhampton (Enoch Powell’s constituency), not knowing English until he attended school, but took a first in English at Cambridge and has forged a career in journalism and writer (not always the same thing).
 
He was working for the FT when I knew him, but is now with The Times and Sunday Times, so I seldom see his columns and features, restricting myself to his books (The Boy With The Top-Knot, Marriage Material and now Empireland) where I find myself in awe of his honesty and his prose.
 
Test cricket and a good book. Reasons to be cheerful, part 1.
 
 
Today from the everysmith vaults: Joan Osborne sang with the Dead, or at least the post-Jerry variants of the Dead, and I have long been an admirer. But have only just discovered that she also tackled Bob’s oeuvre. Today, I am playing a show from Charleston, WV in which she shows that she is one of the few who can bring something new to a Bob song. Her version of Spanish Harlem Incident is sublime. Reasons to be cheerful, part 2!

​You’re a headhunter. You are tasked by the Labour Party to recruit a “social listening and media organising manager” who will work in the office of the Leader of the Opposition. Where do you start and finish your search?
 
There are, of course, thousands of young socialists who are remarkably adept at social media. But you don’t want one of those. The brief is quite clear that socialists, especially those who may have expressed support for the Corbyn project, will not be considered. And the first job of the new “social listening” guru will probably be to root out these people from the party itself.
 
You glance at the social media consultants in the States, but they are all connected with Trump. Russia, the home of some of the hackers you most admire, is something of an issue for geo-political reasons.
 
And then, you have an epiphany. Israel!
 
Israel was a pioneer of electronic surveillance, manipulation and blackmail. It even had its own notorious specialist group dedicated to these cyber-warfare activities. Surely someone from Unit 8200 might be available, especially now that, under Starmer, Labour is turning its back on the cause of Palestinian rights.
 
“Hang about. This guy looks promising. He was an analyst and an officer in Unit 8200. Nearly five years in Israeli military intelligence spying on Palestinians is just the kind of experience we are looking for.”
 
“What’s his name?”
 
“Assaf Kaplan.”
 
“Is he socialist?”
 
“Oh no. He was running the Israeli Labour Party campaign when they got wiped out. Just six seats these days.”
 
“He sounds perfect. Let’s get him in.”
 
And get him in they did. He’s been in charge of social media surveillance since December last year. And he’s doing a good job, trawling through members’ tweets and Facebook posts to keep the party free from any socialist tendencies whilst removing any reference to his military experience from his LinkedIn profile.
 
Appropriately neither Kaplan nor Starmer will comment.
 
Today from the everysmith vaults: Rose Simpson is publishing a memoir. Based on interviews and extracts, Muse, Odalisque, Handmaiden: A Girl's Life in the Incredible String Band is fascinating stuff and in preparation for its official publication, I am working my way through the ISB oeuvre and loving it.

“Now more than ever, people deserve principled leadership based on conviction, not party political calculation.”
 
We know from Angela Rayner that, under the new leadership, what is true is not acceptable: so it is probably no longer acceptable for a member of the Labour party to quote Caroline Lucas approvingly.
 
But I do so now on this New Year’s Eve, the day after the vote on the EU trade bill and the day before we enter 2021 as an insular nation at the whim of global events and Johnson’s right-wing idiocies.
 
Yesterday evening, I ranted on a local Labour forum about my disgust at the party’s response, which produced only a single vote against a policy which had the backing of merely 26.5% of the British population in 2016. (That vote was many things, but the one thing it clearly wasn’t is “the will of the people”.)
 
This morning, I am attempting to recollect that emotion in tranquillity; to enter 2021 with a degree of equanimity; to find positives in the midst of this plethora of angst-ridden negativity.
 
It is not easy. Yesterday, in the House of Commons, our representatives voted 521 to 73 in favour of a bill which – and I am quoting defiantly from Caroline Lucas again – “cuts British jobs, sidelines our services sector, undermines hard-won protections for the environment, workers’ rights and consumers, and turns Kent into a diesel-stained monument to hubris and political myopia”.
 
The principal sufferers from this hubris and myopia are, unfortunately, the principals of our two major parties. Both Johnson and Starmer have changed their minds frequently on this key issue, and not because the facts changed. Whenever it was politically expedient, the principals changed their principles. Whenever there was a chance to undermine their leaders and climb the greasy pole to leadership positions, they seized the opportunity. And they were ruthless in pursuing power: Johnson culling the liberal intelligentsia of the Tory party; Starmer expelling or suspending those who raised the mildest of objections to his authoritarianism.
 
Both claim to be curing divisions and putting an end to factionalism. But both are achieving this by enforcing the hegemony of their own factions and, in Starmer’s case, refusing the opportunity for members even to discuss his actions.
 
Yesterday showed that, in the parliamentary parties at least, there is no principled opposition left in either party. Under Starmer, Labour has failed to vote against a succession of bills: allowing surveillance, torture, Covid corruption and incompetence and Brexit. What is the point of a two-party system when both are at one? And at one not only with each other but with the media, the elite, the ruling class?
 
Starmer said, in a Johnsonian reference, that he now regards the Brexit issue as closed. Closed it may be, but there will be no closure.
 
He wants it to be so. He can stop us discussing it. He can suspend or expel those of us who do. But right now, on the eve of a new year outside Europe, in the middle of a pandemic, and with no confidence in our governance, I despair.
 
I do, however, wish everyone a happy new year. Good luck!

Today from the everysmith vaults: Perversely, on the sixth day of Christmas, I am listening to the St Matthew  Passion.