Screen X and New Amserdam

Yesterday, I can never type the word without hearing the opening of the Beatles tune in my head, I had the most wonderful of days which lasted until going to bed well after midnight. Such is my satisfaction at the mixture of achievement and new experience enjoyment that I need to record the experiences before continuing with the writing of a book, the first section of which is fully researched and drafted, and the opening pages settled yesterday.

On return from my first experiences of the new cinema Screen X at the Cineworld Newcastle at the Gate, the best of the four party areas of one of this most remarkable of British cities; the other areas, the Bigg Market, the Tyne riverside, with the Millennium Bridge walkway to the Baltic contemporary art centre and Sage concert halls on the Gateshead side, and Eldon Square  complex of restaurants on two floors and surrounding streets filled visiting hen and stag parties,  packs  of university students setting out for the bars and clubbing,  adolescents celebrating the end of half term,  middle age and older citizens heading the Theatre Royal and the Playhouse, some younger ones to the Live Theatres, couples of all ages on dates, families going to  the film of Aladdin and  the secret life of Pets ,and a mixture of well-dressed heading for the 24 hour casino at Gate.

I returned home by Metro and my car parked at the South Shields end of the line station, eat the prepared salad and a small carton of raspberries, watched the latest episode of the Looming Tower, which chronicles the rivalry, distrust and compartmentalism of the C.I.A and F.B.I in the years  before 9/11, having watched the previous evening the Berlin Station  series in which the U.S funds a right wing party in Germany in order to house and use its digital surveillance system on every government, corporate and domestic electronic device in Europe,  and  Deep State series which chronicles the machinations of the US government through one of its off the books units committing murder and blackmail to beat Russia and China in controlling individual African states, and then decided to watch  the last two the most moving and engaging of Television series of 22 episodes New Amsterdam on Amazon prime, about a New York Public Hospital with a creative  socialist public service Director, four principal medical consultants and the consultant psychologists who could be me in another life,  and the sex, loves, addictions and family dramas of the staff for which they have too little time.

I have never been keen on hospital set dramas, part of my fear, dread and dislike of all institutions which become places which concentrate in furthering and protecting the interests of the providing body, the management and employees before those of the residents. I also cannot stand the reality of the pain and the bloodshed. New Amsterdam changed that, as I became totally involved and in tears a during most, if not all episodes, and saying WoW at the levels of understanding and insight. The end of what appeared to be the final rather than first season episode was more shocking and unexpected than the ending of Blakes Seven. The advantage of Amazon Prime is that you can watch a full series over 24 hours, but New Amsterdam was experienced no more than one day, and where sometimes a longer break between episodes seemed right, but difficult, as you are always wanting to know want happens next. The story line and the characters go well over the top which is also me.

Having experienced 4DX 3D at the rebuilt inside of Cineworld in Newcastle I set off to see if the latest screen film experience to be added was as good or even better. Cineworld had adopted part the 2009 South Korean system which motion seating synchronised with events in the film. You are held in seats in the same as on fairground ride with addition of sensors which can appear to punch or stab you if such an event occurs on screen. The full model now in Newcastle and Middlesbrough in the North East includes carefully directed water spray at the face, wind, hot and cold, smoke and auditorium lights together with surround sound and 3D visual. Not a fan of the roller coaster and other fairground thrill rides, I decided to experience the new dimension with a film about the ability through the use of avatars to immerse yourself in an artificial dimension the outcome of which you cannot control. The television series Westworld goes one further when human beings enter an artificial world full of artificial sentient, feeling created, outwardly human bodied robots, you can kill, torture and sex with until the artificial beings start to question with inside help and learn how to fight back and decided to enter the real world.

The Screen X advance publicity mentioned a 270 degree which I did not think carefully about beforehand assuming it was similar to Cinerama of the 1950’s and which had a deeply curving screen arc and a drawback of two joins which created a triptych effect.  On 20^th September 1954, the first theatre opened in London in Old Crompton Street, Soho with “This is Cinerama” which I went to see on my own and then took the aunties within who I then lived. A decade later I saw “How the West was won” and possibly “Khartoum”. I believe I saw 2001, a Space Odyssey at a different London theatre.

The new screen is advertised as a mind boggling 270 degrees so I was greatly disappointed and nearly went out to complain to the management when first entering the screen 12, having sat overlooking the comings and goings on one of the pairs of new leather sofa to one side of the  large reception area which also serves at the entrance to the four additional small screens on two floors . To reach Screen X you have to pass the Superscreen and sound, the 4DX with 2 and 3D, the 3D and 2D screens, with leather reclining seats and legroom for people to pass while you continue to sit, plus two sets of male, female and disability toilets.

Going through the two sets of door into the theatre I looked up at the screen and thought what the…. and nearly went out to complain to the management.  In fairness I had not worked out the implications of a 270 degree screen compared to that if Cinerama and had expected something similar. Instead, it appeared there was one slight curved screen wall to wall, floor to ceiling screen of perhaps 90 degrees but not as big as the Imax screen at the Theatre by Waterloo.

The long opening programme of Pearl and Dean advertisements, invitations to join the Cineworld unlimited monthly subscription and film trailers filled the centre area of screen until the magic moment when the theatre went momentarily dark and the words screen x appears before the full screen emerged from the darkness, as did the screens on either side of the theatre, tapering all the way to the back corners. To experience the best effect, seats at the back are essential although the effect wherever you sit is overwhelming and distracting.   Several times I could not cope and closed my eyes. I had the same experience at Imax in London.

Not all the scenes in the fil were projected on the three sides which offered some relief. One problem was the film being shown.

I had made the visit to experience the new screen and had reservations about the latest in Godzilla series which were more than justified. The script is laughable, the characters did not engage with acting half hearted, the story incomprehensible, the CGI of some of the monsters third rate and action relentless and boring.

It will go again to see a screen X Screen production when hopefully the film will make the experience worthwhile. There is a premium charge of £3 over the unlimited subscription, £2.50 for the Superscreen, £4.70 for 4DX but the premium for special relays is more as I paid to see the Bruce Springsteen documentary and short concert on his early experience and attempt to revive the West side of the New Jersey coastal resort of Ashbury Park.

The Newcastle Cineworld has been transformed from the former Empire which occupied the same site on the top floor with 12 theatres and a side extension of four small theatres on two floors. The entrance foyer has been transformed include a Starbucks

The Gate has a two level basement garage which I have just discovered has an evening charge of only £ 2.50, £3.50 all day Sunday, the 24 hour Casino for those over 18 and which does not require membership, a two floor night club till 3am two Escape Room experiences, a video lounge and open play which include chess and table tennis with I have never used. Similarly, there is major International Banquet, eat as much you like which I will visit but only when I reduced my present weight of seventeen and half stones to under 16; I have eaten at the Wetherspoons, but not Nando’s, Pizza Hut, eat as much you plus Nando’s, Pizza Hut, Wetherspoons. There two bar, on serves food with huge screens to watch football, and one of these has topless dancers before, during the interval and afterwards to attract and retain customers from the other part and places in Newcastle which also both home and away games. The home games are relayed from other countries. There are in total some 300 places to eat, drink and socialize in the city.

The voice of reason

The overnight message from the local government elections confirms my prediction that the Prime Minister will  yield on the issue of a Customs Union and the Leader of the Opposition will face down members of the Parliamentary Party who want the People’ Vote, and attempt to pass the Withdrawal agreement and a new political declaration  before the EEC elections are held, if the margin is sufficient to get the necessary legislation passed, or immediately after the  EEC elections to ensure that those elected do not take up their seats.

The result of the local government elections would have been different if the Brexit and Change Parties had time to establish a local party structure and select candidates. Fortunately, they were not, and the message to both groups is that as soon as Brexit is sorted, you will have no future as a political force as the electorate will revert to the natural order of politics but with the Lib Dems, the Greens, and genuine local Independents gaining and the likely outcome of no party having overall control in the House of Commons.

However, the ability to get a May Corbyn Brexit deal through the Commons is in question as the no deal Tory Brexiteers in the House of Commons and the anti-Corbyn Remainers of the PLP become more angry and fearful of a deal and are given full support by some at the BBC in particular, and a platform on Sky and ITV news channels.  The National papers will continue to appeal to the No deal and anti-Corbyn interests, so only social media will be available for objective and rational democrats who understand  human behaviour and the nature of political power to communicate and press for peaceful compromise which will enable good order and good people to get on with their lives, protecting and furthering the best interests of themselves, their relatives and friends within a fair and just rule of law.

We need to avoid a Britain with a political leadership pandering to those who welcome the dangerous extremism of Trump, of the theoretical Marxists or   the wishy washy populism of Macron. It remains important for the future of the planet that Britain remains a state with sufficient influence to contribute in meaningful way to world peace,  to tackling climate change and the future of the planet,  tackling disease, food and water deprivation, protecting and furthering the interests of women and girls,  and those with disabilities, defending  against the imposition of religious beliefs,  and against organised crime,  and takes radical action to end structural economic, political and social inequality.

April film Review

The film Red Joan appealed to me because of ongoing work which involves separating coincidences from connections and sifting through the available information to try and find evidence which points to truth. In this instance I decided to see the film without reading reviews or reading on the person said to have inspired the making of the film although the two lives are only loosely connected

The basic  truth is that  the real life subject,  Melita Norwood, was a life-long communist supporter, the daughter of communist supporting parents, who worked  as a civil servant for 40 years in a government nuclear weapon development programme  during which time she provided information of value to Russia who regard her contribution as important as that provided by the more famous Cambridge Spies.  She worked as the personal secretary to the Director of the programme and therefore was able to photograph and pass on the documents and communications with which she had access. She was also married to a communist chemistry teacher who have helped her to understand something of the work involved. 

Melita appears to have retired about the same time Margaret Thatcher launched the most comprehensive and effect vetting service in the world to prevent left wing activists being appointed to any form of public funded position or job. In terms of her background she was bright enough with the personality to be school captain at a secondary school and to commence to study for a degree in Latin and Logic at Southampton University, deciding to leave to commence work in London after a year. She is known to have been part of the Woolwich spy ring where three members were arrested and imprisoned in 1938 but she was not even interviewed.

Nor was she prosecuted when  aged 80 years, and retired, she was identified in 1992  when a KGB archivist for the foreign intelligence service, Vasili Mitrokhin, defected and provided the British MI6 with files which remain classified, although some access has been  given, notably to Christopher Andrew who wrote the two editions of the 1000 page history of MI5, and published two books on the papers The Sword and the Shields 1999 and the Battle for the Third World in 2005.  Melita was one of three British spies whose names and roles were made public. The second was a Member of Parliament for 20 years Raymond Fletcher also a journalist and author whose wife has denied his participation saying he worked for MI6 and directly helped Margaret Thatcher.  Raymond Fletcher served   in the British army in WW2 and afterwards in Germany.

The most colourful of the three was John Symonds who fled Britain after becoming suspected of corruption when a police sergeant at New Scotland Yard. He claimed to have been framed and went to Africa where he used his military background to train government troops using sold off British weapons.  He was then recruited by Russia and used to gain information by seducing women who worked in embassies He returned to Britain and was given immunity for past deeds when cooperating in Operation Countryman. He was not believed about his role as a male Marta Hari until he was named by Mitrokhin. He is still alive and a film starring Daniel Craig and Jude law based on his book was planned but then discontinued.

In the Red Joan Judi Dench plays the 80 year old, a widow with one son who is a leading lawyer  and who spends most of the film horrified by what she discloses of former life to the  Special Branch in  long flashback covering her life story.  This begins when she meets two German Jews at Cambridge University and is groomed after joining a left wing film society and seduced by the male.  Unlike the Norwood, Sophie Cookson portrays the young Joan as a conventional bright academic from a middle class background passionate about the pure science of physics and a mathematical background which leads her to being head hunted to work as personal assistant to the director of the British nuclear weapon project before the war ends. and where her former communist contacts learn of her new role and try and persuade her to spy for them. She strongly opposes this until the bomb is used on Japan.

The story follows what happened in reality as in 1946, the McMahan Act was passed in the USA preventing further sharing of the development programme despite British scientists having played a major role in the Manhattan project. The irony is it was the former German scientist Klaus Fuchs who in 1950 was found to have spent years leaking his contribution to the Russians using the argument made by the film that this achieved a balance of power and prevented a third world war and the destruction of humanity.

The film has Atlee visiting the project and agreeing to what became the successful development of the British Bomb. The problem was that we lacked the means of effective rocket launching to prevent any pre-emptive strike by the enemy. We were blackmailed by the American President in 1960 into agreeing to provide the main base for the Polaris submarines and to do so near Scotland biggest centre of population as the means for the sharing of the rocket delivery system. The government wanted a more isolated location, but the USA insisted on Holy Loch to ensure their service personally had quick access to the facilities of a city. This information became available with the release of Cabinet papers and the treating of the Holy Loch demonstrations which I triggered and helped organise (papers of Direct Action Committee J B Priestly Library University of Bradford) with an online index and mentioned in a footnote Gandhi and the West Sean Scalmar).

In the film, the young Joan begins a relationship with the project director when they go to Canada for help with the British development. However, it is only when the project director is charged and held  in custody for being the source of the leaks to Russia development, that his wife agrees to a divorce and they can in theory be  together again.. Joan decides to admit her role to save him but then works out a plan to enable both of them to leave the UK for Australia by blackmailing a gay former communist student at Cambridge who has become a senior civil servant at the foreign office. It is only when this man dies that the evidence against her comes to light. The film ends with the media at her door as she attempts to explains why she did it supported at the last moment by her son. The ending is intended to leave the audience with sympathy for what she did.

The acting throughout is first class and some critics dislike the direction of Trevor Nunn which avoids this being yet another gripping spy thriller with lots of explicit sex and scandal.  Nunn is more concerned about portraying relationships and motivations in the context of the time period and in this he succeeds. The film is pitched for an intelligent and serious audience and not for the average cinema goers and film critics born in the last thirty years which suggests it will not have a long run in mainstream theatres.

I also recently enjoyed the Missing Link which uses puppets and stop motion but with the latest technology involving 110 sets at 65 locations. The sequence on the ice bridge to Shangri la is reported to have taken five years and has Emma Thomson as the voice of the powerful dictator of the hidden world   There is a great cast of voices including Hugh Jackman, Stephen Fry, David Walliams, Matt Lucas and Timothy Olyphant.   The story is of a dedicated explorer in search of living creatures from Big Foot to the Yeti which will prove to be the missing link between animals and humans and will gain him entry into the Royal Society where he is opposed by its President clinging to Creation in 7 days belief.   The film follows the Around the World in 80 days in this respect and where the Royal Society president hires a team to prevent the return of the explorer with proof.  There is a huge production company involved managed by Laika. I first became aware of this approach to film making when seeing Kubo and the two Strings in 2016 where the voices included Ralph Fiennes.

I also enjoyed the remake of Dumbo which upset me as child when seeing the 1941 original  when Dumbo was brought by a flock of wild storks but otherwise the basics of the story are the same with the mother elephant declared mad and locked away and separated from her son which continues to upset very young children today as it did then,  the impact of being regarded and exploited as a freaks  and  the happy ending, in this instance taken from public entertainment  back to  a natural habitat.

One of my first cousins spent his childhood including early school in Germany immediately after the war as his father was a regimental quartermaster in the British Army of Occupation. His mother was traumatised by the reality of the experience, so I was interested to see one of the few authentic accounts on film with best well known Graham Green’s the Third Man with Joseph Cotton and Orson Wells. The Aftermath more than lived up to my expectations but I am not surprised that that its season of showing was short for as T S Elliot comments in his Four Quartets humans cannot cope with too much reality.

I have no visual memory of the original 1937 movie A Star is Born with Janet Gaynor and Frederich March, but I do remember the 1954 version with James Mason and Judy Garland and then as Rock and Roll artists in 1976, Kris Kristofferson and Barbara Streisand. I was not surprised that the latest Hollywood version in 2018 with Lady Gaga and Bradley Cooper won several awards. I went to Wild Rose at Bolden Cineworld  on April 12 because it was a  Scottish film with Julie Walters, not knowing much else, only to discover there were  similarities with the Star is Born series  but at a superior level of authenticity because of the performances of Jessica Buckley as the Country singer, Julie Walters as her mother and the  young actors who play her son and daughter both of whom are outstanding. I rate Wild Rose as one of the best Scottish productions and should feature in next year’s BAFTA awards.  The language is natural and the film rightly has a 15 certificate.

I then went to see Shazam at the Vue Gateshead using a one of the Lloyd Bank vouchers where it was being shown on their super clean screen with the latest special sound and found the entrance foyer in a disgusting condition after enjoying a cup of tea in the neighbouring Tesco. Usually the foyer area, full of leather armchairs and a large screen showing the latest trailers, is spotless but this time there was spilt popcorn everywhere and the remains of various snacks which was cleared up by the time I had my ticket and car park pass. I went for an entertainment experience without expectations and came away impressed that this is best action hero film made for families starting with children from about ten years of age.

The film centres of mixed age range of school age adolescents living in a small children’s home managed by a couple with the knowledge, experience and skill to treat each child as an individual, to give them their space while bringing them into a sense of family life where they begin to look after each other.  The most unhappy child was abandoned by his 17 year old mother at a fair and spend his life trying to find her believing he was lost and not abandoned. He is selected by an ancient solitary wizard to be tested to become his successor after years if failing to find someone suitable. He is given the full range of superpowers which he initially begins to use in order to get out school, attract attention and money for treats and let the situation get out of hand.  Unfortunately, a previous failure finds a way to return to the lair of the Wizard and join up with the imprisoned dark forces there and uses these creature monsters to gain power and revenge until  he is made aware of the potential threat from the adolescent superhero.. 

Thus, the age old battle between good and evils begins where the youngster is no match until one by one the other children realise the situation and try and help. At the end all the children become superheroes each with their own form of power which suggests this is only the first a series.  There was a good size audience for the film which was also enjoyed by them, overhearing the comments as we left the auditorium. Next in 3D with be the sequel to the Avengers Endgame.

The Easter Brexit Agreement ?

I listened carefully to all the answers which the Prime Minister Teresa May gave in the House of Commons on Thursday afternoon April 11^th 2019, as I have done on every previous Brexit reporting occasion and noted the significant differences which augur well in her dedicated effort to respect the binding undertaken given to the British people in the  June 23^rd Brexit 2016 referendum. An undertaking which was also given by the Labour Party and which was also followed by both political parties in their 2017 General Election manifesto’s. As  I commented to a journalist three years ago when attending the presentation by the Shadow Chancellor when he outlined Labour’s investment bank  proposals at the Glass Centre in Sunderland, I anticipated that although our political relationship with Western Europe would change, ways would be found to retain all the elements which had served everyone well over the past forty years.

My confidence and my optimism is because I believe I recognise the fundamental shift in the approach of the Prime Minister as she appears to have decided that she has nothing to lose by persisting in what she believes is right for the for future of the British Nation and damn the personal consequences.

In this respect she has become more like Jeremey Corbyn, the official leader of the Opposition and leader of the Labour Party, that she would ever admit, in public. She still finds it difficult to control her feelings towards those in her own party who are determined to bring her down because she refuses to yield to their view of Britain’s political and economic future. She showed contempt towards Sir William Cash and other member of the far right in her party and is taking on the U.D.P. 

Having leaked the 27 page statement  the Cabinet Secretary  briefed on  why no deal would be bad for the British economy and the public welfare, the memorandum from the head of the Civil Services telling all government departments to stand down No deal preparations was also leaked further incensing the Brexit Right and in so doing challenges Cabinet Members Leadsom, Gove, Mordaunt and the other members of the Pizza Club, to shut up or resign. They know that if they resign, they will be replaced by those who support the approach of the Prime Minister and not by other Brexiteers. Mrs May knows that the rest of the Cabinet will not resign and bring down the government fearing the consequences of a General Election.

The remaining threat to her immediate position as Prime Minister is that the U.D.P are arguing that their binding agreement to support the government in any vote of confidence applies only to the previously agreed length of the present Parliament session which commenced on 21^st June 2017 and is therefore due to end in June. This in part is why Mrs May attempted to extend Article 50 only to June. However, the present session of two years instead of the normal one is because of Brexit and the Right in her party immediately understood that the new flexible Article 50 extension will result in in the extension of Parliamentary session, with the UDP immediately saying the Supply and Confidence agreement will have to be renegotiated. It would be surprising if the Prime Minister has not checked that the agreement continues for the length of the session without the length being determined. The UDP also know that Jeremey Corbyn has no intention of calling for a new vote of confidence in the Government while he is in negotiation for a Brexit confidence agreement which will guarantee his party’s support for passing the Withdrawal agreement and for a revised political agreement on future relationships with Europe. As with the UDP agreement Labour could insist on other strings

It is not evident if the media is deliberately not explaining to the public the potential legally binding nature of any agreement or there is ignorance. It is important to appreciate that as with the agreement reached with the Liberal Democrats which formed the Coalition in 2010 and that with the UPD in 2017,  the discussions with Labour are of a similar order, and are being formally serviced by the Civil Service and its lawyers and will have the same force as any international treaty between two or more countries, and where the Prime Minister has  the power to enter into with the authority of the head of state using the royal prerogative. I assume the head of state formally sanctioned the Good Friday agreement, the Coalition and UDP agreements and would do so any between May and Corbyn.

This  also explains the anger of the SNP and other minority parties in Parliament to May’s decision to try and do a deal with Labour which will in effect replace that with the DUP. In this they are joined by the pure Remainers and anti-Corbyn members of the  Parliamentary Labour Party who appreciate that the 2017 Labour Election Manifesto and the 2018 annual conference resolution only commit the Party to a second referendum, a confirmatory vote , or to seeking a general election if their six tests are not met, and that on behalf of the Labour Party, Corbyn and Keir Starmer and other members of the negotiation team have made public their willingness to compromise, stating that so far the Prime Minister has not ab acceptable compromise on the table.  It is assumed that these talks will continue with added momentum during the next two weeks while the backbench members of the Commons have been sent back to face their constituencies and some of the media spotlight is defused. Obviously, some of the most outspoken have sorted out their position with their constituencies, but there will be others who the Prime Minister and the Tory Whips believe will accept the urgent need to get the Withdrawal agreement passed before May 22^nd and preferable before May 2^nd.  The momentum to get it done at any price now has full steam.

It was also evident from Mrs May’s answers to questions yesterday, that the priority, one which is also shared in part with Corbyn, is that they want to avoid participation in the EEC Elections on 22^nd of May.  There are two reasons for this. The first is that Polls, as they do for the local elections on May 2^nd are looking very bad for the Conservative Party, and also not good for Labour is some of the Leave seats where racism was the main factor in the referendum result. The second is the anticipated rise not just of the two Brexit parties, UKIP and the new party of Nigel Farage but of other far right parties. Much will depend if UKIP and the Brexit Party can do a deal not to both contest some seats or if the anti-Tory and Labour vote is split.  The timing of any formal agreement between Labour and the Government will therefore be crucial.

The media also did not appear to appreciate that the proposal to put options to the House of Commons which the government would be bound by the outcome, was only a back stop if agreement is not reached with the Labour Party, and then only if Corbyn also agrees for Labour to be bound by the outcome. May on behalf of a future Conservative government and Corbyn also, do not want to give more power to the present composition of the House of Commons than Speaker Bercow has allowed so far.

The preference of both leaders is for a general election rather than a People’s Vote as the Prime Minister knows that she could use a General Election not just to confront Corbyn for a second time, but believes that the work undertaken to discredit Corbyn as a security threat and  anti-Semitism has damaged him personally and that unlike  her previous attempt  to make the general election about Brexit, any new snap election will become Brexit dominated by the media, however hard the Opposition leader attempts to focus on the impact of austerity, climate change and the inherent inequalities of  the British economy and power structure.  Corbyn also knows that he needs the opportunity of a General Election to rid the House of Commons of some of his fiercest critics. Now that Commons have been given the taste of power against the executive they will want to exercise again and only a new more traditional Speaker  following a General Election will change that, and I still anticipate that Jacob Reece Mogg is the most likely candidate with Andrea Leadsom the other possibility as there will be  across party pressure for the officer to  again be held by a woman with Baroness Betty Boothroyd the only other woman to be elected.

The difficulty Labour has is in signing any agreement without a commitment to a Peoples Vote, and if this proves to be an obstacle the solution is a vote of no confidence leading to a general election, but as has been stated, the Tory right will not support unless there is a way to replace May and the UDP is legally bound to support.

My cause for optimism is that this all points to May immediately putting formally on the table a form of Customs Union and common  market conformity regularity which Corbyn and his front bench could sign up to with confidence knowing  he would have sufficient support from the shadow government and supporters to get the consequential Brexit legislation through the British Parliament, despite opposition from the hard right and the hard Remainers together with the SNP and Lib Dems who know that any deal will damage their future electoral prospects and that of UKIP and the Brexit Party.

Both leaders know that if a deal is to be done and prove successful it has to be done quickly and the two week recess provides a great opportunity for what future generations will call the Easter agreement

March 29th 2019 Brexit day to remember and the end of the Westminster Child Abuse Hearings

On Wednesday 27^th and Friday 29^th March 2019, the British House of Commons reasserted its supremacy against a dictatorial executive and the abuse of power by an individual Prime Minister who has repeatedly mislead Parliament and the British people of her intentions and those of her divided government. It was able to do this because there is no written constitution, and Parliament works on its standing orders based on those of Erskine May which has become the basis of Parliamentary practice and procedure available in a hard copy for £329, presently on line to those party to the Parliamentary Intranet. The new edition will be become available on line later this year.

The Speaker of  House of Commons, John Bercow, was able to facilitate a process where Members collectively, and with the support of the Leader of the Opposition and other opposition leaders with the exception of the Tory and Ulster Unionist Parties have taken control of the agenda of future House of Commons sitting days, recommencing on Monday 1^st April when if a way ahead can be agreed they will also put a business motion to commence legislation of what is agreed. It is possible that if the Prime Minister agrees to a permanent Customs Union and is willing to face down the 100 hard line Tory Brexiteers, accept the hard line resignations from the Cabinet and the refusal of the Democratic Unionist Party to support government finance votes and votes of confidence, she could bring back the Withdrawal agreement and the permanent customs Union Soft Brexit and get Labour front bench support. She would end as Prime Minister having taken Britain out of the EEC by May and avoid participation in the EEC elections, and commitment to a confirmatory referendum. She would remain Prime Minister until a new Tory leader was elected by the Party which is likely to be followed by a General Election.

The more likely scenario is that she will be pressed by the hard Brexiteers to ignore whatever the Commons decides on Monday and move for No Deal.  If as more likely the Commons votes for a permanent Customs Union and a confirmatory Peoples vote for such a deal or revocation, given the petition is within 23000 votes of 6 million, which would involve a long delay and participation in the forthcoming elections she will be forced to request a General Election.

 Speaker John Bercow is now in a position to reject any attempt to bring back another Withdrawal Agreement option unless it is coupled with legislative agreement on what the Commons has agreed.

The hard Brexiteers of which 105 voted for no deal last Wednesday and defeated by 346 votes (441 against) will now attempt to use very legal trick and parliamentary device to achieve no deal irrespective of Mrs May now says and does or what Jeremy Corbin and other Opposition parties agree (D.U.P excluded).

We are also a long way from achieving a Corbyn led government with a sustainable majority. The Scottish Nationalist Party would demand a second referendum vote or at least a substantial new devolution settlement as the price of the kind of deal struck by Mrs May with the UDP. The downside of the present Commons insurrection against the Executive is that the present composition of the House of Commons is more likely to prevent a Corbyn led administration from carrying out its election manifesto with full support from the Tory opposition. There is likely to be a purge from the Tory Party of the soft Brexiteers, with people like Ken Clarke and Dominic Grieve offered life Peerages.   A General Election will enable the Labour Party to remove the most disloyal members of the Parliamentary Party who could find a home along with other disgruntled Tories in the new Change Party where some of those now Independents could attempt to become Members of the European Community if the decision is taken to participate in the elections.

One of the problem that the majority of the electorate do not appear to understand is how political power operates in Britain. Most people do not appreciate that the Cabinet is a sub committee of the Privy Council or how the Royal Prerogative works, or the structure of the Privy Council sub Committees. They do not appreciate that our relations with other countries of which trading agreements are just one aspect are achieved through Treaties which have the force of International law, but which are agreed between governments in the form of Treaties and often not disclose or disclosed in detail Parliament beforehand and some which they concern nationals securing. They do not know the various mechanisms by which those not elected to Parliament can directly influence what politicians do as well as what they or the apparatus of the state and its institutions in enforcing its will. The best example is the all-party Parliamentary influence group. Yesterday for example the All party group on Beer and Pubs held a debate on the importance of the public house for the beer industry and for pubs as a source of employment and social amenity. There are such groups representing almost  every country and British  interest abroad; there is one on British Overseas territories and a separate one on the British territory of Gibraltar so that Gibraltar has two group of members pushing its interest such as one of the online gabling centres in the world and one of the online banking centres of the world because the British Government to protect its value as  an adjunct to GSGQ, that it remains the centre of undersea cable communications,  the basis for its Polaris submarines and a transit and recreation centre for all British Naval and Army personnel in transit.

Since I was The Parliamentary officer and Vice President of the Association of Child Officers 1965-1970 the ability to influence has become more sophisticated and organised with full time general and specialist Lobby firms with highly paid professional as self-employed individuals  whose ranks include Prime Ministers and Ministers and senior civil servants, much the same way that the international and nation intelligence and security organisations and staff by early retired members of  MI5 , MI5, Special Branch and Special Forces.

Back in the later 1960’s I could walk into the House of Parliament and show a letter or a telephone note to the couple of policemen on the door, and on occasions just mention that I was meeting someone, and I would be let into central Lobby without more ado.  Only with the past few days I rediscovered the file when I was able to write on official parliamentary procedure paper amendments to legislation requested by an individual Member of the House of Commons who agreed in advance to press whatever the Association of Child Care Officers wished to have considered. I had one success in relation to a Child Minding Act where my amendment became law.  I also came across the booking form for a room in Parliament approved by as Member of the Commons  (as required) for a drinks party to mark the Royal Assent for the Children and Young Person’s Act 1969 at which the Conservative Shadow Home Secretary and the shadow Children’s Minister went through the act and explained to me what they proposed to implement and what they would not is what then happened when they came to power in 1970.

Before then I sat on the floor of the House of Lords as guest of the Labour Minister of State, Baroness Serota, who explained that she was required to move an amendment in relation to the proposed abolition of the Approved School Order and the  integration of Approved Schools into a new system of Residential Child Care  homes with Education on the Premises, to be  approved by the new Children’s Regional Planning system. The amendment has been put to the Home Secretary who had been take out for a meal by the Magistrates Association the day before. The civil service and the legal advisors had worked out the amendment which required the appointment of an independent visitor for any child in a residential establishment who was nit visited by a parent or family member for period of months. When the Heath government attempted to implement the amendment, staff at the Home Office discovered that there was no one then in the new Community Homes with Education where the new regulation applied. But it did apply in a few Educational establishments providing residential education.  What happened in 1974 that some children in residential care establishments did not have a local authority responsible for them as the relevant information and files had not been passed between the old, sometimes abolished local authority and the new.

Three was also the memorable occasion when the day before travelling to London to attend an advisory committee at the Home Office on Drug Misuse and HIV infection, I discovered that the House of Commons was to debate a report on what is known as the Cleveland Child Abuse scandal when children in numbers were removed from their homes because of concerns by a Consultant Paediatrician. I rang the Private number of the Deputy Chief Whip of the Labour Party, the Member for Jarrow, Don Dixon and he arranged for me to sit with him on the Floor of House He sat within the curtilage of Commons at the back on a side bench and I sat behind him in the box used by members of the House of Lords when they wanted to see as well as listen to proceedings as these were not televised until 1989. Prime Minister, Mrs Thatcher stayed on from P.M.Q’s to listen to the opening statements in the debate, looked over to where Don and I were talking and spoke to her PPS (Parliamentary Private Secretary) who went over to the box where the Civil Servants sit, to ask if I was the Director of  Social Services Cleveland  and was advised, no doubt, that I the even more notorious, Director of Social Services for South Tyneside!  A couple of years before she had demanded to know according to the authorised history of MI5, the names and functions of all former subversives (those on the books of MI5), who were now working for government with a special focus on those working for departments such as Health. I subsequently suspected this was why I was invited by the Department Health to become an hoc Inspector of Social Services at the Department of Health to set up the Drug Advisory Service and which involved signing the Official Secrets Act in 1987. It would have been known  that although I had been a subversive and  Satyagraha based direct actionist that I worked closely with the Home Office Inspectorate first in 1970 in relation to investigation when assistant County Children’s Officer West Riding, and then  with the national Social Work Advisory Services in 1981 and whereas the author of the majority report Gates Inquiry, I was asked by the Chief Social Work Services Officer to brief the then Secretary of State who is now Speaker of the House of Lords ,including of the aspect it was agreed we should covered up.

It is unlikely however  that when Thatcher’s PPS checked with the Civil Service who I was they knew that in 1970 the Director of Social Services Cleveland concerned, Mike Bishop had worked to me in the West Riding of Yorkshire when I was the County Assistant Children’s officer and he was the divisional fieldwork children’s officer for an area based on Rotherham where I one point I decided to transfer responsibility for the day to day management of children’s home including the appointment and discipline of staff to him and his colleagues as regarded he was the most outstanding of three divisional officers for which I was accountable with over 600 children in care in third of the County Council area. Only in 2018 did I come across a book published in 2012 about the child care home I had been asked to investigate with the Home Office Children’s Inspectorate.  An helping the author of the book had obtained access to the minutes of the West Riding Children’s Committee and mentioned not only of the Inspectors with whom I had worked but some of the issues that had been investigated. This provided documentary evidence for a matter about which I only had memory when writing to the then head of the National Child Abuse Inquiry. At the time I was aware that the son of the head of the home in question had written a report as an Ma Education thesis using child care records and in 2018, I also discovered the report was now available as an online e thesis at Durham University.

The changing nature of residential child care and its management, the role of civil servants, and government Ministers has been more to the fore this week but not had national publicity because of Brexit. Shortly I will be printing out and then reading the closing statements of Counsel and core participants in the Westminster National Child Abuse Hearings which have taken placed during three of the weeks of March and where I have assumed the decision was taken to holding, the public hearings to coincide when national and Parliament attention was focussed on Brexit. The investigation which preceded the Hearings received over one hundred thousand pages of evidence and documentation, of which core participants received 15000 pages, but where only a small proportion has been placed on line, although these have been very revealing.  Next week I need to finish the sending of relevant information to appropriate interests to supplement the hearings in relation to one aspect which will be covered by the Lambeth Inquiry hearing in 2020.

Only then I will be able to return to writing about my life until September 22^nd, 1964, the first day as a child care officer with Oxfordshire County Council when I received an embossed invitation to attend a Civic reception from the Mayor and Mayoress of Oxford City to mark the Children’s Officer of Oxfordshire becoming president of the Association of Child Care Officer. Although I did not have a D.J, I was told a suit and tie would do in the circumstances. I attended although I did not know anyone there and returned home when the dancing to midnight commenced to read the pile of county and officer manuals procedures and forms, I needed to learn and to use in my new job.

During the early part of attending an academic and work experience course at the University of Oxford, I had written to the Children’s Officer asking if there was likely to be a job when I qualified. She then sent the Deputy Children’s Officer, David Clifton, subsequently Children’s officer Northumberland, and Director of Social Services Bedfordshire to interview me. Later in the course I was invited to attend for what I assumed would be a formal interview at the office of the Children department at Kidlington. I arrived nervously and found when shown into her office only one other person present, was the chairman of the Children’s Committee. “This is Colin”, she said, “who wants to come and work for us”. The chairman said good and we talked about my experience on the course and if I expected to pass the academic examination and the work experience which would lead to a qualification from the Home Office managed Central Training Council in Child Care. I completed the medical form, references were checked and I received a letter of appointment as a new Child Care and Court officer for the Witney area, the subsequent constituency of Prime Minister David Cameron.

Because of her role as president of the Association of Children’s Officers none of us saw much of the Children’s Officer Barbara J Kahan, or BJK as we called her, during the year that followed. We had to make a note of every telephone message and sometimes 1000 had accumulated in her in tray between visits to the office, and this would be followed by a return of the copy message with a handwritten note what happened, and sometimes a call to her office to learn more. It was on one such instance, I had assumed, that she handed me a copy of the weekly Hansard record of all that had gone on in Parliament and asked if would like to go through and make a note of anything related to child care which I agreed and used my voice recording machine to complete the assignment. I was invited to see her once more when she said she would circulate to all her colleagues on the executive Committee of the Association and handed me the next edition. After doing this for a couple of more weeks I was called to her office told that the Association of Child Care officers would like me to do this on a regular basis which would be circulated all Children’s Departments, independent child care bodies, Government Departments and training institutions. Parliament and Social Work was created and 100 plus edition were edited and produced until the creation of Social Service Department and British Association of Social Workers.  Shortly after I commenced the voluntary work the then Parliamentary Officer became President of the Association of Child Care officers and asked if I would take over from him, which I also agreed.  However, this was not my first experience of visiting the House of Commons or of direct contact with Government and Shadow Government Ministers which had commenced in 1962. More of that another time!

A very British political revolution

Yesterday’s events in the House of Commons were of profound and lasting political significance but predicting the outcome is not possible. The House of Commons has been divided into four groups. Those who want to leave all the European political, financial and commercial bodies without the present negotiation deal and transition arrangements; those who want to negotiate new arrangements based on the present negotiated withdrawal agreement; those who are prepared to leave but only if a softer Brexit is guaranteed; and those who want to Remain full members revoking Article 50.

By the time the voting ended last night I was so tired after seven hours of television watching that I had to go to bed. This means I have been able to digest the significance of such a major defeat for the government and where the former Business Minister explained on Sky this morning his continuing concern that May will yield to the pressure for a no deal Brexit by the UDP and the Moggies. Nigel Evans, who is the secretary of the 1922 Backbench committee was so furious in the Commons last night that he lost control, as did Speaker John Bercow in his excitement at the scale of the Government’s defeat. 

I thought the most significant single development was the resignation of Alistair Burt who was the most humane and humble of Ministers at the Foreign office who is highly regarded throughout the world, especially in the Middle East for trying to get common sense rational solutions.

As far as it is possible for anyone to predict what will now happen my view is which of the three Tory groupings now gains or takes power. The first is the Nigel Evans led group who want the UDP and  Moggies to now support May’s deal on the basis that she will immediately resign afterwards, and for the Tory  Membership to elect a new leader and team to manage the negotiations for in effect a hard Brexit, with a General Election to change the composition of the House of Commons if there is difficulty in getting their approach through. There appears to be about 100 plus Tories in support.

At present the UDP will not go along with this, but the first indication that at least the head of Moggies may do so comes with a Tweet that consideration is being given to prevent any Brexit compromise regarding future relations. There are about 100 Tory Members of the Commons who appear prepared to support the no deal option but may accept that if combined, the two groups about 200, can control the Prime Minister and the future direction of Tory Policy.

This leaves about 80 Tory members, including perhaps 30-40 government Ministers or government team people who could support Brexit extension, participation in European Elections and a softer Brexit, or no Brexit. Combining with Opposition Parties there is therefore a good overall majority of 350-370 to 250-270 for a softer Brexit in the Commons. but only if the government members resign en bloc and support an ongoing formal takeover of the agenda until April 12.

Mrs May answered questions for two hours and I cannot remember anyone supporting her. No one on the Hard Brexit side spoke in the subsequent four hour debate where there were some great speeches including from Nicholas Soames. The tactic of May and the hard Brexiteers was to say nothing in this debate and work on winning the vote which failed.

Those who want a soft Brexit or no Brexit  have been embolden by the 1 million on the streets  of London on Saturday and the Revoke petition which is approaching  6 million  votes but if they are able to get a majority of the Commons  for a longer extension to achieve a soft Brexit  or no Brexit they will have to take control of the Commons again, perhaps for the remaining time before April 12^th to ensure that May is forced to ask for the extension which will involve contesting the European Elections which she has so far said she will not do. But she could yield on this to keep the Tory Government in Office and herself in power for a little longer.

It all could change if either group in the Cabinet force her to resign in the meantime.

There will now be a General before the scheduled date and more likely this year. If it is delayed there will be another attempt at removing Jeremy Corbyn as Labour Leader to halt the deselection of about half the Parliamentary Party if there is a managed General Election before the latest rule and procedure changes take effect.

At least we know the end of the beginning could be the 12^th, April. 

Prime Minister stop politically, the power of the nasty and dangerous men of the Tory Party and in particular Ian Duncan Smith and Steve Barclay

This morning we had the expression of Brexit reason by Philip Hammond the Chancellor of Exchequer on Sky News at 9 who was given free rein to have his say, as was Caroline Lucas later, together with a representative of British Commerce, while John Trickett for the Labour party had to battle to be allowed to get across the official  view of the Labour Party but which he succeeded in doing brilliantly, and then on Marr on Sunday, we first had a dangerous and nasty rant from Ian Duncan Smith followed by an equally nasty but more sophisticated and dangerous restatement of May’s and the hard Brexit position by Brexit Secretary, Steve Barclay, which the brilliant and rational Shadow Brexit Secretary, Keir Starmer, forewarned, despite the attempt by Andrew Marr to stop him. Marr also gave a platform to the dreadful and biased Emily Maitlis. This happened in the context that 1 million people peacefully demonstrated in London for a People’s vote and where the revoke article 50 petition should reach 5 million votes by lunchtime.

It is now clear what will happen during the rest of the week. The Prime Minister will be forced to issue a three line Whip on her Party in the Commons to vote against the attempt by all other political parties, and some Conservatives because of the threat of a Barclay Leadsom group walk out if she does not. However, such a move will be defeated in this instance despite the threat to sack any Government Ministers who abstain. It is possible the move will be defeated in which instance Labour will move a vote of non-confidence in the Government as it is evident the Government will regard any indicative vote solution consensus as non- binding if it goes against May’s and the Brexiteers hard red lines.

It is also evident that should the House of Commons take control away from the Executive in terms of controlling the indicative process, Mrs May will be forced to ignore any agreement which breaks her red lines and those of the hard Brexiteers. The question is does Mrs May now have the courage to take them on, given the support she would have from the rest of the House of Commons?