Vetting Process

Vetting is a comprehensive, multi-step investigation of an individual's background, qualifications, and integrity before employment or partnership, particularly for roles requiring security clearance. Developed Vetting is used for government or police roles. National Security Vetting is used for government roles. A security & risk assessment is part of the process & includes financial checks (credit, bankruptcy), social media reviews, and, in some cases, interviews with security officers regarding personal life, associates, and family. For high-level vetting, inspectors investigate potential vulnerabilities, such as financial debt, relationships, or past behavior that could lead to coercion or corruption.

Honestry is mandatory & dishonesty shows a lack of integrity & should result in failure.

The Propriety and Ethics team in the Cabinet Office undertake the due diligence process. Mandleson was supposedly subjected to Developed Vetting. After his ambassadorial appointment he was apparently National Security vetted by UK Security Vetting. 

The question is why, in view of all this, he was ever appointed to such an important role? He obviously lied, but why was he believed? Or was this simply a bad political decision for expediency reasons? Questions were supposedly put about Mandlesons ongoing relationship with Epstein. But wern't  his answers thoroughly checked?

 

The Met is conducting a criminal investigation into the leaking of sensitive information to Epstein & the relationship with him, so we won't get full discolsure until that is finished. But there are serious questions about PM Starmer & chief of staff McSweeny, (who was a protege of Mandleson & pushed for his ambassadorial appointment). 

This is serious enough to bring down not only the prime minister but the government itself. If it were an isolated error of judgement it might not be so bad, but it is only one of several policy reversals, "U-turns," and political misjudgements, since labour came to power in July 2024;- 

• Freebies Scandal 
• Winter Fuel
• 2 Child benefit 
• Tractor Tax
• Universal Credit 
• Employment Rights
• Worker Status Reform
• House of Lords Reform  

I've probably missed some. But you get the picture. 

I'm prepared to believe that Starmer does have the right purpose, attitude, morals & values. But his great fault is perceived lack of good judgement. Parliament is a hornets nest. The hornets will attack weakness. 

Labour were out of power for 14 years. You would think that during that time, as well as being an effective opposition, they would have prepared for government. Especially as it became more & more obvious what a complete mess the consevatives had made of their time in government. The public were more than ready for change. We also wanted a clean government, without all the sleaze & entitled arrogance that typified particularly the Johnson years. We wanted a government that actually represented the people's needs & wishes. 

Now we have chaos & a real possibility of a Reform government. Things couldn't be much worse at such a critical time internationally as well as here in the UK. 

 

 

Unlordly Lords.

Reform of the UK House of Lords has been discussed seemingly for all of my adult life. The House of Lords Reform Act 2014, allowed for the removal of peers who are convicted of serious offences and sentenced to imprisonment. But there are also questions about the fact that they are unelected & about the sheer numbers, currently 846! It is the largest upper house in the world and, as of late 2024, was roughly 25% larger than the House of Commons. The majority are life peers, alongside 26 archbishops and bishops (Lords Spiritual) and a remaining number of hereditary peers. In other words most of them are political appointees - 740 approx. 282 were conservative, 230 are Labour, 177 are crossbench. In addition  there are some lords who are ineligible to attend.

I am not impartial on this issue. I do think that a second chamber is beneficial. However members should be there because of their qualifications, experience & expertise. I also expect them to show evidence of ethics & service to others. They definitely should not be political appointees or generous donors to one party or another. They should be appointed by an independent committee representing the British people. Nor should, as was customary historically, top-level officials, such as Permanent Secretaries, Cabinet Secretaries, and Heads of the Diplomatic Service be given peerages for doing their job. I also think there should be parity between the upper & lower houses. Why on earth is it acceptable for the unelected Lords to be so much bigger than the commons? The current fillibustering of the assisted dying bill by a small number of lords is unacceptable, when it has beeen passed by the commons & the majority of the public support it. 

Then we get to the question of ethics as currently being discussed regarding Peter Mandelson who has had to resign twice from the cabinet, once as Ambassador to the USA & currently from the labour party. He is the grandson of Herbert Morrison, a labour statesman in the 2nd world war & postwar period, who would no doubt be shocked at the current scandal.

 

I haven't met Mandleson, frankly I wouldn't want to. I can only judge him by his actions & he seems to me to be very smug & self serving. Shady dealings with the rich & powerful seem to have followed his political rise to prominence. He seems to value wealth & power above all things & be prepared to do almost anything to move in those circles. At the very least his judgement seems to be extremely questionable. It's a pattern we see all too often in prominent men. He is not alone. Several lords have criminal records;- 

Lord Ahmed of Rotherham, convicted in 2021/2022 of serious sexual offences and attempted rape. 

Lord Brocket, served time in prison for insurance fraud involving valuable cars. 

Lord Sewel, resigned from the House of Lords in 2015 following a scandal involving alleged drug use and improper conduct, which led to a police investigation.  

Lord Archer, convicted in 2001 of perjury and perverting the course of justice. 

Lord Black of Crossharbour, convicted in the United States in 2007 of fraud and obstruction of justice.  

Lord Watson of Invergowrie, convicted of wilful fire-raising. 

Lord Taylor of Warwick, jailed in 2011 for false accounting. Lord Hanningfield, also convicted of false accounting.

Jonathan Aitken, former MP and minister who served a custodial sentence for perjury and perverting the course of justice. 

Mandleson is not alone & those are only the ones who have faced the full force of the law. 

Instead of talking about reform & setting up committees our politicians need to act & reform our government institutions. They are disfunctional. They do not serve us. We should not tolerate this abuse of power in the name of democracy. Politics & democracy have become dirty words.  

Wages, Salary, Inflation & Devaluation

Salary is a fixed, consistent amount of pay, (usually annual), regardless of hours worked, often featuring benefits and no overtime pay

. Wages are paid based on an hourly rate, fluctuating with hours worked, often including overtime, and common in retail or manufacturing roles.

 In simple terms professional roles tend to be salaried while manual roles are waged.

Inflation is a rise in domestic prices, reducing purchasing power, while devaluation is a fall in a currency's value relative to foreign currencies. It's often triggered by market forces or deliberate policy, making exports cheaper and imports costlier. High inflation typically leads to currency devaluation

. Generally inflation erodes what money buys inside a country, whereas devaluation weakens money's worth against other countries' money. Both are deeply linked as high inflation usually causes devaluation, and devaluation itself can fuel more inflation.

So far so good, although anything to do with mathematics isn't my forte.

This leads me into thinking about the people striking because their current wage or salary is less than in previous years in real terms. UK doctors' pay claims, led by the BMA, focus on restoring wages eroded by inflation, with recent actions pushing for significant uplifts. For example doctors argue pay has fallen significantly, (over 20% in real terms for some), since 2008. This is called pay erosion & they want pay restored to 2008 levels. You can find current pay levels for all doctors on the internet, so I won't give them here. 

My point is that this position seems to be completely untenable to me. Money & commodities fluctuate according to circustances. I imagine that doctors are not alone in being able to say that what they earn today is not worth what they earned in 2008. All employed people are subject to the same market forces. In any year pay increases will depend on what those forces are & how much money is in the kitty. Especially for so called public employees, teachers or the police for example.

What also seems untenable to me is that we have expectations that wages or salary will increase every year. Not only does that depend on a countries wealth, it also depends on how well people do their job & their productivity. It is well known that the UK, as a nation, is way behind in productivity. The UK's labour productivity consistently lags behind the US, Germany, and France, with output per hour worked significantly lower, around 20-40% below the US and 20% below major EU economies. This is largely due to underinvestment in capital and skills, slower growth since the financial crisis, and weaker competition/technology adoption in key sectors like retail and finance.

Finally, I think our whole wage / salary structure is completely unbalanced & rooted in class structure & history. As with so many areas in the UK, we need a complete overhaul & re-balancing to a fairer system. The gap between the "haves & have nots" is not working for us in the 21st century. As a lifelong liberal socialist I do think that withdrawl of labour is a right, but surely not for everyone. Surely there are occupations that are so vital to health, well being & the economy that there should be another mechanism? Possibly, given that so many of our organisations depend on goodwill to operate, working to rule would be far better. 

We need to end this cycle of disruption & get our act together. Especially as we are now into the age of technology & AI which will change things drastically.

 

 

 

 

 

Think Before you Speak

Basically, pause to consider what you are going to say & avoid impulsive, emotional & regrettable comment. Whatever we say will be open to misinterpretation & misunderstanding. We all interpret comment differently. 

Humans communicate through body language, facial expression and language itself. Within spoken language there is nuance - the actual words used, the tone of voice, the speed of delivery, (pauses are important)...The listener has to decode what is being said & how it is said. It is a skill, because the listeners preconceptions & emotions colour how they hear & respond to what is said.There is uncertainty in verbal communication which can cause problems.

We all need to be careful about what we say & how we say it, whether it is written or spoken. We do need to engage our brains & try not to respond emotionally. I have posted before about how what we write can be easily misunderstood. Perceptions vary.

All of this is true for everyone, but immensely more important for people in the public eye & vital for people in power. So when we have politicians who say exactly what they think, without accurate information, or care for the impact they may have, I am very concerned. Politicians supposedly have access to information & briefings that we do not have. They have a multitude of so called "special advisors". They employ researchers. They have access to any & all of the information they need to make considered decisions in the interests of their electorate.

That means that what they say should be true, accurate, intelligent & pertinent.They should be allowed to say "I don't know" or I will find out". They should be given time to enquire & reflect. Then they should speak & we should be able to rely on the veracity of what they say.

Unfortunately this is not the case with so many people in power today. To have someone in a very powerful position who has no relationship with truth or a moral compass is extremely dangerous. There will always be people who follow whoever speaks loudest & has presence, charisma or wealth. There will always be people who follow the herd & don't enquire into the truth. There will always be people who think their own self interest is more important than anyone else's. History has proved that time after time.

Eventually all regimes end. That is no consolation to the people who have paid the price for mismanagement & corruption. Sadly if you get rid of one dictator there is usually another waiting in the wings who could be even worse. 

We are at a crossroads worldwide. We cannot afford to let the dictators win. We all need to think & use our collective power.

 

The Psychology of Dictatorship

Pathological Narcissm - inflated sense of self, superiority, and entitlement, requiring excessive admiration, with power serving as a psychological "prosthesis" for inner fragility.

Psychopathy - callousness, lack of remorse, manipulativeness, impulsivity, and emotional shallowness

Need for Power - authority shores up inner insecurity and compensates for vulnerability.

Deep Seated Insecurity / Poor Self Esteem  

Lack of Empathy 

Vindictiveness & Manipulation - can be charming and skilled at exploiting human psychology, using propaganda, lies, and inflammatory language to destabilize populations and foster dependency.

Persecution & Paranoia - behavior becomes more malevolent as they consolidate power and eliminate perceived threats. 

Nationalism - the nation becomes an extension of the self; increasing national power serves to strengthen personal power.

Control - creating or exaggerating threats (enemies or minorities) to unify followers and justify oppressive measures, fostering dependence.

These traits often develop from a mix of genetic predispositions and early life experiences, with psychopathic traits sometimes encouraged in certain societal contexts, becoming disastrous when combined with absolute power. Dictators do not rule through fear and violence alone; they also rely on the psychology of their followers. Psychological processes such as obedience, conformity, and fear allow citizens to adopt the leader's ideology. The use of propaganda, media control, and the creation of "enemies" (often minority groups) helps to unify the population and cement allegiance through a shared sense of threat.

I have to admit that the above is the result of research, not just my own understanding of the subject. I couldn't have put it as concisely. I can make a list of current leaders who fit the picture very precisely. I am sure you can too, unless you are a follower of one of the leaders I am thinking of. In which case you will not be able to see what I see.

The fact that we currently have so many leaders in so many different parts of the world who fit this description is both deeply worrying & bodes ill for the future of our world as we know it. We are becoming habituated to serious instability in our politics & decision making. We are in danger of thinking that we cannot control the onward march of these leaders. 

We need to wake up, accept the truth of the situation & do something to stop them. Or we will be marching into a future for my grandchildren that I do not want to contemplate. Being passive & appeasing will not work. That's how 2 world wars started. 

Change & Belief

Politicians say we need change. The public certainly seem to want change. Buddhists believe that change is inevitable & we need to accept that & adapt to new circumstances. Change is very difficult to manage & deliver though.

Personal change should be under our control, but it is very hard to achieve. It necessarily involves putting aside the patterns of thinking & behaviour we have developed over many years, which are imprinted in our brain. It demands a sense of purpose & strong will to persevere. First we have to accept that we may have been misguided or wrong, then we have to modify beliefs & behaviour. 

Change on a societal or global level seems an exceptionally difficult thing to achieve. There are not only millions of individuals involved, but also countries. There are 195 countries in the world, comprising 193 United Nations (UN) member states and 2 non-member observer states (Vatican City/Holy See and Palestine). However, the exact number can vary slightly (up to 200+) depending on recognition of states like Taiwan or Kosovo. That represents huge variation in culture, ambition, attitude & development. Achieving consensus on what to change & how is seemigly impossible. 

Robert Jenrick defected from the Tories to Reform yesterday, making the 16th conservative to change allegiance. Notable among them were Nadim Zahawi & Nadine Dorries. On the surface it could be seen as a matter of conscience, a genuine change of mind. Or, if you are of the cynical frame of mind that I have, it could be "rats leaving a sinking ship". I am left thinking that the change of party is more about personal interest & ambition than genuine belief in Nigel Farage & Reform. 

How are we the public to trust politicians who "blow with the wind" rather than doing what is genuinely best for the future of the UK? Our country has been hugely damaged by 14 years of tory rule. All of our systems are at breaking point because of tory mismanagemnet, privatisation, cost cutting & lack of oversight. Not to mention the corruption & "jobs for the boys". 

There does need to be substantial change in the UK. We need to "put our house in order". Currently I'm not convinced that Kier Starmer & the labour party are the ones to do it. While I do believe that if new information / evidence comes forward, politicians need to be able to change their minds. I do not believe that lack of preparation & evidence based decision making is acceptable. It only results in vacillation & that is not a good look.

In order to achieve real change for the better we will all have to pay a price in the short term. We need politicians with the balls to take us down that road willingly & honestly.

  

Respect

I grew up in a world where respect was expected. I don't think there was a concept of earning respect. As a child & a teenager I was expected to respect my parents, teachers & adults in general, regardless of whether they were worthy of that respect. You didn't interrupt, you certainly didn't answer back or have views of your own about situations. You "knew your place" in the hierarchy & it was very low down. As a child you were "seen & not heard".

I'm glad to say that has changed. In some ways for the better, we do expect people to earn respect. But also there is the growing trend for a complete lack of respect for people & concepts that seem to me to be necessary for the smooth running of society.

In part that is because what seemed black & white is now several shades of grey. The world we live in is highly complex. For example respecting the borders of sovereign countries. 

Take the USA invasion of Venezuela - Maduro did not win his countries election, so was an illegitimate president. In 2021 the ICC opened an investigation into what was happening in Venezuela. Does that give the US the right to capture Venezuelan ships, bomb Caracas & extract Maduro to the US? I am unpersuaded. I think this is simply Trumps transactional, deal making, bullying, personality. In simple terms he wants to control the oil production & minerals, notably bauxite, coal, gold, iron ore. The state controled most of the country's vast mineral reserves, Trump wants that control & the cash that goes with it.

He has no respect for the rule of international law only Trumps law. The Monroe Doctrine of 1823 is now the Donroe Doctrine. He is open about aspirations in Greenland, Columbia, Iran, Mexico & Cuba. The chances are that the aftermath of this will follow the pattern of the history of American intervention abroad, as warned by the International Crisis Group & the New York Times in October. The fall of Maduro could lead to violence and instability, the prospect of violent chaos as armed factions competed for power.

If Trump succeeds & is not openly challenged the flood gates open for Netenyahu, Putin & Xi Jinping to do even more than they already have. They have shown no respect for sovereign boundaries, human life & infrastructure. Trump is not the only leader with delusions of grandeur, avarice & power. At the moment politics & politicians simply do not know how to deal with these "leaders"  

We have to return to a world where there is respect for people, culture, boundaries, resources & the world we live in. If we don't we are simply self destructing.