I’m not going to pretend that I know what’s going to happen during this current economic crisis, but I have my suspicions and I’m pretty sure that it is far worse than we are being led to believe. This latest report suggests that I'm more likely to be right than wrong.
Without going into the reasons for it once more, as far as I can see the conditions today are almost exactly as they were prior to the Great Depression – except worse. We’ve enjoyed a recent prolonged prosperous spell but it was a false prosperity built on an illusion supported by an enormous debt burden – not just personal and corporate debt, but national debt as well.
Gordon Brown and his like are pinning all their hopes on getting through this by governments buying up the debt, which would have been quite possible if this was a localised rather than a globalised problem. The debt burden is just too huge this time.
The belief that governments can just “buy” the debt from lenders is misplaced. First of all, the government can only buy that debt if they raise the money somehow – that means raising the money through tax revenue or borrowing money from lenders somewhere - which requires that there are lenders out there prepared to lend money and that they believe the government is good for the debt. Lenders lend money to governments by buying government bonds – the belief being that this is risk-free as governments can always raise the money by either raising taxation or printing more money.
However, this will not work this time for the same reason it failed to work in 1929. The government can not raise money through taxation because there will be fewer people earning and lower company profits. Government will be having to raise taxation if they just want to maintain their current level of tax revenue - and chances are they won't be able to do even that.
Furthermore, the lenders will be working to reduce the amount of personal debt they hold – which is massive. This will mean that they will be doing whatever they can to “call” that debt in leading to more bankruptcies, more repossessions and a massive shrinking of credit availability. That will mean less spending and, of course, less tax revenue.
You will also see those people who have money – in savings and so on – less inclined to leave that money with the banks; partly because they are seeing no return on it and partly because of the fear that the bank will collapse. Those people with debt will also look to find ways to keep their money out of the hands of their creditors. Hoarding money will become common place once more just as it did in the early thirties.
Another option for governments is to apply “quantitative easing” – printing money. This can work in the short term when the global financial system is relatively stable, but when it is not it can be dangerous. When coupled with a massive national debt it can be catastrophic leading to hyperinflation and resulting in government bonds being worthless. When that point is reached you are out of options. All you can do is keep printing money until it is worth less than the paper it is printed on.
So if you can not raise the money through taxation and if printing money is only going to make things worse, what can you do?
The third option – and the only one realistically available to us – is to massively reduce public spending. Not only must we reduce what we spend, but what we do spend has to produce something – something that we can sell or which raises revenue in some way. Although our public spending as a percentage of GDP is not much different from what is was 30 years ago you have to bear in mind that the way we spend that money is vastly different. Back then we were spending it on digging coal, making steel, producing ships, planes, cars and so on.
Although those industries were not necessarily making profits, they were bringing in revenue – internal and external (through exports) so the cost of the public sector was vastly reduced by the revenue it brought in. Things are vastly different today. Our public sector does not produce anything – it is 100% cost - and reducing that cost has to be the priority of any government. However, the whole of Europe is currently in the grip of a particular political doctrine called progressive liberalism – and Britain as much as anyone.
Progressive liberalism is built on the principles of the client state the aim of which is to create a state on which every individual is dependent. This is done by less obvious means – such as tax credits and so on so that even those in the private sector are reliant on the state to some degree – but more obviously by tying more people to the state by having them employed by the state and through welfare.
I'm not sure what the percentage of people on welfare are, but it is considerable. With around 30% of our workforce (a conservative estimate) now directly employed by the state the idea of reducing that massive cost leaves the government paralysed with fear on two fronts.
The first of those fronts is the fear that it will mean putting literally millions of people onto the dole queue. This is cheaper than employing them directly, but it also leads to unrest and discontent with the government. The same with cutting back on welfare. The second fear is that it undermines the progressive liberal ideals of the client state.
We are due to have a General Election sometime in the next 16 months or so. It doesn’t matter whether that election is won by the Tories or Labour – it will not make any difference to the way we are heading right now. There is nothing that any of our current mainstream political parties could do – or rather would do – that will change the course that they have set us on because they are all hell bent on the progressive liberal agenda. Whoever does win that election will have no more than two years, at most, before it becomes apparent that public spending has to be slashed immediately and massively.
I realise that this all sounds deeply depressing - and in many ways it is. Things are going to be very tough for a very long time for an awful lot of people all over the world - and here in Britain as much as anywhere. For most of us, we can forget about all the material things we've become used to over the last couple of decades - the easy credit, the new car every two years, the foreign holidays in Florida and Thailand. Everything will change - massively and decisively.
However, there will be a lot of positives too. Progressive liberalism will be dead and buried, the EU will collapse and Britain will emerge as a stronger, more self-reliant and self-sufficient nation once more. We will revert to being a conservative - socially and politically - nation once again, governed both morally and politically by conservative principles as individuals and as a nation.
As a traditionalist and a nationalist I welcome this - I just would rather we didn't have to go through the hell of the next ten years or so to achieve it.
Oh, one more thing. Remember - we are British. We do do nationalism, but we do not do extremism. Unfortunately, that can not be said of other nations.
Friday, February 27, 2009
Thursday, February 26, 2009
Makes me sick
RBS announce a British record loss of £24 billion, 20,000 employees will lose their jobs and yet the boss who led them into this monumental disaster walks away with a knighthood and a £650,000 A YEAR pension for life - and he's only 50!
How can that be right?
How can that be right?
Wednesday, February 25, 2009
The answers lie in our fields and our factories
Two articles on The Telegraph grabbed my attention this morning. First I read the item about President Obama's speech to the US nation regarding the economic crisis and the second was Simon Heffer's comment piece on the failure of the Tories and Labour Party to come up with any answers of their own.
Heffer seems concerned that the middle classes may not remain as stoical as they have done in the past when faced with a serious challenge. Speaking about how our fathers and grandfathers had come through wars, didn't have access to the material things we have now or the opportunities for travel we have now, Heffer says ....
The height from which our people now have to fall is far greater. Their tolerance of hardship, failure and adversity is doubtless generally much lower. The absence of war and poverty have softened us. The Dunkirk spirit is something bought on a booze cruise.
So there may be no "middle class" riots here this year. But who would rule them out when and if the time comes that democracy throws up no solution to the problems we face?
Heffer says that democracy has no solution to the problems we face because, as he says, neither the Tories or Labour seem to have a clue what to do about them. This is actually a little unfair. It's not that they don't know what to do - it's because the answers to our problems now lie in that huge chunk of sovereignty we have handed to the EU. Obama made it very clear in his speech where he thinks the answers lie.
"The answers to our problems don't lie beyond our reach. They exist in our laboratories and universities, in our fields and our factories, in the imaginations of our entrepreneurs and the pride of the hardest-working people on Earth."
That is a barely concealed message to the world that the US is going to be using protectionism to solve its problems in this economic crisis - and they are right to do so because it will work. Brown and Cameron can't do the same thing here because we no longer control the mechanisms that would allow us to do that.
The answers to these problems do lie out of our reach - and as long as we remain in the EU they will stay there.
Heffer seems concerned that the middle classes may not remain as stoical as they have done in the past when faced with a serious challenge. Speaking about how our fathers and grandfathers had come through wars, didn't have access to the material things we have now or the opportunities for travel we have now, Heffer says ....
The height from which our people now have to fall is far greater. Their tolerance of hardship, failure and adversity is doubtless generally much lower. The absence of war and poverty have softened us. The Dunkirk spirit is something bought on a booze cruise.
So there may be no "middle class" riots here this year. But who would rule them out when and if the time comes that democracy throws up no solution to the problems we face?
Heffer says that democracy has no solution to the problems we face because, as he says, neither the Tories or Labour seem to have a clue what to do about them. This is actually a little unfair. It's not that they don't know what to do - it's because the answers to our problems now lie in that huge chunk of sovereignty we have handed to the EU. Obama made it very clear in his speech where he thinks the answers lie.
"The answers to our problems don't lie beyond our reach. They exist in our laboratories and universities, in our fields and our factories, in the imaginations of our entrepreneurs and the pride of the hardest-working people on Earth."
That is a barely concealed message to the world that the US is going to be using protectionism to solve its problems in this economic crisis - and they are right to do so because it will work. Brown and Cameron can't do the same thing here because we no longer control the mechanisms that would allow us to do that.
The answers to these problems do lie out of our reach - and as long as we remain in the EU they will stay there.
Tuesday, February 24, 2009
Multicultural cringing
Terrific piece from Ed Hussain in today's Times comment section about the state of mosques in Britain and how they are breeding extremism.
Almost all mosques are controlled by first-generation immigrant men, leaving most British Muslims - women and young people - out of the management structure.
By importing cheap imams from poor, intellectually deprived and theologically conservative places mosques put young Britons in the hands of men who do not have the linguistic or cultural backgrounds to deal with modern Britain. Little wonder, then, that many young Muslims turn to radical university Islamic societies, extremist websites, and Hamas-supporting groups in Britain for “religious guidance”.
Of the 27 or so Muslim seminaries or dar ul uloom in Britain, 25 come from the austere, Deobandi tradition - the preferred school of the Taleban. So while British soldiers risk their lives in Afghanistan, in British Muslim seminaries we allow the teaching of intolerance, unequal treatment of women, religious rigidity, the banning of music and theatre, and an end to free mixing of the sexes.
It's crazy that we're trying to defeat the Taliban in one country and happily allowing them to spread their message of intolerance and hatred in our own backyard, but given the cultural cringing created by the doctrine of multiculturalism it doesn't come as a surprise.
Hussain wonders how we are supposed to develop an "indigenous British Islam" under these circumstances and the only answer is that we can't. The longer we pursue this dangerous course of multiculturalism the harder it will be for British Moslems to develop their own brand of Islam which is more compatible with the ways of a liberal western democracy.
You can't reform something by repeatedly giving in to it - at some point you have to say "no more" and that point is now. If, rather than just allowing new mosques to be built or seminaries and madrassas to be set up we were to say that they have to be funded from British sources, they have to be built to fit in to the British landscape, they have to be managed by British born Moslems, they have to allow men and women to worship together and they have to employ British born and English speaking imams then we might start getting somewhere.
Until then we'll always have a breeding ground for extremism in our own backyard.
Read it all.
Almost all mosques are controlled by first-generation immigrant men, leaving most British Muslims - women and young people - out of the management structure.
By importing cheap imams from poor, intellectually deprived and theologically conservative places mosques put young Britons in the hands of men who do not have the linguistic or cultural backgrounds to deal with modern Britain. Little wonder, then, that many young Muslims turn to radical university Islamic societies, extremist websites, and Hamas-supporting groups in Britain for “religious guidance”.
Of the 27 or so Muslim seminaries or dar ul uloom in Britain, 25 come from the austere, Deobandi tradition - the preferred school of the Taleban. So while British soldiers risk their lives in Afghanistan, in British Muslim seminaries we allow the teaching of intolerance, unequal treatment of women, religious rigidity, the banning of music and theatre, and an end to free mixing of the sexes.
It's crazy that we're trying to defeat the Taliban in one country and happily allowing them to spread their message of intolerance and hatred in our own backyard, but given the cultural cringing created by the doctrine of multiculturalism it doesn't come as a surprise.
Hussain wonders how we are supposed to develop an "indigenous British Islam" under these circumstances and the only answer is that we can't. The longer we pursue this dangerous course of multiculturalism the harder it will be for British Moslems to develop their own brand of Islam which is more compatible with the ways of a liberal western democracy.
You can't reform something by repeatedly giving in to it - at some point you have to say "no more" and that point is now. If, rather than just allowing new mosques to be built or seminaries and madrassas to be set up we were to say that they have to be funded from British sources, they have to be built to fit in to the British landscape, they have to be managed by British born Moslems, they have to allow men and women to worship together and they have to employ British born and English speaking imams then we might start getting somewhere.
Until then we'll always have a breeding ground for extremism in our own backyard.
Read it all.
Cuts to the police reveals the leftist mentality
What public services do you use? No, roads and streetlights don't count - they are public utilities, not services. You don't "use" the guys who mend the road, the council does.
I mean what public services do you directly use?
I reckon I'm like most people and all I really use to any regular sort of degree are the bin men, schools for my kids, our local GP and the Royal Mail. I've never had any need to use countless hundreds of other services that the government provide - drug counsellors, five-a-day co-ordinators, youth offending outreach workers and so on. I've also been quite fortunate to never have needed to use the Labour Exchange - or whatever it's called now - but I suspect over the coming months and years millions of Britons will find out what that is like for the first time.
Bins, schools, health, post. That's about it for me and most people as far as "front line" public services are concerned - plus one other.
The police.
Whenever people like me suggest that the public sector has grown out of control in recent years the lefties always counter with the "what schools and hospitals will you cut?" question. The answer for most conservatives is, of course, none - there is ample scope for the public sector to make cuts without touching the services that most of us use on a regular basis.
I now realise why they ask that question. They are not being disingenuous as I originally thought - they genuinely believe that the first place you need to make public sector cuts is in the services we most use.
Why is this? Well, socialism is all about victims as groups rather than victims as individuals. Hardly surprising I suppose, given that it's all about "collectivism". The whole leftist movement is based on identifying various victim groups and then supporting their cause.
Originally it was the cause of the working man, but leftists soon cottoned on to the fact that any "victim group" is worth supporting - it's not about the who, it's about the how. The more victim groups they can identify and support, the more support they get in return. The more support they have the more they can build the society they envisage.
The trouble with that is, once you've exhausted the basic victim groups - working man, women, blacks, homosexuals and so on - you start running out of victim groups to support. So they invent new ones. Drug abusers are no longer self-harming idiots - they are "victims" who require "front-line" services. Criminals are not morally reproachable, but victims of their circumstances and in need of "front-line" services.
All this means that when a recession strikes and there is a need to cut public spending, they just can't bring themselves to cut spending on their favourite victim groups - firstly because they really believe their own bullshit, but also because that is where their key support now lies.
So instead of cutting the myriad of services which most of us will never have any reason to use, they cut the services which we will.
I mean what public services do you directly use?
I reckon I'm like most people and all I really use to any regular sort of degree are the bin men, schools for my kids, our local GP and the Royal Mail. I've never had any need to use countless hundreds of other services that the government provide - drug counsellors, five-a-day co-ordinators, youth offending outreach workers and so on. I've also been quite fortunate to never have needed to use the Labour Exchange - or whatever it's called now - but I suspect over the coming months and years millions of Britons will find out what that is like for the first time.
Bins, schools, health, post. That's about it for me and most people as far as "front line" public services are concerned - plus one other.
The police.
Whenever people like me suggest that the public sector has grown out of control in recent years the lefties always counter with the "what schools and hospitals will you cut?" question. The answer for most conservatives is, of course, none - there is ample scope for the public sector to make cuts without touching the services that most of us use on a regular basis.
I now realise why they ask that question. They are not being disingenuous as I originally thought - they genuinely believe that the first place you need to make public sector cuts is in the services we most use.
Why is this? Well, socialism is all about victims as groups rather than victims as individuals. Hardly surprising I suppose, given that it's all about "collectivism". The whole leftist movement is based on identifying various victim groups and then supporting their cause.
Originally it was the cause of the working man, but leftists soon cottoned on to the fact that any "victim group" is worth supporting - it's not about the who, it's about the how. The more victim groups they can identify and support, the more support they get in return. The more support they have the more they can build the society they envisage.
The trouble with that is, once you've exhausted the basic victim groups - working man, women, blacks, homosexuals and so on - you start running out of victim groups to support. So they invent new ones. Drug abusers are no longer self-harming idiots - they are "victims" who require "front-line" services. Criminals are not morally reproachable, but victims of their circumstances and in need of "front-line" services.
All this means that when a recession strikes and there is a need to cut public spending, they just can't bring themselves to cut spending on their favourite victim groups - firstly because they really believe their own bullshit, but also because that is where their key support now lies.
So instead of cutting the myriad of services which most of us will never have any reason to use, they cut the services which we will.
Blue is the new black
First we had the Prime Minister no less telling us he wants to see a return of "traditional" banking and now we have Ofsted urging for a return of "back-to basics" school discipline.
Traditional rules such as banning children with shaven heads and those wearing designer trainers or gang colours have proved effective in maintaining order at the best comprehensives, according to a report by Ofsted.
Formal assemblies, regular patrols of corridors, frequent school trips, strong values and appointing good teachers are also successful methods of raising standards, the study says.
Ofsted aren't saying anything new here, but it seems that conservatism is back in fashion - as people like me always knew it would be. It just happens to be a shame that it has come at a time when the Conservative Party have all but abandoned traditional conservatism for hippy progressive liberalism.
Traditional rules such as banning children with shaven heads and those wearing designer trainers or gang colours have proved effective in maintaining order at the best comprehensives, according to a report by Ofsted.
Formal assemblies, regular patrols of corridors, frequent school trips, strong values and appointing good teachers are also successful methods of raising standards, the study says.
Ofsted aren't saying anything new here, but it seems that conservatism is back in fashion - as people like me always knew it would be. It just happens to be a shame that it has come at a time when the Conservative Party have all but abandoned traditional conservatism for hippy progressive liberalism.
Monday, February 23, 2009
Here comes the summer
The Telegraph reports that the police are preparing for a "summer of rage".
Supt Hartshorn, who heads the Metropolitan Police's public order branch, said he feared there could be "mass protest" at rising unemployment, failing financial institutions and the downturn in the economy.
Well, he should know.
Mr Hartshorn, who is regularly briefed on potential causes of civil unrest, singled out April's G20 summit of the leading developed nations in London as one of the events that could kick start a series of protests.
As The Telegraph points out, there have already been mass demonstrations across Europe while we, in dear old Blighty, have been relatively restrained. While tens of thousands took to the streets of Dublin to protest and a million or more went on strike in France we managed a nothing more than a relatively minor kerfuffle which wasn't even related to the economic crisis per se - just about the injustice of importing foreign labour to do fill jobs while British workers are left on the dole.
Given that we're in this mess as much as anyone (and more than some) one wonders why it is that these mass protests haven't materialised already as they have all over Europe? My view is that the government know that this whole thing has barely even got started yet - but they know that come the summer things will have snowballed considerably.
Supt Hartshorn, who heads the Metropolitan Police's public order branch, said he feared there could be "mass protest" at rising unemployment, failing financial institutions and the downturn in the economy.
Well, he should know.
Mr Hartshorn, who is regularly briefed on potential causes of civil unrest, singled out April's G20 summit of the leading developed nations in London as one of the events that could kick start a series of protests.
As The Telegraph points out, there have already been mass demonstrations across Europe while we, in dear old Blighty, have been relatively restrained. While tens of thousands took to the streets of Dublin to protest and a million or more went on strike in France we managed a nothing more than a relatively minor kerfuffle which wasn't even related to the economic crisis per se - just about the injustice of importing foreign labour to do fill jobs while British workers are left on the dole.
Given that we're in this mess as much as anyone (and more than some) one wonders why it is that these mass protests haven't materialised already as they have all over Europe? My view is that the government know that this whole thing has barely even got started yet - but they know that come the summer things will have snowballed considerably.
Double standards
That seems to be the general message of this story.
A white schoolboy left for dead by a hammer-wielding gang of Asians has insisted the attack was racially motivated.
In the past, the establishment have insisted that a "race crime" is any crime in which either the victim or a witness feels that there was a racial element to the incident, but it seems that despite all the evidence and the views of this particular victim that isn't the case.
The British people aren't stupid. They'll see the ease with which any number of Asian or black victims have succeeded in getting a crime against them committed by a white person labelled as "racial" and how hard it is for a white person to do the same and they'll draw the conclusion that there are indeed double standards applied when it comes to racially motivated crime.
And people wonder why support for the BNP is on the increase?
A white schoolboy left for dead by a hammer-wielding gang of Asians has insisted the attack was racially motivated.
In the past, the establishment have insisted that a "race crime" is any crime in which either the victim or a witness feels that there was a racial element to the incident, but it seems that despite all the evidence and the views of this particular victim that isn't the case.
The British people aren't stupid. They'll see the ease with which any number of Asian or black victims have succeeded in getting a crime against them committed by a white person labelled as "racial" and how hard it is for a white person to do the same and they'll draw the conclusion that there are indeed double standards applied when it comes to racially motivated crime.
And people wonder why support for the BNP is on the increase?
One out of three
The BBC and others decided to celebrate 10 years of the Macpherson report by considering whether the Met police is still "institutionally racist" with former Home Secretary Jack Straw concluding that they are not.
Mr Straw told the BBC: "If you are asking me whether I believe the Met as a whole is still institutionally racist, the answer is no."
Instead, Mr Straw suggested that there are "pockets of racism" in the force, but that it is not institutionalised. Actually, for those of us who never bought into the "institutionally racist" claptrap that's all there ever was - pockets of racism - just like as there has always been in society in general. The Met - being a product of society - reflects that.
What nobody bothered to ask is whether the other two issues the Macpherson report highlighted have been addressed as well. Along with "institutional racism" the report suggested that the Met also suffers from "professional incompetence" and a "failure of leadership".
Ten years on and they still do. Two out of three ain't bad - one out of three is pretty bloody awful.
Mr Straw told the BBC: "If you are asking me whether I believe the Met as a whole is still institutionally racist, the answer is no."
Instead, Mr Straw suggested that there are "pockets of racism" in the force, but that it is not institutionalised. Actually, for those of us who never bought into the "institutionally racist" claptrap that's all there ever was - pockets of racism - just like as there has always been in society in general. The Met - being a product of society - reflects that.
What nobody bothered to ask is whether the other two issues the Macpherson report highlighted have been addressed as well. Along with "institutional racism" the report suggested that the Met also suffers from "professional incompetence" and a "failure of leadership".
Ten years on and they still do. Two out of three ain't bad - one out of three is pretty bloody awful.
Sunday, February 22, 2009
Business as usual for the EU
The BBC eulogises over the EU leaders reaching an agreement to regulate the global financial systems more tightly.
European leaders in Berlin have agreed on the need to regulate all financial markets including hedge funds.
Actually, all they have agreed on is the need to reach an agreement to avoid the collapse of globalisation which relies heavily on a deregulated and globally interlinked financial system - and the EU relies heavily on globalisation and the "interdependency" that creates.
French President Nicolas Sarkozy said participants at the London summit would bear a "historical responsibility" to reform the global system.
I always worry when anyone talks about a "historical" anything - like Blair with his "hand of history". The next statement fills me with dread.
"We have to succeed and we cannot accept that anything or anyone gets in the way of that summit. If we fail there will be no safety net," he said.
"Anything or anyone"? Like - the people and their will, maybe? That's always been the problem for the EU, supranationalism and globalisation - those pesky people keep getting in the way of the bureaucrats progress. Democracy is such a pain in the ass at times.
The Czech PM, Mirek Topolanek, was a little more pragmatic.
"If I put it very tenderly, the divergence in opinions was rather big," the AFP news agency reported him saying as he headed back to Prague.
"It was obvious that the four countries representing the EU in the G20 [France, Germany, Britain, Italy] do not have the same opinion on a number of issues.".
And quite probably not the same opinion either as a number of other states who won't be at the G20. One of the scariest comments of all came from our own esteemed Prime Minister, Gordon Brown.
Mr Brown said leaders had agreed that the IMF needed access to at least $500bn (£348bn).
Is he serious? Does he not understand the sheer scale of this global problem? That $500 billion doesn't amount to a piss in the ocean of debt that is engulfing the world. It's barely a fifth of our debt alone. With that amount of money they might just about be able to prop up Lithuania for a few months, but if someone else goes belly up in the mean time then they'll have to look elsewhere for the money 'cos the IMF will be all out.
Still, the biggest concern of Brown and co. is avoiding protectionism - or not.
Ms Merkel said: "As far as uncooperative players, tax havens or areas where non-transparent business is carried out are concerned, we need to develop sanction mechanisms. These must be made very concrete," she said.
You mean - protectionism? I think she's got a bloody cheek saying that places where "non-transparent business is carried out" should be sanctioned. The EU is pretty good at keeping its business non-transparent - is she proposing they sanction themselves? Of course not - it's do as we say not as we do for the EU. In other words, business as usual.
Talking of protectionism .....
Both Mr Topolanek and the European Commission have voiced concern at attempts by France, Italy and Spain to shelter their car industries from the effects of the downturn.
Mr Sarkozy has suggested that in order to secure government aid, French carmakers should move production out of their East European factories and back to France.
The truth is, the French, Germans and Italians have always protected their car industries - which is why they still have car industries. We don't because we didn't - so now we're planning to spend billions of taxpayers money protecting Japanese, German, US and French car manufacturers.
I give globalisation and these governments a maximum of three years to turn things around and avoid this "recession" turning into a full blown global depression. They won't because they can't. The only thing that could stop it now is for each nation to act alone, look after themselves and implement protectionism - those that do will come out of this faster than those that don't and those that still have manufacturing capability will come out it better than those that don't.
Britain isn't in either of those categories.
European leaders in Berlin have agreed on the need to regulate all financial markets including hedge funds.
Actually, all they have agreed on is the need to reach an agreement to avoid the collapse of globalisation which relies heavily on a deregulated and globally interlinked financial system - and the EU relies heavily on globalisation and the "interdependency" that creates.
French President Nicolas Sarkozy said participants at the London summit would bear a "historical responsibility" to reform the global system.
I always worry when anyone talks about a "historical" anything - like Blair with his "hand of history". The next statement fills me with dread.
"We have to succeed and we cannot accept that anything or anyone gets in the way of that summit. If we fail there will be no safety net," he said.
"Anything or anyone"? Like - the people and their will, maybe? That's always been the problem for the EU, supranationalism and globalisation - those pesky people keep getting in the way of the bureaucrats progress. Democracy is such a pain in the ass at times.
The Czech PM, Mirek Topolanek, was a little more pragmatic.
"If I put it very tenderly, the divergence in opinions was rather big," the AFP news agency reported him saying as he headed back to Prague.
"It was obvious that the four countries representing the EU in the G20 [France, Germany, Britain, Italy] do not have the same opinion on a number of issues.".
And quite probably not the same opinion either as a number of other states who won't be at the G20. One of the scariest comments of all came from our own esteemed Prime Minister, Gordon Brown.
Mr Brown said leaders had agreed that the IMF needed access to at least $500bn (£348bn).
Is he serious? Does he not understand the sheer scale of this global problem? That $500 billion doesn't amount to a piss in the ocean of debt that is engulfing the world. It's barely a fifth of our debt alone. With that amount of money they might just about be able to prop up Lithuania for a few months, but if someone else goes belly up in the mean time then they'll have to look elsewhere for the money 'cos the IMF will be all out.
Still, the biggest concern of Brown and co. is avoiding protectionism - or not.
Ms Merkel said: "As far as uncooperative players, tax havens or areas where non-transparent business is carried out are concerned, we need to develop sanction mechanisms. These must be made very concrete," she said.
You mean - protectionism? I think she's got a bloody cheek saying that places where "non-transparent business is carried out" should be sanctioned. The EU is pretty good at keeping its business non-transparent - is she proposing they sanction themselves? Of course not - it's do as we say not as we do for the EU. In other words, business as usual.
Talking of protectionism .....
Both Mr Topolanek and the European Commission have voiced concern at attempts by France, Italy and Spain to shelter their car industries from the effects of the downturn.
Mr Sarkozy has suggested that in order to secure government aid, French carmakers should move production out of their East European factories and back to France.
The truth is, the French, Germans and Italians have always protected their car industries - which is why they still have car industries. We don't because we didn't - so now we're planning to spend billions of taxpayers money protecting Japanese, German, US and French car manufacturers.
I give globalisation and these governments a maximum of three years to turn things around and avoid this "recession" turning into a full blown global depression. They won't because they can't. The only thing that could stop it now is for each nation to act alone, look after themselves and implement protectionism - those that do will come out of this faster than those that don't and those that still have manufacturing capability will come out it better than those that don't.
Britain isn't in either of those categories.
Ranting Stan's Sunday Drive: The Land Rover
As this is aimed at classic cars I do, of course, mean the original Land Rover Series (I,II,III) originally launched in 1948 - a vehicle which has become so iconic that the term "land rover" came to refer to virtually any vehicle that could go off road before the phrase 4x4 or SUV became common.
The farmers favourite is the original peoples 4x4 - the first SUV - and it was with this in mind that Land Rover soon followed up the rather basic model with a "station wagon" version in 1949. Over the years the Land Rover was available in a number of different sizes, shapes and forms from basic pick up to seven seater, five door family saloon with all the trim.
These early Land Rovers are characterised by the headlamps which were mounted inboard of the wings behind the radiator grille. Later versions would see the headlights moved forward so that they were in front of the grille and, later still, moved to the conventional wing position.
More than sixty years later and the original Land Rover concept is still more or less in production in the form of the Defender and in that time the Land Rover has demonstrated it's immense off road capabilities in virtually every corner of the globe.
Conceived when we were still recovering from the shock and devastation of WW2 the Land Rover proved the ability of British technology to still produce a world beating vehicle and also serves as a metaphor for the Britain of old in the way it changed lives and brought modernity and civilisation to every nation of the world.
Most of all it serves as a symbol of the conversion of Britain from a "can do" society to a "can't be bothered" society.
Saturday, February 21, 2009
Patriotism, nationalism and social conservatism are not "extremist"
Over the last few weeks and culminating with the BNP victory in Kent this week there has been a lot of talk in the media regarding the rise of nationalism - most of it entirely inaccurate.
There is a tendency among the self-appointed elite in Britain to smear nationalism as "extremist", but the reality is that the vast majority of people are nationalists. Wales and Scotland both have nationalist parties which enjoy considerable support and success - the SNP is the governing party in Scotland. Does that make them extremist? Of course not. It is not because the vast majority of British people are extremist - it's because they are patriots and patriots tend to be nationalist.
I very much doubt that anyone, anywhere wants an extremist government - all they want is a normal, sensible political party that will put the interests of their country and their people first. It's not enough for the leaders of those parties to say they will, they have to demonstrate that they are - and the simple fact is that none of our mainstream political parties do.
Unlike the people of Scotland and Wales, the English have no nationalist party to support. The British people as a whole only have a choice of two nationalist parties - the BNP and UKIP.
UKIP can -and have - manage success in EU elections as this is their major campaign issue (some say their only issue - but that's a little unfair), but they have a major problem making inroads into our mainstream politics because they are mainly positioned to the right of politics - and therefore appear to the majority of voters as an alternative to the Conservatives.
Conservative voters are as patriotic and nationalistic as any, but it is not Conservative voters who are mostly affected by the issues of nationalism. It isn't them who are losing their jobs, homes and streets to foreign immigrants. It isn't their towns and cities which are being turned into foreign enclaves which the indigenous people no longer feel comfortable living in - it is the working class.
Despite what the politicians and media say about the BNP being "extreme right", the politics of the BNP are a mixture of what would have been considered left of centre fifty years ago and mixed with a heavy dose of social conservatism one can understand why that would appeal to Labour voters. With that in mind, it's hardly surprising that the BNP are gaining ground in Labour heartlands as it is principally traditional Labour voters who have suffered from our political parties selling out to trans-nationalism.
If our political parties are truly concerned about the rise of "extremist" parties then their is a simple course of action. Stop pandering to the political elites and start listening to your people - we are socially conservative, patriotic and nationalist and will vote for parties that reflect our views.
A love of one's country, a belief in one's culture and a determination to maintain that nation and culture are not extremist views. Patriotism, social conservatism and nationalism are natural beliefs for the vast majority of people - they just want a party to reflect those beliefs. The Tories, Labour and Lib Dems no longer do - who else are we going to vote for?
There is a tendency among the self-appointed elite in Britain to smear nationalism as "extremist", but the reality is that the vast majority of people are nationalists. Wales and Scotland both have nationalist parties which enjoy considerable support and success - the SNP is the governing party in Scotland. Does that make them extremist? Of course not. It is not because the vast majority of British people are extremist - it's because they are patriots and patriots tend to be nationalist.
I very much doubt that anyone, anywhere wants an extremist government - all they want is a normal, sensible political party that will put the interests of their country and their people first. It's not enough for the leaders of those parties to say they will, they have to demonstrate that they are - and the simple fact is that none of our mainstream political parties do.
Unlike the people of Scotland and Wales, the English have no nationalist party to support. The British people as a whole only have a choice of two nationalist parties - the BNP and UKIP.
UKIP can -and have - manage success in EU elections as this is their major campaign issue (some say their only issue - but that's a little unfair), but they have a major problem making inroads into our mainstream politics because they are mainly positioned to the right of politics - and therefore appear to the majority of voters as an alternative to the Conservatives.
Conservative voters are as patriotic and nationalistic as any, but it is not Conservative voters who are mostly affected by the issues of nationalism. It isn't them who are losing their jobs, homes and streets to foreign immigrants. It isn't their towns and cities which are being turned into foreign enclaves which the indigenous people no longer feel comfortable living in - it is the working class.
Despite what the politicians and media say about the BNP being "extreme right", the politics of the BNP are a mixture of what would have been considered left of centre fifty years ago and mixed with a heavy dose of social conservatism one can understand why that would appeal to Labour voters. With that in mind, it's hardly surprising that the BNP are gaining ground in Labour heartlands as it is principally traditional Labour voters who have suffered from our political parties selling out to trans-nationalism.
If our political parties are truly concerned about the rise of "extremist" parties then their is a simple course of action. Stop pandering to the political elites and start listening to your people - we are socially conservative, patriotic and nationalist and will vote for parties that reflect our views.
A love of one's country, a belief in one's culture and a determination to maintain that nation and culture are not extremist views. Patriotism, social conservatism and nationalism are natural beliefs for the vast majority of people - they just want a party to reflect those beliefs. The Tories, Labour and Lib Dems no longer do - who else are we going to vote for?
Friday, February 20, 2009
Rabbit, rabbit, rabbit .....
Iain Dale is pondering the success of the BNP in Swanley, Kent.
I hesitated to even write about this, but for the BNP to secure a seat in a local council by-election in Kent is deeply worrying.
Well, bravo for you, Iain - such bravery!
One interesting thing is that it's quite clear from the statistics that the whole BNP vote came from UKIP and the Labour Party.
Well, that'll be because the BNP are the only party other than UKIP who pledge withdrawal from the EU - and as UKIP didn't stand this time and gained 20% last time, that gave them a good base to start from. Then you have to consider that the people most affected by pro-EU policies are the people who make up the Labour party base support and you'll get some inkling of why BNP polled 41%.
More worrying for Dale, I'd have thought, is the fact that the Conservative Party can't win a by-election in the heartland of Tory England. Dale ignores this and decides to ask Dave what they should do. Dave has all the answers ......
Pavement politics. People turn to extreme parties if they think they have been forgotten by the mainstream parties. That doesn't mean running towards issues they are campaigning on, it means running towards the people that they are talking to and showing you are listening to their concerns, taking up their issues and working for them. You have to show that no part of the country, no part of your constituency, no ward, that no housing estate is forgotten.
Maybe not. The trouble is, Dave, Gordon, Tony and all those before them have been telling these people for years that they are "taking up their issues" and "working for them" - but nothing ever changes. They now know that the old parties are ALL talk and no action. Whether you like it or not, if all you deliver is empty promises on top of empty promises then eventually they'll stop listening to you - and voting for you. "Pavement politics" is all very well if you then deliver on what you tell people on the pavement - but they never do. It's all talk and no action.
The "issues" that Dave wants to avoid running towards ARE the issues that these people want dealing with - and nobody apart from the BNP are prepared to discuss them. Those hundreds of thousands of immigrants are not taking homes from affluent Tories or the Labour supporting chattering classes in Islington. It's not their jobs that are being relocated to Eastern Europe or their schools that are being flooded with foreign children who speak no English.
The truth is that Labour and the Conservatives have both forgotten who they are elected to represent - the British - and the BNP are making headway on that. The ruling elite think that immigration and "diversity" means all sorts of foreign restaurants on their doorstep, but to the hundreds of thousands of British people in the housing estates and streets of Britain it means being an alienated stranger in your own town.
I hesitated to even write about this, but for the BNP to secure a seat in a local council by-election in Kent is deeply worrying.
Well, bravo for you, Iain - such bravery!
One interesting thing is that it's quite clear from the statistics that the whole BNP vote came from UKIP and the Labour Party.
Well, that'll be because the BNP are the only party other than UKIP who pledge withdrawal from the EU - and as UKIP didn't stand this time and gained 20% last time, that gave them a good base to start from. Then you have to consider that the people most affected by pro-EU policies are the people who make up the Labour party base support and you'll get some inkling of why BNP polled 41%.
More worrying for Dale, I'd have thought, is the fact that the Conservative Party can't win a by-election in the heartland of Tory England. Dale ignores this and decides to ask Dave what they should do. Dave has all the answers ......
Pavement politics. People turn to extreme parties if they think they have been forgotten by the mainstream parties. That doesn't mean running towards issues they are campaigning on, it means running towards the people that they are talking to and showing you are listening to their concerns, taking up their issues and working for them. You have to show that no part of the country, no part of your constituency, no ward, that no housing estate is forgotten.
Maybe not. The trouble is, Dave, Gordon, Tony and all those before them have been telling these people for years that they are "taking up their issues" and "working for them" - but nothing ever changes. They now know that the old parties are ALL talk and no action. Whether you like it or not, if all you deliver is empty promises on top of empty promises then eventually they'll stop listening to you - and voting for you. "Pavement politics" is all very well if you then deliver on what you tell people on the pavement - but they never do. It's all talk and no action.
The "issues" that Dave wants to avoid running towards ARE the issues that these people want dealing with - and nobody apart from the BNP are prepared to discuss them. Those hundreds of thousands of immigrants are not taking homes from affluent Tories or the Labour supporting chattering classes in Islington. It's not their jobs that are being relocated to Eastern Europe or their schools that are being flooded with foreign children who speak no English.
The truth is that Labour and the Conservatives have both forgotten who they are elected to represent - the British - and the BNP are making headway on that. The ruling elite think that immigration and "diversity" means all sorts of foreign restaurants on their doorstep, but to the hundreds of thousands of British people in the housing estates and streets of Britain it means being an alienated stranger in your own town.
Caution: Educationalists at work
Realising that it's now too hard to teach kids how to write and spell - they'll just go off and start texting to each other in an other worldly language, anyway - educationalists have come up with a new idea for teaching.
Children are being encouraged to imagine they are suicide bombers plotting the July 7 attacks as part of the Government's strategy to combat violent extremism.
Yeah, right! Let's get kids to empathise with murdering scum and maybe they won't become murdering scum themselves.
Works for me. Some people like it, though.
Tahir Alam, the education spokesman of the Muslim Council of Britain, said: "This isn't any different from any educational tool people use all the time. Pupils imagine they're living in the 12th century.
Some people still are living in the 12th century and if they get their way the rest of us won't have to imagine it.
Children are being encouraged to imagine they are suicide bombers plotting the July 7 attacks as part of the Government's strategy to combat violent extremism.
Yeah, right! Let's get kids to empathise with murdering scum and maybe they won't become murdering scum themselves.
Works for me. Some people like it, though.
Tahir Alam, the education spokesman of the Muslim Council of Britain, said: "This isn't any different from any educational tool people use all the time. Pupils imagine they're living in the 12th century.
Some people still are living in the 12th century and if they get their way the rest of us won't have to imagine it.
Thought for food
Over on The Times comment section, the gloriously named Camilla Cavendish kindly writes a piece in support of my suggestions for agriculture yesterday - well almost.
Most of us are confused. We bleat about animal welfare, but shun the pricey local butcher in favour of meat that may or may not have ever seen a daisy.
Bacon is a particular issue. Our pork production has halved in the past ten years, putting pig farmers out of business. This nation of animal lovers has pushed for higher welfare standards than any other EU country, but we are not prepared to pay the higher prices that result. Instead, we eat bacon and pork from Denmark and the Netherlands, where many sows apparently never escape from the kind of tiny, dark stalls that are banned here.
Being a product of her environment, Cavendish can't quite come to the conclusion that protectionism is the only solution - I guess she is one of those millions who have been brainwashed by the globalisation message over the years from this next statement.
I'm not arguing that we should rule on “British food for British workers” - that might be more than some can stomach, given our penchant for exotic foods and the very real travails of Kenyan farmers.
I don't know why she thinks that the travail of Kenyan farmers are any more real than those of Kent farmers - it's all relative. Yeah, they don't have the latest 4x4 tractor in Kenya, but they can hire an army of workers to do the job for less than a tankful of red diesel.
Cavendish also misses the point that all that food imported from Kenya means a whole lot less for native Kenyans and higher prices for what they can buy - but hey, that's globalisation for you. Who cares if a few Kenyan kids go hungry as long as we can feel good about helping a Kenyan farmer - and if you do feel guilty, just give a tenner to Comic Relief and you'll be able to forgive yourself.
I don't want to turn this into a Cavendish bash, though - mostly I agree with what she says. She makes some very good points about packaged food and food origins which I heartily agree with. A couple of weeks back I had a small argument with someone called "Anonymous" about a post that mentioned Tesco. Basically the upshot was that he/she felt I was a hypocrite who moaned about supermarkets and then rushes off to my local Tesco every Saturday.
Well, to be fair - I used to be just like that. Except it was Sainsbury's. I was like everybody else, packing the wife and kids into the car on Saturday morning to drive up to the local hypermarket where we'd spend the next 3-4 hours mooching around, buying two trolleys of stuff we don't really need and then spending ages waiting at the checkout queue to pay for the privilege.
Like everyone else we'd get home and pack our fridge, freezer and cupboards with our purchases for that week grateful that we'd got all the shopping done. Come the end of the week we'd have thrown a bunch of stuff out that had gone past it's "best before" date and we'd have made two or three other trips to the local shops for things we'd forgotten - a bag of sugar here, a pot of marmalade there and so on.
Then, one day, we had a revelation. Planning a family Sunday lunch with both sets of in-laws invited over, we needed a decent joint of meat and, our trip to the local supermarket done, the missus suddenly realised she'd forgotten to buy the joint. Fortunately, close to where we live is a local family butcher so we decided to pop in there.
We parked right outside the shop (which you can still do, today), popped in and less than 5 minutes later emerged with a fantastic joint of English lamb from a local farm. The butcher was friendly, knowledgeable and courteous. He knew where all his meat came from (mostly local) and how it is looked after. There was no queueing, no hassle and even the kids didn't mind as we were in and out so quickly.
The joint was delicious - the best piece of lamb I had tasted in ages. Even the mother-in-law was happy! Thanks to our pleasant experience with this butcher, Missus Stan and I sat down that evening and decided we'd try a different approach to our shopping. Like most families, we both work and time is critical - but we have lunch breaks and commutes so we decided we'd buy what we need when we needed it from local shops rather than supermarkets.
Seven years later we are still doing it. We have found a number of local shops and farm shops which supply our requirements and we do our shopping a little bit at a time when we can. We rarely buy for more than two days in advance, but when you add up the total time of each shopping trip we make we manage to do all our shopping in half the time we'd spend at Sainsbury's on a Saturday.
Because we only buy what we need when we need it, we don't end up with trolleys full of stuff we don't really want - no ready meals and very little processed food (just a few tins, really). As a result our weekly shopping bill is around half to a third less than my friends with similar sized families who still shop at Tesco.
We pay a little more for what we do buy, but as we don't buy so much we actually save money. We save time. We avoid all the stress and hassle of the big Saturday shop. The kids don't grumble about being dragged around the supermarket so they're happier. They're healthier too as we cook proper meals with proper locally sourced food and we have a good relationship with a variety of local shopkeepers rather than the indifference (at best) of some checkout girl who might say "have a good day", but doesn't really mean it.
Best of all, we don't waste half our Saturday in a bloody supermarket so our weekends are our own again.
Go on - try it yourselves. You'll be amazed.
Most of us are confused. We bleat about animal welfare, but shun the pricey local butcher in favour of meat that may or may not have ever seen a daisy.
Bacon is a particular issue. Our pork production has halved in the past ten years, putting pig farmers out of business. This nation of animal lovers has pushed for higher welfare standards than any other EU country, but we are not prepared to pay the higher prices that result. Instead, we eat bacon and pork from Denmark and the Netherlands, where many sows apparently never escape from the kind of tiny, dark stalls that are banned here.
Being a product of her environment, Cavendish can't quite come to the conclusion that protectionism is the only solution - I guess she is one of those millions who have been brainwashed by the globalisation message over the years from this next statement.
I'm not arguing that we should rule on “British food for British workers” - that might be more than some can stomach, given our penchant for exotic foods and the very real travails of Kenyan farmers.
I don't know why she thinks that the travail of Kenyan farmers are any more real than those of Kent farmers - it's all relative. Yeah, they don't have the latest 4x4 tractor in Kenya, but they can hire an army of workers to do the job for less than a tankful of red diesel.
Cavendish also misses the point that all that food imported from Kenya means a whole lot less for native Kenyans and higher prices for what they can buy - but hey, that's globalisation for you. Who cares if a few Kenyan kids go hungry as long as we can feel good about helping a Kenyan farmer - and if you do feel guilty, just give a tenner to Comic Relief and you'll be able to forgive yourself.
I don't want to turn this into a Cavendish bash, though - mostly I agree with what she says. She makes some very good points about packaged food and food origins which I heartily agree with. A couple of weeks back I had a small argument with someone called "Anonymous" about a post that mentioned Tesco. Basically the upshot was that he/she felt I was a hypocrite who moaned about supermarkets and then rushes off to my local Tesco every Saturday.
Well, to be fair - I used to be just like that. Except it was Sainsbury's. I was like everybody else, packing the wife and kids into the car on Saturday morning to drive up to the local hypermarket where we'd spend the next 3-4 hours mooching around, buying two trolleys of stuff we don't really need and then spending ages waiting at the checkout queue to pay for the privilege.
Like everyone else we'd get home and pack our fridge, freezer and cupboards with our purchases for that week grateful that we'd got all the shopping done. Come the end of the week we'd have thrown a bunch of stuff out that had gone past it's "best before" date and we'd have made two or three other trips to the local shops for things we'd forgotten - a bag of sugar here, a pot of marmalade there and so on.
Then, one day, we had a revelation. Planning a family Sunday lunch with both sets of in-laws invited over, we needed a decent joint of meat and, our trip to the local supermarket done, the missus suddenly realised she'd forgotten to buy the joint. Fortunately, close to where we live is a local family butcher so we decided to pop in there.
We parked right outside the shop (which you can still do, today), popped in and less than 5 minutes later emerged with a fantastic joint of English lamb from a local farm. The butcher was friendly, knowledgeable and courteous. He knew where all his meat came from (mostly local) and how it is looked after. There was no queueing, no hassle and even the kids didn't mind as we were in and out so quickly.
The joint was delicious - the best piece of lamb I had tasted in ages. Even the mother-in-law was happy! Thanks to our pleasant experience with this butcher, Missus Stan and I sat down that evening and decided we'd try a different approach to our shopping. Like most families, we both work and time is critical - but we have lunch breaks and commutes so we decided we'd buy what we need when we needed it from local shops rather than supermarkets.
Seven years later we are still doing it. We have found a number of local shops and farm shops which supply our requirements and we do our shopping a little bit at a time when we can. We rarely buy for more than two days in advance, but when you add up the total time of each shopping trip we make we manage to do all our shopping in half the time we'd spend at Sainsbury's on a Saturday.
Because we only buy what we need when we need it, we don't end up with trolleys full of stuff we don't really want - no ready meals and very little processed food (just a few tins, really). As a result our weekly shopping bill is around half to a third less than my friends with similar sized families who still shop at Tesco.
We pay a little more for what we do buy, but as we don't buy so much we actually save money. We save time. We avoid all the stress and hassle of the big Saturday shop. The kids don't grumble about being dragged around the supermarket so they're happier. They're healthier too as we cook proper meals with proper locally sourced food and we have a good relationship with a variety of local shopkeepers rather than the indifference (at best) of some checkout girl who might say "have a good day", but doesn't really mean it.
Best of all, we don't waste half our Saturday in a bloody supermarket so our weekends are our own again.
Go on - try it yourselves. You'll be amazed.
Thursday, February 19, 2009
Stating the bleedin' obvious
The BBC brings us this startling revelation today.
The recession is taking its toll on public finances, official figures show.
Well, who'd've though that? Actually, pretty much everyone - only most of us don't need "official figures" to know that as it is almost as obvious as BBC bias. The only difference is that the BBC doesn't bother to hide its bias the way the government tries to cover up the yawning truth that our economy is well and truly screwed.
The Office of National Statistics, which releases the public finance figures, also said that it plans to incorporate the finances of the Royal Bank of Scotland (RBS) and Lloyds Banking Group into the public finance balance sheet.
It said this could add between £1 trillion and £1.5tn to public sector debt - between 70% and 100% of the UK's GDP.
That's an addition to the public sector debt - not the whole debt.
Despite the ever-growing debt burden, the government has made it clear that it will borrow more money if necessary in order to boost the ailing economy.
Yeah? From whom?
The recession is taking its toll on public finances, official figures show.
Well, who'd've though that? Actually, pretty much everyone - only most of us don't need "official figures" to know that as it is almost as obvious as BBC bias. The only difference is that the BBC doesn't bother to hide its bias the way the government tries to cover up the yawning truth that our economy is well and truly screwed.
The Office of National Statistics, which releases the public finance figures, also said that it plans to incorporate the finances of the Royal Bank of Scotland (RBS) and Lloyds Banking Group into the public finance balance sheet.
It said this could add between £1 trillion and £1.5tn to public sector debt - between 70% and 100% of the UK's GDP.
That's an addition to the public sector debt - not the whole debt.
Despite the ever-growing debt burden, the government has made it clear that it will borrow more money if necessary in order to boost the ailing economy.
Yeah? From whom?
Protecting our agriculture
Over on the Telegraph's comment section, Mark Price, Managing Director of Waitrose and Chairman of the Prince of Wales' Rural Action programme, writes that we need to look after British farming, but fails to put forward any new suggestions as to how we do that beyond sentimentalist pap.
As the global recession deepens, we must ensure that British agriculture survives and thrives in an uncertain future, says Mark Price.
OK, I agree - but how do we do that? Price doesn't say, but he is quick to say what we mustn't do.
Protectionist policies do not hold the answers; nor can we realistically aim for total self-sufficiency in food production.
Of course we can not aim for total self-sufficiency, but if we don't use "protectionist policies" then what?
However, we can ensure that, as a nation, we refocus on the true value of farming as a well-rewarded career in a diverse and sustainable sector populated by a skilled, passionate workforce.
Hmmm - that sounds like government subsidy to me. That in itself is a form of "protectionism" - one which the EU both allows and encourages - but it is also the most inefficient form of protectionism. All it does is sort of preserve farming as a kind of "living museum" which, without the provision of huge amounts of taxpayers money, would otherwise be unable to sustain itself.
This is what annoys me about the "anti-protectionists". They are quite happy to have protectionism in the form of direct government aid at the lowest level possible level - i.e. to the individual farmer - but can't see that a far better way of doing that is to protect the industry at the national level through trade barriers and tariffs.
That way the farmer is no longer directly reliant on the government to protect his livelihood, but is now dependent on the internal market and his own efforts to ensure he maintains a living. If the internal market was protected then he would no longer be competing against foreign farmers - who may enjoy bigger government subsidies or lower production costs - and would be able to compete on a level playing field with similar farmers around the country producing similar goods.
Yes, we'd have to pay a little more for our food, but as we're already paying massive amounts indirectly to the farming industry (and mostly to the farming industry in other EU member states) we'd be able to reduce the level of taxation on consumers anyway.
It's not just the direct subsidies either - there is also the huge army of bureaucrats required to administer the protectionist policy of subsidy and grant which is a massive cost we could easily lose if, instead, we just had a small group of people deciding what foreign produce we allow in, how much they allow in and how much they pay to let it in.
As Price points out, we're using a far smaller proportion of our income for our food than ever before even though we are eating far more (and chucking far more away) than we ever have at any time in our history. The British people can afford to pay more for their food IF we stop wasting taxpayers money supporting our farmers and foreign farmers through subsidies and grants - and we'd waste a lot less than we currently do.
If our government were to dare to be protectionist at national and border level rather than at the personal, individual level we'd be far more self-sufficient and farming (and fishing) could look after itself rather than rely on the government to support it.
As the global recession deepens, we must ensure that British agriculture survives and thrives in an uncertain future, says Mark Price.
OK, I agree - but how do we do that? Price doesn't say, but he is quick to say what we mustn't do.
Protectionist policies do not hold the answers; nor can we realistically aim for total self-sufficiency in food production.
Of course we can not aim for total self-sufficiency, but if we don't use "protectionist policies" then what?
However, we can ensure that, as a nation, we refocus on the true value of farming as a well-rewarded career in a diverse and sustainable sector populated by a skilled, passionate workforce.
Hmmm - that sounds like government subsidy to me. That in itself is a form of "protectionism" - one which the EU both allows and encourages - but it is also the most inefficient form of protectionism. All it does is sort of preserve farming as a kind of "living museum" which, without the provision of huge amounts of taxpayers money, would otherwise be unable to sustain itself.
This is what annoys me about the "anti-protectionists". They are quite happy to have protectionism in the form of direct government aid at the lowest level possible level - i.e. to the individual farmer - but can't see that a far better way of doing that is to protect the industry at the national level through trade barriers and tariffs.
That way the farmer is no longer directly reliant on the government to protect his livelihood, but is now dependent on the internal market and his own efforts to ensure he maintains a living. If the internal market was protected then he would no longer be competing against foreign farmers - who may enjoy bigger government subsidies or lower production costs - and would be able to compete on a level playing field with similar farmers around the country producing similar goods.
Yes, we'd have to pay a little more for our food, but as we're already paying massive amounts indirectly to the farming industry (and mostly to the farming industry in other EU member states) we'd be able to reduce the level of taxation on consumers anyway.
It's not just the direct subsidies either - there is also the huge army of bureaucrats required to administer the protectionist policy of subsidy and grant which is a massive cost we could easily lose if, instead, we just had a small group of people deciding what foreign produce we allow in, how much they allow in and how much they pay to let it in.
As Price points out, we're using a far smaller proportion of our income for our food than ever before even though we are eating far more (and chucking far more away) than we ever have at any time in our history. The British people can afford to pay more for their food IF we stop wasting taxpayers money supporting our farmers and foreign farmers through subsidies and grants - and we'd waste a lot less than we currently do.
If our government were to dare to be protectionist at national and border level rather than at the personal, individual level we'd be far more self-sufficient and farming (and fishing) could look after itself rather than rely on the government to support it.
Real child poverty doesn't exist in Britain - yet
The Joseph Rowntree Foundation is calling for the government to spend an extra £4.2 billion to fight "child poverty" - but genuine child poverty doesn't exist in Britain.
The claim is based on relative poverty - a belief that if you are in a family earning a certain percentage of the average minimum wage, then you are officially classified as in poverty. There are problems with this definition.
First of all, it is based on total income rather than disposable income. I know there are many families who earn above the average wage - and therefore not "poor", but they have less disposable income than families who are officially classified as "poor".
Secondly, as relative poverty is based on an average then it is impossible for there ever to come a point when everybody is above the average. If you raise the income of those below the average then the average increases - thus moving it ever further out of reach. It's one step forward and two steps back each time. We need to work out a new definition of poverty which is based on a minimum standard of living rather than an ever changing financial baseline.
There are very few kids that are living in Britain today who would be considered to be living in poverty by the standards of my day, let alone the fifties, forties or thirties. Indeed, most of those classed as living in poverty today have higher standards of living, more spare cash and far superior conditions to those I and many of the working class people who grew up in the fifties and sixties had as children.
I'm not suggesting that we shouldn't try and improve the living standards of children living in low wage households, but this "relative poverty" crap doesn't do the cause any favours. Most of us are well aware that real, true poverty - which people of my age and above did indeed experience when we were kids - doesn't exist in this country today.
But if this recession does turn into a depression it soon will. The best way of dealing with that is to start putting Britain and the British people first.
The claim is based on relative poverty - a belief that if you are in a family earning a certain percentage of the average minimum wage, then you are officially classified as in poverty. There are problems with this definition.
First of all, it is based on total income rather than disposable income. I know there are many families who earn above the average wage - and therefore not "poor", but they have less disposable income than families who are officially classified as "poor".
Secondly, as relative poverty is based on an average then it is impossible for there ever to come a point when everybody is above the average. If you raise the income of those below the average then the average increases - thus moving it ever further out of reach. It's one step forward and two steps back each time. We need to work out a new definition of poverty which is based on a minimum standard of living rather than an ever changing financial baseline.
There are very few kids that are living in Britain today who would be considered to be living in poverty by the standards of my day, let alone the fifties, forties or thirties. Indeed, most of those classed as living in poverty today have higher standards of living, more spare cash and far superior conditions to those I and many of the working class people who grew up in the fifties and sixties had as children.
I'm not suggesting that we shouldn't try and improve the living standards of children living in low wage households, but this "relative poverty" crap doesn't do the cause any favours. Most of us are well aware that real, true poverty - which people of my age and above did indeed experience when we were kids - doesn't exist in this country today.
But if this recession does turn into a depression it soon will. The best way of dealing with that is to start putting Britain and the British people first.
Wednesday, February 18, 2009
Gordon's "grand bargain" is wearily familiar
I don't know who said it, but the phrase "those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it" is something our PM is clearly not familiar with.
"From the discussions I have had and am about to have... I think we are fashioning for the future a global deal, a grand bargain, where each continent accepts its responsibilities and its obligations to act to deal with what is a global problem that can only be solved with a global solution," he told reporters in London.
This is all so reminiscent of the Great Depression with even the location of the summit conference being the same - except that there were 66 nations represented at the 1933 London Economic Conference.
Make no mistake, the origins of this crisis are almost identical to those that led to the Great Depression and, unless protectionist measures are introduced right now, the results will be exactly the same - a collapse in production, employment and trade, a massive rise in personal and business bankruptcies and a further contraction of the money supply.
The global debt is now so massive, there simply isn't enough money to go around. As Ambrose Evans-Pritchard pointed out yesterday, Austrian banks alone have a debt from the ex-Soviet bloc equivalent to 70% of Austria's GDP and the East European nations have to repay some $400 billion of their total debt (some $1.7 TRILLION) this year - equal to one third of the regions total GDP.
Almost all East bloc debts are owed to West Europe, especially Austrian, Swedish, Greek, Italian, and Belgian banks. En plus, Europeans account for an astonishing 74pc of the entire $4.9 trillion portfolio of loans to emerging markets.
So where does Brown think all the money for this "grand bargain" is going to come from? China? USA? India? Does he seriously expect the taxpayers of Europe to cover the $3.6 trillion owed by "emerging markets" (now, most probably, submerging markets)?
Globalisation always leads to a depression. Denying it or blaming other factors doesn't make that any less true. As always when depression strikes, the nations which will come through it best will be those nations which remain, largely, self-reliant and self-sufficient.
We're not one of those nations. We're so far up the creek, even if we had a paddle we'd still be carried away by the currents. The only thing we can do now is start building for the future and that means making our nation as self-sufficient and self-reliant as possible. That means our government supporting our industry, our manufacturing, our agriculture and our trade above and at the expense of any others.
The longer we leave it, the worse it will be.
"From the discussions I have had and am about to have... I think we are fashioning for the future a global deal, a grand bargain, where each continent accepts its responsibilities and its obligations to act to deal with what is a global problem that can only be solved with a global solution," he told reporters in London.
This is all so reminiscent of the Great Depression with even the location of the summit conference being the same - except that there were 66 nations represented at the 1933 London Economic Conference.
Make no mistake, the origins of this crisis are almost identical to those that led to the Great Depression and, unless protectionist measures are introduced right now, the results will be exactly the same - a collapse in production, employment and trade, a massive rise in personal and business bankruptcies and a further contraction of the money supply.
The global debt is now so massive, there simply isn't enough money to go around. As Ambrose Evans-Pritchard pointed out yesterday, Austrian banks alone have a debt from the ex-Soviet bloc equivalent to 70% of Austria's GDP and the East European nations have to repay some $400 billion of their total debt (some $1.7 TRILLION) this year - equal to one third of the regions total GDP.
Almost all East bloc debts are owed to West Europe, especially Austrian, Swedish, Greek, Italian, and Belgian banks. En plus, Europeans account for an astonishing 74pc of the entire $4.9 trillion portfolio of loans to emerging markets.
So where does Brown think all the money for this "grand bargain" is going to come from? China? USA? India? Does he seriously expect the taxpayers of Europe to cover the $3.6 trillion owed by "emerging markets" (now, most probably, submerging markets)?
Globalisation always leads to a depression. Denying it or blaming other factors doesn't make that any less true. As always when depression strikes, the nations which will come through it best will be those nations which remain, largely, self-reliant and self-sufficient.
We're not one of those nations. We're so far up the creek, even if we had a paddle we'd still be carried away by the currents. The only thing we can do now is start building for the future and that means making our nation as self-sufficient and self-reliant as possible. That means our government supporting our industry, our manufacturing, our agriculture and our trade above and at the expense of any others.
The longer we leave it, the worse it will be.
The paralysis of power
Good article by Philip Collins in today's Times Online.
This tendency to elevate political positioning over action will, in time, be the diagnosis of what went wrong. Labour had arrived at a series of defensible policy positions. It had a to-do list and a decent set of arguments about what it was for. On every issue it dropped them like litter to the ground.
That's quite a clever analysis - whether you think Labour were right or wrong in their "defensible policy positions" it is quite accurate to say they at least had some and that they were prepared to put forward a decent argument in their favour.
The Conservative Party then moved gingerly across the spectrum and, behaving like an Opposition, Labour defined itself against what the Tories said. So it is that Labour now finds itself just to the left of sensible on everything.
Again, quite accurate - the Conservative Party has been drifting ever leftward since the days of Heath and, as Collins points out, Labour moved that little bit more to the left to accommodate them. I wouldn't say that the Conservative Party moved "gingerly", though - they marched across the political divide with considerable vigour, in my opinion. Collins goes on ....
It is no coincidence that the Blair Government slowly came to the same conclusions on public service reform that the Major Government had come to. A decade of trying to flog improvement from the centre ends in the conclusion that nothing more can be done that way.
This is the "paralysis of power" which I mention in the post title. It comes when a government has done all it can to improve things and, usually after around a decade, they reach a point where they are unable to do anything more. In part this is due to the simple fact that they've run out of ideas, but mostly it comes with the dawning realisation that for all their posturing, statistics and rhetoric they've often made things worse rather than better.
Labour reached that point before Blair left. Of course they know their education "reforms" over the last 10 years has led to a decline in standards. Of course they know that crime has spiralled and that the public have lost confidence in the police or justice system to deal with it. Of course they know that the NHS remains stretched to breaking point despite all the resources pumped into it - they pretend otherwise, but they know all of this and more.
They come to power full of grand "progressive" ideas based on five year plans - and after ten years realise it's been a fruitless exercise. At that point it is better to do nothing rather than screw things up even more. The retention of power becomes more important than what you do with it. It happened to Thatcher, but her response was to keep trying - which led to the Community Charge debacle and, ultimately, to her removal by those Tories who were hell bent on retaining power purely for the sake of it.
It's also worth noting that, as Collins suggests, the Tories and Labour are now virtually interchangeable.
A few years ago, I took the Conservative manifesto for the 1997 general election, deleted all the insulting references to the State that would never appear in a Labour document, and circulated the expurgated text as if I had thought it all up myself. My colleagues in Downing Street thought it was an accurate but uninteresting account of the Labour Government's policy. They were mystified as to why I thought it worth sending round.
For me, this is the biggest worry we have at the moment - the erosion of our democracy. Democracy isn't just about one person, one vote and universal suffrage - God knows plenty of authoritarian governments have had all that. Democracy is so much more than just voting and one of the things it requires is a genuine political plurality - a real alternative between political approaches from parties that have a realistic possibility of winning an election.
If you don't have that, then you effectively have a one party state - and that means we're much closer to the "police state" that Dame Stella Rimington warned us about yesterday. It's no good just saying "it can't happen here" - it can and will if we let it.
This tendency to elevate political positioning over action will, in time, be the diagnosis of what went wrong. Labour had arrived at a series of defensible policy positions. It had a to-do list and a decent set of arguments about what it was for. On every issue it dropped them like litter to the ground.
That's quite a clever analysis - whether you think Labour were right or wrong in their "defensible policy positions" it is quite accurate to say they at least had some and that they were prepared to put forward a decent argument in their favour.
The Conservative Party then moved gingerly across the spectrum and, behaving like an Opposition, Labour defined itself against what the Tories said. So it is that Labour now finds itself just to the left of sensible on everything.
Again, quite accurate - the Conservative Party has been drifting ever leftward since the days of Heath and, as Collins points out, Labour moved that little bit more to the left to accommodate them. I wouldn't say that the Conservative Party moved "gingerly", though - they marched across the political divide with considerable vigour, in my opinion. Collins goes on ....
It is no coincidence that the Blair Government slowly came to the same conclusions on public service reform that the Major Government had come to. A decade of trying to flog improvement from the centre ends in the conclusion that nothing more can be done that way.
This is the "paralysis of power" which I mention in the post title. It comes when a government has done all it can to improve things and, usually after around a decade, they reach a point where they are unable to do anything more. In part this is due to the simple fact that they've run out of ideas, but mostly it comes with the dawning realisation that for all their posturing, statistics and rhetoric they've often made things worse rather than better.
Labour reached that point before Blair left. Of course they know their education "reforms" over the last 10 years has led to a decline in standards. Of course they know that crime has spiralled and that the public have lost confidence in the police or justice system to deal with it. Of course they know that the NHS remains stretched to breaking point despite all the resources pumped into it - they pretend otherwise, but they know all of this and more.
They come to power full of grand "progressive" ideas based on five year plans - and after ten years realise it's been a fruitless exercise. At that point it is better to do nothing rather than screw things up even more. The retention of power becomes more important than what you do with it. It happened to Thatcher, but her response was to keep trying - which led to the Community Charge debacle and, ultimately, to her removal by those Tories who were hell bent on retaining power purely for the sake of it.
It's also worth noting that, as Collins suggests, the Tories and Labour are now virtually interchangeable.
A few years ago, I took the Conservative manifesto for the 1997 general election, deleted all the insulting references to the State that would never appear in a Labour document, and circulated the expurgated text as if I had thought it all up myself. My colleagues in Downing Street thought it was an accurate but uninteresting account of the Labour Government's policy. They were mystified as to why I thought it worth sending round.
For me, this is the biggest worry we have at the moment - the erosion of our democracy. Democracy isn't just about one person, one vote and universal suffrage - God knows plenty of authoritarian governments have had all that. Democracy is so much more than just voting and one of the things it requires is a genuine political plurality - a real alternative between political approaches from parties that have a realistic possibility of winning an election.
If you don't have that, then you effectively have a one party state - and that means we're much closer to the "police state" that Dame Stella Rimington warned us about yesterday. It's no good just saying "it can't happen here" - it can and will if we let it.
Tuesday, February 17, 2009
It's only just begun
Ambrose Evans-Pritchard with some hard-hitting reality in the Telegraph today.
In Poland, 60pc of mortgages are in Swiss francs. The zloty has just halved against the franc. Hungary, the Balkans, the Baltics, and Ukraine are all suffering variants of this story. As an act of collective folly – by lenders and borrowers – it matches America's sub-prime debacle. There is a crucial difference, however. European banks are on the hook for both. US banks are not.
It's this sort of thing which leads me to believe that a global depression is not only possible, it is almost inevitable. And the only thing, in my opinion is to get out of the globalised mess our leaders have got us into and start looking after our own interests - and the place to start is withdrawal from the EU.
EU member states are up to their neck in bad debt - both with each other and in other regions - once one tumbles we are going to see a domino effect as they bring down others.
[The IMF] $16bn rescue of Ukraine has unravelled. The country – facing a 12pc contraction in GDP after the collapse of steel prices – is hurtling towards default, leaving Unicredit, Raffeisen and ING in the lurch. Pakistan wants another $7.6bn. Latvia's central bank governor has declared his economy "clinically dead" after it shrank 10.5pc in the fourth quarter. Protesters have smashed the treasury and stormed parliament.
Europe is on the brink once more - and once more it is Europe which is going to suffer more than most. The USA has the capacity to sort itself out - though not necessarily the leadership at the moment - the EU does not.
It's going to get messy, folks.
In Poland, 60pc of mortgages are in Swiss francs. The zloty has just halved against the franc. Hungary, the Balkans, the Baltics, and Ukraine are all suffering variants of this story. As an act of collective folly – by lenders and borrowers – it matches America's sub-prime debacle. There is a crucial difference, however. European banks are on the hook for both. US banks are not.
It's this sort of thing which leads me to believe that a global depression is not only possible, it is almost inevitable. And the only thing, in my opinion is to get out of the globalised mess our leaders have got us into and start looking after our own interests - and the place to start is withdrawal from the EU.
EU member states are up to their neck in bad debt - both with each other and in other regions - once one tumbles we are going to see a domino effect as they bring down others.
[The IMF] $16bn rescue of Ukraine has unravelled. The country – facing a 12pc contraction in GDP after the collapse of steel prices – is hurtling towards default, leaving Unicredit, Raffeisen and ING in the lurch. Pakistan wants another $7.6bn. Latvia's central bank governor has declared his economy "clinically dead" after it shrank 10.5pc in the fourth quarter. Protesters have smashed the treasury and stormed parliament.
Europe is on the brink once more - and once more it is Europe which is going to suffer more than most. The USA has the capacity to sort itself out - though not necessarily the leadership at the moment - the EU does not.
It's going to get messy, folks.
Monday, February 16, 2009
Leftist BBC smearing conservatives
I was reading this BBC article - a puff piece for an upcoming Panorama programme full of the usual bull shit - when I came across this.
Sheikh Khalid Yassin, one of the stars of the preaching circuit, has lectured about his contempt for homosexuals saying:
"If you prefer the clothing of the Kaffirs [non-believers] other than the clothing of the Muslims - most of those names on most of that clothing is faggots, homosexuals and lesbians."
Another influential preacher, Abdurraheem Green, whose internet lectures receive hundreds of thousands of hits, preaches that "Islam is not compatible with democracy" and that to prevent a wife committing "evil" a husband has the right to "apply some type of physical force... a very light beating" - though he says this should not leave any marks.
Despite these conservative views the Metropolitan Police has sought Abdurraheem Green's advice recently.
And the preacher himself insists that in spite of his conservative views about life in Britain he is "part of the solution" to extremism because young people listen to him. (My emphasis)
It's not the fact that the Met. are using a hate preacher for advice - that's not at all surprising - it's the way the BBC refers to these opinions as "conservative views" twice in the space of two sentences and deliberately linking it to views about
The intention is obvious - to associate anti-democracy, homophobia and wife beating with "conservative". Yes, I know the BBC are not using the big C Conservative word and that they can defend the piece as editorially correct, but I reject the assumption that being in favour of wife beating is the least bit conservative.
I know it is quite deliberate. I am certain some liberal lefty editor has sneaked this in with every intention of defaming conservatism and I know that the BBC will not think they have done anything wrong- but it is wrong.
And it is another disgusting example of the institutional leftism that pervades the BBC.
Sheikh Khalid Yassin, one of the stars of the preaching circuit, has lectured about his contempt for homosexuals saying:
"If you prefer the clothing of the Kaffirs [non-believers] other than the clothing of the Muslims - most of those names on most of that clothing is faggots, homosexuals and lesbians."
Another influential preacher, Abdurraheem Green, whose internet lectures receive hundreds of thousands of hits, preaches that "Islam is not compatible with democracy" and that to prevent a wife committing "evil" a husband has the right to "apply some type of physical force... a very light beating" - though he says this should not leave any marks.
Despite these conservative views the Metropolitan Police has sought Abdurraheem Green's advice recently.
And the preacher himself insists that in spite of his conservative views about life in Britain he is "part of the solution" to extremism because young people listen to him. (My emphasis)
It's not the fact that the Met. are using a hate preacher for advice - that's not at all surprising - it's the way the BBC refers to these opinions as "conservative views" twice in the space of two sentences and deliberately linking it to views about
The intention is obvious - to associate anti-democracy, homophobia and wife beating with "conservative". Yes, I know the BBC are not using the big C Conservative word and that they can defend the piece as editorially correct, but I reject the assumption that being in favour of wife beating is the least bit conservative.
I know it is quite deliberate. I am certain some liberal lefty editor has sneaked this in with every intention of defaming conservatism and I know that the BBC will not think they have done anything wrong- but it is wrong.
And it is another disgusting example of the institutional leftism that pervades the BBC.
Tax and spend? No, just tax and waste
The CBI, amongst others, is warning that taxes are going to have to rise to plug the yawning chasm that has opened up in government finances.
The CBI is predicting a further severe deterioration in public finances amid a deep recession in which the UK economy will shrink by 3.3pc and unemployment will pass 3 million.
To be honest, I've not read the CBI report, but if they are saying that that will be the end of it they are wrong. My bet is that is their prediction for the next 12 months - and I think the UK economy will continue to shrink and unemployment continue to rise long after that.
The Treasury will have to borrow £88.7bn this year followed by £148.7bn in 2009/10 and £168.1bn the following year, it claims. That final figure is the equivalent of nearly 12 per cent of gross domestic product, a figure without precedent in recent economic history.
The belief, from the CBI and others, is that the government will have to raise taxes substantially to try and make up some of the shortfall - and that, of course, will stifle any possibility of recovery.
"It means that every time the government sees a green shoot it will have to stamp on it by raising taxes to get the debt burden down," Sir Howard told The Daily Telegraph.
The question for me is why does everyone assume that the only alternative is to put up taxes? Don't get me wrong, I know that is what this government will do if they stay around long enough to have any future influence - and I know that is what Dave's Tory party will do if they get into power (but at least they can say it's all Labour's fault) - but nobody, absolutely nobody appears to think there is any alternative to solving the discrepancy between what our government spends and what they earn other than taxation.
Why don't they consider something really radical - like cutting what they spend? Let's stop kidding ourselves that all public spending goes on front line "essential" services - it doesn't.
Apart from the first duty of the government - to defend the nation, its people and interests from foreign threat, attack or invasion - all we want are decent schools for our kids, decent health care when we're ill, protection for our lives, property and livelihoods, clean streets which are safe to walk on and our rubbish collected once a week from our homes.
That's all we want from government, but despite the countless billions they spend, we don't even get that - the bare minimum. Why? Because the vast majority of public spending is wasted on liberal progressive pet projects which the vast majority neither want, use or benefit from in any way shape of form.
The CBI is predicting a further severe deterioration in public finances amid a deep recession in which the UK economy will shrink by 3.3pc and unemployment will pass 3 million.
To be honest, I've not read the CBI report, but if they are saying that that will be the end of it they are wrong. My bet is that is their prediction for the next 12 months - and I think the UK economy will continue to shrink and unemployment continue to rise long after that.
The Treasury will have to borrow £88.7bn this year followed by £148.7bn in 2009/10 and £168.1bn the following year, it claims. That final figure is the equivalent of nearly 12 per cent of gross domestic product, a figure without precedent in recent economic history.
The belief, from the CBI and others, is that the government will have to raise taxes substantially to try and make up some of the shortfall - and that, of course, will stifle any possibility of recovery.
"It means that every time the government sees a green shoot it will have to stamp on it by raising taxes to get the debt burden down," Sir Howard told The Daily Telegraph.
The question for me is why does everyone assume that the only alternative is to put up taxes? Don't get me wrong, I know that is what this government will do if they stay around long enough to have any future influence - and I know that is what Dave's Tory party will do if they get into power (but at least they can say it's all Labour's fault) - but nobody, absolutely nobody appears to think there is any alternative to solving the discrepancy between what our government spends and what they earn other than taxation.
Why don't they consider something really radical - like cutting what they spend? Let's stop kidding ourselves that all public spending goes on front line "essential" services - it doesn't.
Apart from the first duty of the government - to defend the nation, its people and interests from foreign threat, attack or invasion - all we want are decent schools for our kids, decent health care when we're ill, protection for our lives, property and livelihoods, clean streets which are safe to walk on and our rubbish collected once a week from our homes.
That's all we want from government, but despite the countless billions they spend, we don't even get that - the bare minimum. Why? Because the vast majority of public spending is wasted on liberal progressive pet projects which the vast majority neither want, use or benefit from in any way shape of form.
Friday, February 13, 2009
Before you tell us how to live, check your own backyard
Doctors are calling for "airbag" jackets to be made compulsory for motorcyclists claiming it could save "dozens of lives".
Personally, I think these doctors should take a long hard at their own environments and at the thousands of lives that could be saved from hospital acquired infections if only they made clean hospitals compulsory.
Personally, I think these doctors should take a long hard at their own environments and at the thousands of lives that could be saved from hospital acquired infections if only they made clean hospitals compulsory.
Our economy is heading for the buffers
This is the sort of thing we need to be protectionist about.
The Department for Transport chose Hitachi instead of a consortium involving Bombardier, which employs 2,200 people in Derby. Its factory has only enough orders to employ that number of staff until next year and may have to make redundancies.
Bombardier may have a base in Derby, but it is actually a Canadian company. Hitachi may assemble some bits and bobs in Britain, but is is a Japanese company - the point is that the bulk of the £7.5 billion will flow out of this country and be lost to our economy. And that's a big chunk to be giving away when ever penny is going to count over the next few years.
Lord Adonis, the Transport Minister, said that the figure of 12,500 jobs created or safeguarded included an assumption that each direct job created four more among suppliers. Asked whether the majority of the workforce making the trains would be in Britain, he said: “A substantial proportion of those jobs will be British.”
So that's 12,500 jobs "created or safeguarded" - but no guarantee that they are British jobs? In other words, Lord Adonis is feeling smug because he's ensured that thousands of Japanese workers will have jobs. This might make him feel very good about himself, but it won't do much for the people who actually vote for his party here (something his Lordship doesn't have to worry about too much).
Look, it's quite simple. You award the contract to an overseas supplier and their economy will benefit. It will be their employees who keep jobs, pay taxes and spend their cash in their local economy. Our employees will get made redundant, pay no tax, claim benefits and won't have the cash to spend in the local economy - resulting in even more job losses, less tax revenue and more benefits claimants.
The government might think they are saving a few million here and there by handing these sorts of contracts to foreign manufacturers, but in the grand scheme of things it will cost more - much much more than they are saving. Worse still, that's £7.5 billion we'll never see again.
The Department for Transport chose Hitachi instead of a consortium involving Bombardier, which employs 2,200 people in Derby. Its factory has only enough orders to employ that number of staff until next year and may have to make redundancies.
Bombardier may have a base in Derby, but it is actually a Canadian company. Hitachi may assemble some bits and bobs in Britain, but is is a Japanese company - the point is that the bulk of the £7.5 billion will flow out of this country and be lost to our economy. And that's a big chunk to be giving away when ever penny is going to count over the next few years.
Lord Adonis, the Transport Minister, said that the figure of 12,500 jobs created or safeguarded included an assumption that each direct job created four more among suppliers. Asked whether the majority of the workforce making the trains would be in Britain, he said: “A substantial proportion of those jobs will be British.”
So that's 12,500 jobs "created or safeguarded" - but no guarantee that they are British jobs? In other words, Lord Adonis is feeling smug because he's ensured that thousands of Japanese workers will have jobs. This might make him feel very good about himself, but it won't do much for the people who actually vote for his party here (something his Lordship doesn't have to worry about too much).
Look, it's quite simple. You award the contract to an overseas supplier and their economy will benefit. It will be their employees who keep jobs, pay taxes and spend their cash in their local economy. Our employees will get made redundant, pay no tax, claim benefits and won't have the cash to spend in the local economy - resulting in even more job losses, less tax revenue and more benefits claimants.
The government might think they are saving a few million here and there by handing these sorts of contracts to foreign manufacturers, but in the grand scheme of things it will cost more - much much more than they are saving. Worse still, that's £7.5 billion we'll never see again.
Thursday, February 12, 2009
The anti-protectionist liars
In yesterday's Daily Mail, Peter Oborne cottoned on to something I've been banging on about for some time now - the similarities between the Great Depression and our current economic crisis.
The Great Depression arrived in precisely the same way. Here is the account given by the great historian AJP Taylor in his classic history of Britain between the wars.
'The great economic depression broke over the world in October 1929. The causes of this lay outside Great Britain, principally in the general reliance on American loans and American prosperity.
On October 24, 1929, the speculative bubble burst in the United States, and American money ceased to flow.'
I completely agree with that. American prosperity and money was the motivation behind the "globalisation" that took place in the first decades of the 20th century aided, as was this crisis, by the development of new communications technologies - principally the telephone and wireless.
I'm delighted that Oborne has seen the light and is now acknowledging that we are indeed facing a very serious economic disaster, but it infuriates me that he not only refuses to put the blame where it lies - corporatism and globalisation - but then seeks to criticise the one thing that turned the Great Depression around.
In the United States Barack Obama has already signalled that he is ready to support protectionism - the disastrous strategy that had such calamitous consequences around the world 70 years ago.
Indeed it is worth remembering that industrial production in the United States halved in the three years which followed the Wall Street collapse of 1929.
Indeed it is worth remembering - and it is also worth remembering that it wasn't until 1933 that the USA turned to protectionism - four years after the depression hit and the year which most historians agree was the turning point of the Great Depression. It was only when the USA applied the "disastrous strategy" of protectionism that they started to recover and it was only when the rest of the world joined in that we started to catch up.
And it is also worth remembering that by the time we had turned to protectionism Hitler was already in power, Japan - which had remained protectionist before the global downturn struck - had escaped the depression and was now a major regional power and the world was on course for a war the scale of which we had never witnessed before and I hope never witness again.
The thing is, Oborne must know this. He knows as well as I do that the Great Depression began in 1929. He knows as well as I do that it was preceded by a period of globalisation and he knows as well as I do that the worst of the depression happened in the years before the USA resorted to protectionism.
Either he is deluding himself or he is lying.
The Great Depression arrived in precisely the same way. Here is the account given by the great historian AJP Taylor in his classic history of Britain between the wars.
'The great economic depression broke over the world in October 1929. The causes of this lay outside Great Britain, principally in the general reliance on American loans and American prosperity.
On October 24, 1929, the speculative bubble burst in the United States, and American money ceased to flow.'
I completely agree with that. American prosperity and money was the motivation behind the "globalisation" that took place in the first decades of the 20th century aided, as was this crisis, by the development of new communications technologies - principally the telephone and wireless.
I'm delighted that Oborne has seen the light and is now acknowledging that we are indeed facing a very serious economic disaster, but it infuriates me that he not only refuses to put the blame where it lies - corporatism and globalisation - but then seeks to criticise the one thing that turned the Great Depression around.
In the United States Barack Obama has already signalled that he is ready to support protectionism - the disastrous strategy that had such calamitous consequences around the world 70 years ago.
Indeed it is worth remembering that industrial production in the United States halved in the three years which followed the Wall Street collapse of 1929.
Indeed it is worth remembering - and it is also worth remembering that it wasn't until 1933 that the USA turned to protectionism - four years after the depression hit and the year which most historians agree was the turning point of the Great Depression. It was only when the USA applied the "disastrous strategy" of protectionism that they started to recover and it was only when the rest of the world joined in that we started to catch up.
And it is also worth remembering that by the time we had turned to protectionism Hitler was already in power, Japan - which had remained protectionist before the global downturn struck - had escaped the depression and was now a major regional power and the world was on course for a war the scale of which we had never witnessed before and I hope never witness again.
The thing is, Oborne must know this. He knows as well as I do that the Great Depression began in 1929. He knows as well as I do that it was preceded by a period of globalisation and he knows as well as I do that the worst of the depression happened in the years before the USA resorted to protectionism.
Either he is deluding himself or he is lying.
Islam is not fascism
The decision to ban Dutch MP, Geert Wilders, from entering the UK is wrong - but I actually have some sympathy with the Home Office on this.
The Home Office said there was a blanket ban on Mr Wilders entering the UK under EU laws enabling member states to exclude someone whose presence could threaten public security.
And, of course, the presence of Mr. Wilders could indeed threaten public security - not because Mr. Wilders advocates violence, but because he is an outspoken critic of Islam who claims the Koran is a "fascist book" and believes it promotes violence and intolerance. Our government - quite rightly in all probability - expects that his arrival in the UK may well incite some Moslems to respond violently.
Which kinda proves him right, doesn't it?
It's just a shame our government doesn't have the balls to actually say that. By banning them they are tacitly admitting he has a very good point, but they refuse to ever actually admit that Islam is an ideology which promotes and advocates violence and intolerance to advance its cause.
Wilders compares Islam to fascism. Is he correct? Let's see shall we.
Fascism forbids and suppresses all criticism of the ideology - often through the use of violence. Does that sound like Islam?
Fascism promotes racial hatred and intolerance. Does that sound like Islam?
Fascism opposes direct democracy. Does that sound like Islam?
Fascism requires individuals to subordinate themselves to the ideology. Does that sound like Islam?
Fascism promotes equality between the sexes. Aha! Wilders is wrong. Islam is not fascist after all!
The Home Office said there was a blanket ban on Mr Wilders entering the UK under EU laws enabling member states to exclude someone whose presence could threaten public security.
And, of course, the presence of Mr. Wilders could indeed threaten public security - not because Mr. Wilders advocates violence, but because he is an outspoken critic of Islam who claims the Koran is a "fascist book" and believes it promotes violence and intolerance. Our government - quite rightly in all probability - expects that his arrival in the UK may well incite some Moslems to respond violently.
Which kinda proves him right, doesn't it?
It's just a shame our government doesn't have the balls to actually say that. By banning them they are tacitly admitting he has a very good point, but they refuse to ever actually admit that Islam is an ideology which promotes and advocates violence and intolerance to advance its cause.
Wilders compares Islam to fascism. Is he correct? Let's see shall we.
Fascism forbids and suppresses all criticism of the ideology - often through the use of violence. Does that sound like Islam?
Fascism promotes racial hatred and intolerance. Does that sound like Islam?
Fascism opposes direct democracy. Does that sound like Islam?
Fascism requires individuals to subordinate themselves to the ideology. Does that sound like Islam?
Fascism promotes equality between the sexes. Aha! Wilders is wrong. Islam is not fascist after all!
Wednesday, February 11, 2009
The Domino's effect
A branch of Domino's Pizza has decided to ban pork from its pizza menu and only offer Halal meat alternatives.
The takeaway has told customers in the mixed-race area of Hall Green, Birmingham, that if they want ham or pork on their pizza they will have to go elsewhere.
And if they don't want Halal to go elsewhere too presumably.
For meat to be deemed Halal, it must meet certain conditions. These include that the animal should be killed by having its throat cut by a Muslim and any flowing blood of the carcase should be completely drained.
Yes - how very humane. And did you notice that bit about the throat has to be slit by a Moslem? No discrimination there then. Mr. Jones, the out of work butcher from Walmington-on-sea, can't get a job in a Halal abbatoir and no Moslems are trained to do it - so they just have to employ immigrants don't they.
Masood Khawaja, President of the Halal Food Authority, said: "It's good news for Muslims, with changing pallets, who want a bit of variety in their diet. This is only the beginning and we are delighted that Domino's has participating in this trend."
Yeah - good news for Moslems and fuck the rest of us, eh. As he says "this is only the beginning" - the question is, where will it end?
The takeaway has told customers in the mixed-race area of Hall Green, Birmingham, that if they want ham or pork on their pizza they will have to go elsewhere.
And if they don't want Halal to go elsewhere too presumably.
For meat to be deemed Halal, it must meet certain conditions. These include that the animal should be killed by having its throat cut by a Muslim and any flowing blood of the carcase should be completely drained.
Yes - how very humane. And did you notice that bit about the throat has to be slit by a Moslem? No discrimination there then. Mr. Jones, the out of work butcher from Walmington-on-sea, can't get a job in a Halal abbatoir and no Moslems are trained to do it - so they just have to employ immigrants don't they.
Masood Khawaja, President of the Halal Food Authority, said: "It's good news for Muslims, with changing pallets, who want a bit of variety in their diet. This is only the beginning and we are delighted that Domino's has participating in this trend."
Yeah - good news for Moslems and fuck the rest of us, eh. As he says "this is only the beginning" - the question is, where will it end?
Professional meltdown
The Times reports that the government are to introduce schemes to help unemployed professional "white collar" workers who are losing their jobs in unprecedented numbers as this recession bites deeper.
White-collar workers visiting Jobcentres will be redirected to specialist recruitment agencies or offered new three-month college courses to refresh their skills, The Times has learnt.
Although I think that the idea to provide "specialist" help to the professional classes is quite probably correct, I also believe that the true significance of this is being missed. Professional, white-collar workers pay more in taxation. A significant decline in professional employment will lead to a considerable drop in the government's tax revenue.
In previous recessions the numbers of job losses were similar, but they were predominantly workers at the lower end of the wages scale. Although this was still a catastrophe for those workers, it was less of a problem for the government. First, because the drop in tax revenue was more manageable and secondly because when recovery begins re-employment starts with the lower paid - so a government can "ride out" the drop in tax revenue knowing that an equilibrium will soon be re-established.
This is different. Even assuming that this is just a recession and not a depression (unlikely in my opinion), if the recovery starts, for example, towards the back end of this year (extremely unlikely in my opinion) then even with an increase in employment there will not be enough of an increase in tax revenue to make up the loss of revenue from the professional classes.
Add on to that the massive debt liability that Gordon Brown has saddled us with and I think we can expect a rough few years.
White-collar workers visiting Jobcentres will be redirected to specialist recruitment agencies or offered new three-month college courses to refresh their skills, The Times has learnt.
Although I think that the idea to provide "specialist" help to the professional classes is quite probably correct, I also believe that the true significance of this is being missed. Professional, white-collar workers pay more in taxation. A significant decline in professional employment will lead to a considerable drop in the government's tax revenue.
In previous recessions the numbers of job losses were similar, but they were predominantly workers at the lower end of the wages scale. Although this was still a catastrophe for those workers, it was less of a problem for the government. First, because the drop in tax revenue was more manageable and secondly because when recovery begins re-employment starts with the lower paid - so a government can "ride out" the drop in tax revenue knowing that an equilibrium will soon be re-established.
This is different. Even assuming that this is just a recession and not a depression (unlikely in my opinion), if the recovery starts, for example, towards the back end of this year (extremely unlikely in my opinion) then even with an increase in employment there will not be enough of an increase in tax revenue to make up the loss of revenue from the professional classes.
Add on to that the massive debt liability that Gordon Brown has saddled us with and I think we can expect a rough few years.
Tuesday, February 10, 2009
Point made
In a previous post I mentioned that I don't believe it is possible for a nation to be "multicultural" simply because you can not have two cultures competing for a societal space. To demonstrate my point we have this.
[H]ead teacher, Julia Robinson, has resigned after being accused by some parents of racism. Her offence? She wanted to scrap separate assemblies for Muslim children at the school.
Two competing cultures will require different cultural concessions which will require different laws, norms and practices. Such a thing can not exist in one nation - either one culture will dominate the other or the nation will split into two to accommodate both cultures.
It's obvious - yet still we pursue this ridiculous belief that we can make multiculturalism work - we can't. No one can.
[H]ead teacher, Julia Robinson, has resigned after being accused by some parents of racism. Her offence? She wanted to scrap separate assemblies for Muslim children at the school.
Two competing cultures will require different cultural concessions which will require different laws, norms and practices. Such a thing can not exist in one nation - either one culture will dominate the other or the nation will split into two to accommodate both cultures.
It's obvious - yet still we pursue this ridiculous belief that we can make multiculturalism work - we can't. No one can.
Having their cake and eating it
A bit late in the day, but a chap called Anthony Sappor weighs in on the "golliwog" row over on The Telegraph.
I can appreciate that in all likelihood there was no racist intent behind Carol Thatcher’s words, and that plenty of people own all sorts of Golliwog memorabilia.
I feel a "but" coming on ....
However, the suggestion that she did not use an offensive term is frightening.
Ah, not a but - a "however" instead. A true sign of education.
At what point did comparing a black person to a doll, initially described by its creator as 'a horrid sight, the blackest gnome', become okay?
"Golliwog" per se is not an offensive term, but it is understandable that some people would be offended by it if called a "golliwog", whether there was intent to offend or not, in the same way a statuesque blonde woman may take offence at being called a "Barbie doll".
However (see, I can do it too), that does not mean the person using that term necessarily meant it in an offensive way. Some people actually have a great deal of affection for golliwogs and Barbie dolls (I'm not one of them) and regardless of what the "creator" of that doll intended, do not see those dolls as "horrid".
We are all, regardless of race, religion or creed, subjected to things we find offensive on a daily basis. Some of those things are accidentally offensive while others are quite deliberately so. Most of us manage to deal with that in an adult way without having to have someone sacked or reprimanded.
Jonathan Ross, for example, is simply a crude, immature and egotistical man who probably doesn't even realise when he is being offensive - or if he does, has gotten away with it for so long he believes it to be acceptable behaviour. Jo Brand, on the other hand, is deliberately offensive to certain groups of people on a regular basis, but she is free to do that because she is "politically correct" about who she offends.
Political correctness means that certain designated victim groups have rights which others do not - including the right not to be offended. Why should they have that right? Either we make it a right for all to be free from offence (impossible) or we tolerate ALL those who cause offence (within law) - deliberate or not.
Tolerate does not mean "find acceptable" either. The usual, British way of dealing with offensive behaviour would have been to have told the person that we find their views offensive and request that they desist from expressing them in such a manner in our presence in future- all done in a restrained way with manners, respect and courtesy. Nothing annoys someone who is deliberately trying to be offensive than the person they are trying to offend showing them a degree of courtesy and respect they fail to show others and if the person was not trying to be offensive they will usually apologise - as Thatcher did.
Sappor suggests that the "anti-PC brigade" are "confused". Actually, what they are doing is using the same tactic that the PC brigade us - reacting to offence with moral indignation and (often feigned) incandescent outrage.
Golliwog is an offensive term to some, but not to all. In a polite and well-mannered society we would not publicly use a word where it may cause offence to someone - and that should include on the broadcast media. However, the word "fuck" is also offensive to some and the polite and well-mannered society has been broken down by the self same people who now express moral indignation of the use of the word "golliwog" in private conversations while they continue to deliberately offend and swear with out the same consideration they demand from others.
They want it both ways. To preserve the right - their sole right - to determine who it is OK to offend and to preserve their right - their sole right - what to take offence at. They can't have it both ways. Either they give up one or the other.
I can appreciate that in all likelihood there was no racist intent behind Carol Thatcher’s words, and that plenty of people own all sorts of Golliwog memorabilia.
I feel a "but" coming on ....
However, the suggestion that she did not use an offensive term is frightening.
Ah, not a but - a "however" instead. A true sign of education.
At what point did comparing a black person to a doll, initially described by its creator as 'a horrid sight, the blackest gnome', become okay?
"Golliwog" per se is not an offensive term, but it is understandable that some people would be offended by it if called a "golliwog", whether there was intent to offend or not, in the same way a statuesque blonde woman may take offence at being called a "Barbie doll".
However (see, I can do it too), that does not mean the person using that term necessarily meant it in an offensive way. Some people actually have a great deal of affection for golliwogs and Barbie dolls (I'm not one of them) and regardless of what the "creator" of that doll intended, do not see those dolls as "horrid".
We are all, regardless of race, religion or creed, subjected to things we find offensive on a daily basis. Some of those things are accidentally offensive while others are quite deliberately so. Most of us manage to deal with that in an adult way without having to have someone sacked or reprimanded.
Jonathan Ross, for example, is simply a crude, immature and egotistical man who probably doesn't even realise when he is being offensive - or if he does, has gotten away with it for so long he believes it to be acceptable behaviour. Jo Brand, on the other hand, is deliberately offensive to certain groups of people on a regular basis, but she is free to do that because she is "politically correct" about who she offends.
Political correctness means that certain designated victim groups have rights which others do not - including the right not to be offended. Why should they have that right? Either we make it a right for all to be free from offence (impossible) or we tolerate ALL those who cause offence (within law) - deliberate or not.
Tolerate does not mean "find acceptable" either. The usual, British way of dealing with offensive behaviour would have been to have told the person that we find their views offensive and request that they desist from expressing them in such a manner in our presence in future- all done in a restrained way with manners, respect and courtesy. Nothing annoys someone who is deliberately trying to be offensive than the person they are trying to offend showing them a degree of courtesy and respect they fail to show others and if the person was not trying to be offensive they will usually apologise - as Thatcher did.
Sappor suggests that the "anti-PC brigade" are "confused". Actually, what they are doing is using the same tactic that the PC brigade us - reacting to offence with moral indignation and (often feigned) incandescent outrage.
Golliwog is an offensive term to some, but not to all. In a polite and well-mannered society we would not publicly use a word where it may cause offence to someone - and that should include on the broadcast media. However, the word "fuck" is also offensive to some and the polite and well-mannered society has been broken down by the self same people who now express moral indignation of the use of the word "golliwog" in private conversations while they continue to deliberately offend and swear with out the same consideration they demand from others.
They want it both ways. To preserve the right - their sole right - to determine who it is OK to offend and to preserve their right - their sole right - what to take offence at. They can't have it both ways. Either they give up one or the other.
Balls of confusion
Ed Balls is suggesting that the global depression could lead to a resurgence in fascism which, given the authoritarian nature of our current government, is kind of ironic.
What Balls is trying to do is equate "nationalism" with fascism - but they are not the same thing. It is true that those fascist regimes we most usually think of - Nazi Germany and 1930's Italy - were nationalistic as well as fascist, but it's also worth remembering that Britain was also a nationalist country up until relatively recently and the USA remains hugely nationalist, but neither were or are fascist.
Nationalism and fascism are two separate political concepts - and like many political concepts they can co-exist. The general view - propagated by the left - is that fascism is nationalism with a racial element, but this is something I disagree with. In my view, fascism is socialism with a racial element. The best way to describe this is by looking at two nationalist countries and comparing them - the USA and China.
Yes, the USA is nationalist - strongly so. It is, effectively, at the point Britain was at around 50 years or so ago (yes, Britain also used to be strongly nationalist) and is now facing many of the challenges that Britain faced back then. Whether it will come through those challenges better than we did remains to be seen.
China is also strongly nationalist. Like the USA, China arrived at the nationalist state through a revolutionary war, but unlike the USA China applied the ideology of Marxism as the political doctrine while the USA reverted to liberal democracy.
If you now compare the two states for the elements of fascism you will find that China meets most of the criteria - authoritarian, dictatorial head of state, oppressive state, crushing of political dissent, intolerance of government criticism, intrusion of the state into individual freedoms, intrusive state surveillance on the people, an informer society (to the extent where family members inform on other family members) and a single party political system.
Compare that to the USA and, although many leftists will disagree, none of those things exist in the USA. So both are nationalist, but China is far more fascist than the USA even though it has no racial criteria in its nationalism. The USA once did, though - but even when it did it still wasn't a fascist country! Do you see the difference? Even though the USA once had a strong racial element and was also a nationalist country it still wasn't fascist, while China which has no racial element to its political ideology is very much, in every other way fascist.
So what is the difference? The difference is, of course, authoritarianism. but because of the nature of socialism - the requirement for the state to take more control over peoples lives - socialism always leads to authoritarianism. So both socialism and fascism share a key element - the only difference between the two is that socialism does not include a racial element (at least, not an expressed one. The only significant difference between the USSR and Nazi Germany was that the USSR never actually admitted to wanting to exterminate the Jews - although they had a pretty good go all the same).
So fascism is not nationalism with a racial element - it is authoritarianism with a racial element. Balls suggestion that fascism could rise once again is, presumably, based on a concern about the possible rise of the BNP, but although the BNP have a clearly expressed racial element to their policies, I've seen nothing in those policies that would lead to authoritarianism - so they would not be fascist.
Indeed, the BNP (if you believe their policies) appear committed to real democracy based on popular sovereignty and political plurality - which, combined with significant, constitutional checks and balances on political hegemony, are all essential to avoid authoritarianism - and that stands in stark contrast to the party Balls supports.
If, in the incredibly unlikely event, the BNP were to win a General Election there is nothing to suggest in their policies that we would become an authoritarian nation - and therefore we would not become fascist. Racist - possibly, fascist - no. Of course, the BNP could be lying about their intent, but unless they get elected we'll never know.
What is certain, however, is that if we continue along the lines we are currently on we most certainly will become authoritarian. We're halfway there already and if the continued erosion of our true democracy, political plurality and constitutional checks and balances continues unabated then we may soon reach the point of no return (or rather, no return without significant upheaval).
I am a fervent nationalist. I believe that the nation state is the ultimate development of a community - a people with a shared language, history, heritage, traditions and culture. I believe that race is no barrier to membership of that community - only the willingness of an individual to accept the things I mentioned - language, history, heritage, traditions and, most importantly, culture.
I know this is not a problem for many (if not most) Indian Asians, black Africans and Afro-Caribbean's who originate from countries which share many of those things with Britain thanks to the legacy of empire and I know that many (if not most) have no desire for Britain to change any of that. They are happy to be British within the confines of British culture because, essentially, that is what they are used to anyway.
I also know that it is impossible for a single nation to be multicultural. A single nation depends on having a culture - the norms, practices, traditions and laws - which all accept, but you can not have two different cultures competing for the same space. Either one will come to dominate the other - leading once more to a mono-cultural nation - or the nation will divide.
This has been a long post - sorry about that, but it is something which I feel very passionately about. I'm fed up with toerags like Balls painting nationalists as "fascists" when nationalists are nothing of the sort. Nationalism, in the context of a liberal democracy, is a good thing. We have nothing to fear from nationalism, but lots to fear from authoritarianism - and that is the road on which Balls and his like currently have us headed.
What Balls is trying to do is equate "nationalism" with fascism - but they are not the same thing. It is true that those fascist regimes we most usually think of - Nazi Germany and 1930's Italy - were nationalistic as well as fascist, but it's also worth remembering that Britain was also a nationalist country up until relatively recently and the USA remains hugely nationalist, but neither were or are fascist.
Nationalism and fascism are two separate political concepts - and like many political concepts they can co-exist. The general view - propagated by the left - is that fascism is nationalism with a racial element, but this is something I disagree with. In my view, fascism is socialism with a racial element. The best way to describe this is by looking at two nationalist countries and comparing them - the USA and China.
Yes, the USA is nationalist - strongly so. It is, effectively, at the point Britain was at around 50 years or so ago (yes, Britain also used to be strongly nationalist) and is now facing many of the challenges that Britain faced back then. Whether it will come through those challenges better than we did remains to be seen.
China is also strongly nationalist. Like the USA, China arrived at the nationalist state through a revolutionary war, but unlike the USA China applied the ideology of Marxism as the political doctrine while the USA reverted to liberal democracy.
If you now compare the two states for the elements of fascism you will find that China meets most of the criteria - authoritarian, dictatorial head of state, oppressive state, crushing of political dissent, intolerance of government criticism, intrusion of the state into individual freedoms, intrusive state surveillance on the people, an informer society (to the extent where family members inform on other family members) and a single party political system.
Compare that to the USA and, although many leftists will disagree, none of those things exist in the USA. So both are nationalist, but China is far more fascist than the USA even though it has no racial criteria in its nationalism. The USA once did, though - but even when it did it still wasn't a fascist country! Do you see the difference? Even though the USA once had a strong racial element and was also a nationalist country it still wasn't fascist, while China which has no racial element to its political ideology is very much, in every other way fascist.
So what is the difference? The difference is, of course, authoritarianism. but because of the nature of socialism - the requirement for the state to take more control over peoples lives - socialism always leads to authoritarianism. So both socialism and fascism share a key element - the only difference between the two is that socialism does not include a racial element (at least, not an expressed one. The only significant difference between the USSR and Nazi Germany was that the USSR never actually admitted to wanting to exterminate the Jews - although they had a pretty good go all the same).
So fascism is not nationalism with a racial element - it is authoritarianism with a racial element. Balls suggestion that fascism could rise once again is, presumably, based on a concern about the possible rise of the BNP, but although the BNP have a clearly expressed racial element to their policies, I've seen nothing in those policies that would lead to authoritarianism - so they would not be fascist.
Indeed, the BNP (if you believe their policies) appear committed to real democracy based on popular sovereignty and political plurality - which, combined with significant, constitutional checks and balances on political hegemony, are all essential to avoid authoritarianism - and that stands in stark contrast to the party Balls supports.
If, in the incredibly unlikely event, the BNP were to win a General Election there is nothing to suggest in their policies that we would become an authoritarian nation - and therefore we would not become fascist. Racist - possibly, fascist - no. Of course, the BNP could be lying about their intent, but unless they get elected we'll never know.
What is certain, however, is that if we continue along the lines we are currently on we most certainly will become authoritarian. We're halfway there already and if the continued erosion of our true democracy, political plurality and constitutional checks and balances continues unabated then we may soon reach the point of no return (or rather, no return without significant upheaval).
I am a fervent nationalist. I believe that the nation state is the ultimate development of a community - a people with a shared language, history, heritage, traditions and culture. I believe that race is no barrier to membership of that community - only the willingness of an individual to accept the things I mentioned - language, history, heritage, traditions and, most importantly, culture.
I know this is not a problem for many (if not most) Indian Asians, black Africans and Afro-Caribbean's who originate from countries which share many of those things with Britain thanks to the legacy of empire and I know that many (if not most) have no desire for Britain to change any of that. They are happy to be British within the confines of British culture because, essentially, that is what they are used to anyway.
I also know that it is impossible for a single nation to be multicultural. A single nation depends on having a culture - the norms, practices, traditions and laws - which all accept, but you can not have two different cultures competing for the same space. Either one will come to dominate the other - leading once more to a mono-cultural nation - or the nation will divide.
This has been a long post - sorry about that, but it is something which I feel very passionately about. I'm fed up with toerags like Balls painting nationalists as "fascists" when nationalists are nothing of the sort. Nationalism, in the context of a liberal democracy, is a good thing. We have nothing to fear from nationalism, but lots to fear from authoritarianism - and that is the road on which Balls and his like currently have us headed.
Monday, February 09, 2009
Good manners were not the preserve of the Victorians
A school in Hampshire is claiming to have improved attendance and results by introducing "Victorian-style rules".
Pupils at Neville Lovett Community School are encouraged to answer staff with a polite 'yes, Mrs Jones' rather than 'yeah' and stand respectfully behind their desks until the class teacher tells them to sit.
I'm not denying that these measures have brought the improvements they claim - I just don't understand why they think that the simple concepts of good manners and politeness are "Victorian". Everything they mention was par for the course in schools in my day - from infants through to secondary and I'm sure they still remain the norm for many schools today.
What they actually are doing is not introducing "Victorian-style" rules, but reversing the progressive liberal idea that decreed that teachers should be more like the kids rather than the kids more like the teachers. So teachers stopped being figures of authority and tried to be the kids "mates" instead - which is the last thing the kids wanted - and instead of expecting respect and enforcing codes of conduct, good manners and politeness they left it up to the kids to decide.
I think the idea was that they'd gain the respect of the children if the children thought their teachers were "in tune" with them. Of course, as any parent knows, children are highly manipulative and will run rings around an adult who tries to play them at their own game.
Good manners, politeness and a general level of morality should be a given at all our schools. Even if they won't admit it, the reality is that children actually like, as well as need, rules and discipline.
Still, it's a step in the right direction for that school. I doubt that we'll see the idea being replicated the length and breadth of Britain, though - far too many lefty teachers still in the profession for that to happen.
Pupils at Neville Lovett Community School are encouraged to answer staff with a polite 'yes, Mrs Jones' rather than 'yeah' and stand respectfully behind their desks until the class teacher tells them to sit.
I'm not denying that these measures have brought the improvements they claim - I just don't understand why they think that the simple concepts of good manners and politeness are "Victorian". Everything they mention was par for the course in schools in my day - from infants through to secondary and I'm sure they still remain the norm for many schools today.
What they actually are doing is not introducing "Victorian-style" rules, but reversing the progressive liberal idea that decreed that teachers should be more like the kids rather than the kids more like the teachers. So teachers stopped being figures of authority and tried to be the kids "mates" instead - which is the last thing the kids wanted - and instead of expecting respect and enforcing codes of conduct, good manners and politeness they left it up to the kids to decide.
I think the idea was that they'd gain the respect of the children if the children thought their teachers were "in tune" with them. Of course, as any parent knows, children are highly manipulative and will run rings around an adult who tries to play them at their own game.
Good manners, politeness and a general level of morality should be a given at all our schools. Even if they won't admit it, the reality is that children actually like, as well as need, rules and discipline.
Still, it's a step in the right direction for that school. I doubt that we'll see the idea being replicated the length and breadth of Britain, though - far too many lefty teachers still in the profession for that to happen.
Sovereignty, democracy and education
Janet Daley seems to like David Cameron's ideas for education "reform", but remains a little sceptical to say the least.
What they will discover is what every previous bunch of politicians has discovered when they have tried to make the schools accountable to exasperated public opinion: trying to cure what is genuinely wrong with state education is like wrestling with an octopus. That infamous Education Establishment has a grip on the training of teachers, the appointment of heads, the admissions policies of schools, and the devising (and revising) of the curriculum. It is an ideological closed shop which, in spite of the rage and frustration of parents, employers, and political leaders, remains almost undaunted.
Very true - which is why we need to start restoring some proper democracy to our country.
Democracy is a much understood term these days. We seem to think it just means being able to have a free vote in General and local elections, but it is so much more than that. At the heart of democracy is something called "popular sovereignty". In political terms this means that the legitimacy of the state is dependent on the belief that this is the true will and with the consent of the people.
These days we like to call it "accountability" and the question then, in a democratic nation, is whether a particular arm of the state is "accountable" to the public. Increasingly, it is not. We cast our votes in elections thinking we are making a difference, but whoever we select for central or local government is largely irrelevant because they have very little influence on what each arm of the state does or how it does it.
At local level, whether you have a Conservative, Lib Dem or Labour Council is irrelevant - the heads of departments will still be the same and they will still be predominantly left wing. They are not answerable to the people in any way, shape or form and until this changes then we will continue to struggle to reform our state - whether that be education or health or anything else.
The reason for this is that more and more of the state has become centralised - and as that has grown then various governmental departments have passed sovereignty to more and more unelected and unaccountable agencies. This is the corporatism I have mentioned before - where true power increasingly lies not with the electorate but with various unelected boards and bodies over which we, the people, have no control.
All this has led to the slow erosion of our democracy. When we talk about loss of sovereignty we usually think about how our government has passed control over large areas of our lives to the EU, but they have also passed large areas of sovereignty to other non-governmental, unelected and unaccountable organisations too.
All this is inevitable with centralised, big government socialism. The usual response of both Labour and Tory governments to this problem has been to pass control to a local level - but they have done this in the worst possible way by passing it to unelected and unaccountable quangos - the Local Education Authorities, Health Trusts, Regional Development Authorities and so on - none of which we vote for and none of which are ever held to account by the people they supposedly represent.
The only way to restore democracy is to restore popular sovereignty and the only way to do this, in my opinion, is to reduce government. As a simple rule of thumb, the more "departments" a government has the less democratic it will be. The more control is given to "local" but unelected bodies the less sovereignty we have.
Cameron's ideas for "reform" are flawed for two reasons. First of all, they are based on what they consider they can possibly get the various education bodies - including the teaching unions - to accept and secondly because they do nothing to address the fundamental problem of education (and the state in general). Institutionalised leftism.
What we need now more than ever is a government that is prepared to stand up for true democracy. That's not about giving the vote to more and ever younger people - it is about ensuring that what the government does is the true will and with the true consent of the people.
That requires something of a revolution in our public services - and I see no sign or indication from Cameron that that is something he is genuinely considering. Just the opposite in fact.
What they will discover is what every previous bunch of politicians has discovered when they have tried to make the schools accountable to exasperated public opinion: trying to cure what is genuinely wrong with state education is like wrestling with an octopus. That infamous Education Establishment has a grip on the training of teachers, the appointment of heads, the admissions policies of schools, and the devising (and revising) of the curriculum. It is an ideological closed shop which, in spite of the rage and frustration of parents, employers, and political leaders, remains almost undaunted.
Very true - which is why we need to start restoring some proper democracy to our country.
Democracy is a much understood term these days. We seem to think it just means being able to have a free vote in General and local elections, but it is so much more than that. At the heart of democracy is something called "popular sovereignty". In political terms this means that the legitimacy of the state is dependent on the belief that this is the true will and with the consent of the people.
These days we like to call it "accountability" and the question then, in a democratic nation, is whether a particular arm of the state is "accountable" to the public. Increasingly, it is not. We cast our votes in elections thinking we are making a difference, but whoever we select for central or local government is largely irrelevant because they have very little influence on what each arm of the state does or how it does it.
At local level, whether you have a Conservative, Lib Dem or Labour Council is irrelevant - the heads of departments will still be the same and they will still be predominantly left wing. They are not answerable to the people in any way, shape or form and until this changes then we will continue to struggle to reform our state - whether that be education or health or anything else.
The reason for this is that more and more of the state has become centralised - and as that has grown then various governmental departments have passed sovereignty to more and more unelected and unaccountable agencies. This is the corporatism I have mentioned before - where true power increasingly lies not with the electorate but with various unelected boards and bodies over which we, the people, have no control.
All this has led to the slow erosion of our democracy. When we talk about loss of sovereignty we usually think about how our government has passed control over large areas of our lives to the EU, but they have also passed large areas of sovereignty to other non-governmental, unelected and unaccountable organisations too.
All this is inevitable with centralised, big government socialism. The usual response of both Labour and Tory governments to this problem has been to pass control to a local level - but they have done this in the worst possible way by passing it to unelected and unaccountable quangos - the Local Education Authorities, Health Trusts, Regional Development Authorities and so on - none of which we vote for and none of which are ever held to account by the people they supposedly represent.
The only way to restore democracy is to restore popular sovereignty and the only way to do this, in my opinion, is to reduce government. As a simple rule of thumb, the more "departments" a government has the less democratic it will be. The more control is given to "local" but unelected bodies the less sovereignty we have.
Cameron's ideas for "reform" are flawed for two reasons. First of all, they are based on what they consider they can possibly get the various education bodies - including the teaching unions - to accept and secondly because they do nothing to address the fundamental problem of education (and the state in general). Institutionalised leftism.
What we need now more than ever is a government that is prepared to stand up for true democracy. That's not about giving the vote to more and ever younger people - it is about ensuring that what the government does is the true will and with the true consent of the people.
That requires something of a revolution in our public services - and I see no sign or indication from Cameron that that is something he is genuinely considering. Just the opposite in fact.
Joined up government or tied up government?
Sounds to me like it is more tied up in red tape than joined up.
A Government agency has refused to relax rules restricting lorry drivers' hours in order to allow stocks to reach snow-hit parts of the country.
Of course, as most of us realise, the more interested parties there are in any decision the harder it is to reach a decision at all and almost impossible to get the right decision. That is why we need less government - not more. Fewer government departments, fewer quangos, fewer agencies and fewer public sector staff protecting their own little kingdoms.
A Government agency has refused to relax rules restricting lorry drivers' hours in order to allow stocks to reach snow-hit parts of the country.
Of course, as most of us realise, the more interested parties there are in any decision the harder it is to reach a decision at all and almost impossible to get the right decision. That is why we need less government - not more. Fewer government departments, fewer quangos, fewer agencies and fewer public sector staff protecting their own little kingdoms.
Saturday, February 07, 2009
It's me you should feel sorry for
What is it with social workers? Do they spend so much time around people obsessed with victimhood that they end up as morally dysfunctional as the people they are supposed to support?
The disgraced head of the Haringey department that so completely failed Baby P comes out of hiding to tell us that it is her we should be feeling sorry for - her and her like.
In her first interview since her dismissal in December, Ms Shoesmith said that Mr Balls had created a blame culture that put children at risk by demoralising social workers. She said that in the aftermath of the Baby P trial she had contemplated suicide and received death threats from members of the public, which led to her receiving police protection for herself and her daughter.
No offence, luv - but who gives a fuck about you? Shame Baby P couldn't get "police protection" from the ever present threat of death he lived under - but then again he's so unimportant compared to you, eh?
I have no love for "Mr. Balls" (just call him Balls), but it's not him that created the "blame culture" specifically, but the whole left wing movement which has spent its entire history finger pointing, but never accepting any responsibility. When no one ever owns up to responsibility you get a "blame culture" - that is the way it works.
Well, guess what - you've been found out and found wanting. A generation of socialist doctrine and "liberalism" has destroyed the traditional family - as the left wanted - particularly in the lower classes and replaced it with unmarried mothers and fathers who flit from relationship like flies around turds.
Given that analogy, why are they surprised that it's just a pile of shit?
The disgraced head of the Haringey department that so completely failed Baby P comes out of hiding to tell us that it is her we should be feeling sorry for - her and her like.
In her first interview since her dismissal in December, Ms Shoesmith said that Mr Balls had created a blame culture that put children at risk by demoralising social workers. She said that in the aftermath of the Baby P trial she had contemplated suicide and received death threats from members of the public, which led to her receiving police protection for herself and her daughter.
No offence, luv - but who gives a fuck about you? Shame Baby P couldn't get "police protection" from the ever present threat of death he lived under - but then again he's so unimportant compared to you, eh?
I have no love for "Mr. Balls" (just call him Balls), but it's not him that created the "blame culture" specifically, but the whole left wing movement which has spent its entire history finger pointing, but never accepting any responsibility. When no one ever owns up to responsibility you get a "blame culture" - that is the way it works.
Well, guess what - you've been found out and found wanting. A generation of socialist doctrine and "liberalism" has destroyed the traditional family - as the left wanted - particularly in the lower classes and replaced it with unmarried mothers and fathers who flit from relationship like flies around turds.
Given that analogy, why are they surprised that it's just a pile of shit?
Dave's fully comprehensive
Do any conservatives still think Cameron is one of them? Boy, are you gonna be in for a rude shock one day!
As Cameron unveils his grand plan for education - which seems an awful lot like Labour's grand plan for education to me - he also reveals that he can't understand why people still send their kids to private schools.
“I think it’s crazy that we should pay lots of money for private schools. We all pay our taxes. You should have really good state schools available for all.”
Well, the thing is, Dave "we" don't pay lots of money for private schools - only those who can afford it do. The vast majority of taxpayers pay lots of money for shitty state schools. Seriously, though, if Dave was a true conservative he'd understand why people do spend lots of money to send their kids to private schools - and thank God so many do, it saves the state a small fortune.
And it's worth pointing out that most of us did have access to really good state schools at one time - they were called "grammar schools" which used to rival public schools for the quality of pupil they turned out (and still do where still exist).
I'm not going to tell Cameron or any conservative why he, as a conservative, should understand why people send their kids to state schools - but here's a small clue. It's about choice, me old mucker. Cameron's claim that he will send his kids to state schools reveals a lot about him.
Conservative Party leader David Cameron has pledged to send his three children to state schools if the standard is high enough ....
Right. His eldest kid is a special needs school, right? The next one has just started primary school I believe - so she'd be about 5 years old, yes? So let's see - the next election has to happen in the next 18 months or so and let's assume Cameron wins. That means he'll have around a whole parliamentary term to get the "standard high enough" before his daughter goes to St Bogg's Standard Comprehensive - and he's not sure if he can do it?
Dave's plan for education is go good even he doesn't have any confidence in it.
As Cameron unveils his grand plan for education - which seems an awful lot like Labour's grand plan for education to me - he also reveals that he can't understand why people still send their kids to private schools.
“I think it’s crazy that we should pay lots of money for private schools. We all pay our taxes. You should have really good state schools available for all.”
Well, the thing is, Dave "we" don't pay lots of money for private schools - only those who can afford it do. The vast majority of taxpayers pay lots of money for shitty state schools. Seriously, though, if Dave was a true conservative he'd understand why people do spend lots of money to send their kids to private schools - and thank God so many do, it saves the state a small fortune.
And it's worth pointing out that most of us did have access to really good state schools at one time - they were called "grammar schools" which used to rival public schools for the quality of pupil they turned out (and still do where still exist).
I'm not going to tell Cameron or any conservative why he, as a conservative, should understand why people send their kids to state schools - but here's a small clue. It's about choice, me old mucker. Cameron's claim that he will send his kids to state schools reveals a lot about him.
Conservative Party leader David Cameron has pledged to send his three children to state schools if the standard is high enough ....
Right. His eldest kid is a special needs school, right? The next one has just started primary school I believe - so she'd be about 5 years old, yes? So let's see - the next election has to happen in the next 18 months or so and let's assume Cameron wins. That means he'll have around a whole parliamentary term to get the "standard high enough" before his daughter goes to St Bogg's Standard Comprehensive - and he's not sure if he can do it?
Dave's plan for education is go good even he doesn't have any confidence in it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)