Another excellent comment piece from Janet Daley in The Telegraph that nails several points that reflect my own opinions on democracy, the constitution and reform.
Suddenly it's all about reforming the constitution. How did that happen? A minute ago, we were talking about the misdemeanours (or perhaps in some cases, the felonies) of individual MPs and now we find ourselves plunged into a full-scale reinvention of the British parliamentary system.
How indeed. I've been wondering myself why it is that discovering that a few MPs have been taking the opportunity to line their own pockets (or their spouses) is reason for reforming our parliamentary system. I've also been wondering why so many people have been willing to fall for it.
I listened to the awful Andrew Marr interviewing Gordon Brown this morning and all Marr seemed interested in talking about was his own personal agenda for parliamentary reform - in particular the House of Lords as an elected second chamber. In case you didn't notice, it's the elected representatives who've been giving the British taxpayers a right royal seeing to over a barrel for the last decade or so. How the hell does it help to have twice as many on the fiddle?
Daley goes on to question the meaning of democracy and Cameron's big ideas for improving it.
A living, vibrant democratic process is about argument, or it is about nothing: if there is no argument, the voters have no choice and therefore no power. If all the parties offer them pretty similar, socially modish versions of the conventional wisdom, they will first become apathetic, then dismissive, then disgusted.
Exactly what I've been saying for ages. We do not have a democracy because there is no real choice. All the main parties have the same fundamental principles and policies that differ only in detail and implementation. Daley also recognises that the possibility of any sort of debate is stifled by the surrounding culture.
If the political culture – which means not just the parties but the BBC and the school curriculum – suppresses real, principled argument on substantive issues (the social consequences of multiculturalism, or welfare dependency; the effect of egalitarianism on education) then no number of new mechanisms for re-engaging people with politics will have much effect. How exciting would it be to vote in a primary for your local parliamentary candidate if all the contenders were conforming to the same line about the most contentious and urgent issues of the day?
There's a real danger in my opinion - and I do mean danger - that this row over a few MPs fiddling their expenses is somehow going to snowball into a demand for constitutional reform when there is fundamentally nothing wrong with our constitution. It's been effective for centuries in delivering democracy and limiting the power of the state - the only problem with it now is that our parliament is stuffed full of left wing socialist modernisers hell bent on turning Britain into a model of the EUSSR.
The problem is not the constitution or our parliament - its our political parties, their leadership and their contempt for Britain, our parliament and our constitution.
Remember, under our constitution it was illegal for Edward Heath to take us into the European Union. To do this he pushed through the European Communities Act of 1972 and overrule our constitution - much like Hitler used an Enabling Act to overrule the Weimar Constitution and seize total power. In 2006, the Blair government pushed through the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill - a further enabling act to grant extensive powers to government.
Taking such measures even in times when our nation faced a dire and existential threat is unheard of - for our governments to have done so twice in the last 40 years tells you of the contempt they have for the constitution and what they really mean by "democracy".
The only steps we need to take to reform our constitution are to repeal these two Acts. Once that done we will have properly limited and accountable government again - all we would need to do after that is restore the Lords so that we have a proper check and balance to temper the excesses of the elected representatives.
Sunday, May 31, 2009
Ranting Stan's Sunday Drive: Vauxhall Firenza Droop Snoot
With Vauxhall teetering on the brink I thought it would be appropriate to feature one of their cars and what better than one of the rarest and most dramatic cars ever to bear the Griffin badge - the Firenza Droop Snoot Coupe.I don't think the Droop Snoot was an official name - doesn't sound like the sort of thing that they'd come up with in the committees they use to decide these things - instead I think the actual name was Firenza HPC (High Performance Coupe) and that was exactly what it was.
With a 2.3 litre engine developing some 132bhp the Firenza wasn't just quick for it's time, it's quick even by today's standards, capable of reaching 60mph in under 8 seconds and going on to 125 mph or more. The Firenza coupe was Vauxhall's answer to the all-conquering Ford Capri, but never got anywhere near that in terms of numbers sold, but the introduction of the Droop Snoot would surely have ruffled a few Ford feathers had Vauxhall's timing not been so lousy.
The Droop Snoot was launched at the time of the seventies oil crisis and, consequently, never sold in the numbers hoped for with barely a couple of hundred finding owners. As a result, the Droop Snoot was a rare sight on British roads even in its heyday - while today what few remain rarely venture out of their heated, dehumidified garages except on perfect summer days to go to some show somewhere.
That's a real shame, because these cars were special. I never drove one, but saw at first hand one day in the mid-eighties just how quick they were. I was driving my company Ford Capri 2.8i along a country road in Berkshire one afternoon when a Droop Snoot cruised up behind me - that front end was a seriously intimidating sight in your rear view mirror!
Recognising the car for what it was and the fact that the driver fancied a bit of a run I decided to give him a shot and pushed the Capri's throttle to the floor. The Capri was no slouch, but that Firenza hung on to my tail all the way as we flicked through tight turns and growled around sweeping curves. Even on the few longish straights where I fancied the more modern and, on paper, quicker Capri would leave the Firenza behind he hung even when we topped 100mph.
The Firenza finally passed me with an outrageous (and rather dangerous) overtake on approach to a humped back bridge - I slowed down to go over it and he blasted past me with all four wheels lifting from the tarmac as he literally flew over the bridge.
I think that manoeuvre shook him up a bit, because he instantly slowed down after that and I soon got past him again - but he wasn't trying by now. Eventually, we came to a junction where I was turning right and he was going left - as we stood side by side he looked across at me and acknowledged our "duel" with a salute which I duly returned. It was terribly irresponsible, but terrific fun and the sight of that Firenza's nose looming in my rear view mirror remains with me to this day.
Saturday, May 30, 2009
If not UKIP then who?
The Telegraph leader today says that a vote for UKIP in the upcoming EU elections is a "wasted vote"
The European and local elections offer an opportunity for a protest vote, a vote that expresses disgust at the moral collapse of an entire political class. But there is only one meaningful protest that the electorate can register at the polls, and that is one that helps force the Government to call a general election in the near future. And that excludes voting Ukip.
Why does it? The only reason Brown will call an election is if he believes he has a chance of winning it. The only thing that will make him believe that is if the Tories get a bloody good kicking at the EU elections - and the only party that is likely to do that is UKIP.
The latest polls look grim for Brown - with one suggesting that they are likely to come third behind UKIP with just 16% of the vote - but the same polls are not exactly inspiring for the Tories as they are expected to collect a mere 30%.
A 14% lead over the Labour Party might look good on paper, but a share of just 30% for the main party in opposition to a government in such a disarray is, frankly, shit.
The Telegraph then goes on to say we shouldn't vote for the BNP either.
If a vote for Ukip is extremely foolish, a vote for the BNP is something much worse. We argued the other day that this clownish outfit is not as dangerous as it would like us to think; nor should its political programme be taken very seriously, as it is crude and self-contradictory.
This demonstrates a complete misunderstanding of the current mindset of the electorate. The Tories are not gaining support lost by Labour and there is no evidence to suggest that it is UKIP who are benefiting from Labour supporters drifting away from their usual refuge. It is Labour supporters who are more likely to vote BNP.
The suggestion that those of us who are likely to vote for minor parties are wasting our time is ridiculous. How else can we demonstrate to both main parties that we want a new approach to the EU and a complete review of our relationship with that organisation and our own parties?
If we don't vote for UKIP then who should we vote for? The Tories? Let's suppose that a considerable proportion of potential UKIP voters did vote Tory - how, exactly would a poll rating of, say, 40% Tory to 16% Labour encourage Gordon Brown to call an election which he knows would result in a complete stuffing for his party?
The Telegraph seems to think that the expenses row is reason enough to call an election. It might be, I don't know - (though, in my opinion, it is not) but what I do know is that all three main parties are tainted by the same brush in that row so if that is the reason why The Telegraph wants an election they should be encouraging us to vote for anyone BUT the main parties.
The European and local elections offer an opportunity for a protest vote, a vote that expresses disgust at the moral collapse of an entire political class. But there is only one meaningful protest that the electorate can register at the polls, and that is one that helps force the Government to call a general election in the near future. And that excludes voting Ukip.
Why does it? The only reason Brown will call an election is if he believes he has a chance of winning it. The only thing that will make him believe that is if the Tories get a bloody good kicking at the EU elections - and the only party that is likely to do that is UKIP.
The latest polls look grim for Brown - with one suggesting that they are likely to come third behind UKIP with just 16% of the vote - but the same polls are not exactly inspiring for the Tories as they are expected to collect a mere 30%.
A 14% lead over the Labour Party might look good on paper, but a share of just 30% for the main party in opposition to a government in such a disarray is, frankly, shit.
The Telegraph then goes on to say we shouldn't vote for the BNP either.
If a vote for Ukip is extremely foolish, a vote for the BNP is something much worse. We argued the other day that this clownish outfit is not as dangerous as it would like us to think; nor should its political programme be taken very seriously, as it is crude and self-contradictory.
This demonstrates a complete misunderstanding of the current mindset of the electorate. The Tories are not gaining support lost by Labour and there is no evidence to suggest that it is UKIP who are benefiting from Labour supporters drifting away from their usual refuge. It is Labour supporters who are more likely to vote BNP.
The suggestion that those of us who are likely to vote for minor parties are wasting our time is ridiculous. How else can we demonstrate to both main parties that we want a new approach to the EU and a complete review of our relationship with that organisation and our own parties?
If we don't vote for UKIP then who should we vote for? The Tories? Let's suppose that a considerable proportion of potential UKIP voters did vote Tory - how, exactly would a poll rating of, say, 40% Tory to 16% Labour encourage Gordon Brown to call an election which he knows would result in a complete stuffing for his party?
The Telegraph seems to think that the expenses row is reason enough to call an election. It might be, I don't know - (though, in my opinion, it is not) but what I do know is that all three main parties are tainted by the same brush in that row so if that is the reason why The Telegraph wants an election they should be encouraging us to vote for anyone BUT the main parties.
Friday, May 29, 2009
Vive la France!
The rebuff to the Queen by the organisers of this years Normandy commemorative events has brought a sharp rebuke from Steven Glover in The Mail.
A diminutive egomaniac, the stain of Nazi collaboration and why the French can't forgive us for saving them in the War.
Actually, I think Glover is being a little harsh on the French. Yes, it is true that Sarkozy is a short arse with a big ego. Yes, a considerable number of the French - particularly those in authority - were a little too willing to assist their Nazi conquerors and yes, it is true that the French ruling elite won't ever forgive us for coming to their rescue - but I don't think it's fair to lump all the French in with that.
I've travelled a lot in France over the decades and the overwhelming response of most French people I encounter in the rural districts and provincial towns is immense gratitude to the sacrifice of the British servicemen who rescued their nation in both wars- particularly in Normandy itself.
You only have to visit the immaculately tended war grave cemeteries to see how important it is to the people of France that they recognise and pay tribute to the men of our nation who came to help them in their hour of need.
Glover makes the mistake of assuming that the views of the still, predominantly, Gaullist ruling and metropolitan elite are the views of the majority. I don't believe they are. I love France and the French people, but I keep well away from its over rated and exceedingly snobbish (and liberal left) capital.
I prefer to keep to the rural districts and smaller towns where I've always found they reserve a warm welcome and considerable hospitality for British visitors. They are extremely parochial and incredibly conservative (even by my standards), but still very welcoming.
Just because the French ruling elite can't show their gratitude, don't assume that is the same for French people in general.
A diminutive egomaniac, the stain of Nazi collaboration and why the French can't forgive us for saving them in the War.
Actually, I think Glover is being a little harsh on the French. Yes, it is true that Sarkozy is a short arse with a big ego. Yes, a considerable number of the French - particularly those in authority - were a little too willing to assist their Nazi conquerors and yes, it is true that the French ruling elite won't ever forgive us for coming to their rescue - but I don't think it's fair to lump all the French in with that.
I've travelled a lot in France over the decades and the overwhelming response of most French people I encounter in the rural districts and provincial towns is immense gratitude to the sacrifice of the British servicemen who rescued their nation in both wars- particularly in Normandy itself.
You only have to visit the immaculately tended war grave cemeteries to see how important it is to the people of France that they recognise and pay tribute to the men of our nation who came to help them in their hour of need.
Glover makes the mistake of assuming that the views of the still, predominantly, Gaullist ruling and metropolitan elite are the views of the majority. I don't believe they are. I love France and the French people, but I keep well away from its over rated and exceedingly snobbish (and liberal left) capital.
I prefer to keep to the rural districts and smaller towns where I've always found they reserve a warm welcome and considerable hospitality for British visitors. They are extremely parochial and incredibly conservative (even by my standards), but still very welcoming.
Just because the French ruling elite can't show their gratitude, don't assume that is the same for French people in general.
Thursday, May 28, 2009
A glimmer of understanding
At last, someone over on The Telegraph is starting to think for himself! Edmund Conway breaks from the "blame the banks" rank and finds that the cause of the economic crisis isn't quite what it seems.
The financial disaster was the ultimate manifestation of a far deeper problem – a wholesale malfunction of the global economic system.
Ah well - close but not quite. The "global economic system" hasn't malfunctioned - it is working exactly as one would expect it to.
For decades, we in the Anglophone West borrowed too much, while the other half of the world saved too much. It was the tectonic collision of these imbalances which caused the crisis, which brought about the worst recession since the 1930s, and which could trigger another bust decades in the future.
That's more like it! There was a massive market "imbalance" - and what does the market do with imbalances? It finds a way to correct them - that is exactly how the market works. It hasn't malfunctioned - it has performed entirely according to the theory.
The history of economics over the past two centuries revolves around this quandary over international trade imbalances, and the series of crises they have caused.
Yep - and we thought we'd found a way around it choosing to ignore the history of economics. Arrogant or stupid? I'm betting on arrogant AND stupid.
To try and get around this imbalance we relied on debt. To fund this debt we relied on rising property values resulting in a huge distortion in the housing market - both here in the UK and in the USA .... and in Europe to a lesser extent (Europe isn't so hooked on property ownership as the UK and USA).
You can not buck the market. It will always, eventually, find a way to correct an imbalance and that is what it is doing now. Our governments are desperately firefighting to prevent that causing a complete and utter economic crash in the west, but ultimately the market has to correct.
The only way for any nation to withstand that is to protect its economy - that is the ONLY way any nation can cope with a market imbalance. Anything else is just so much hogwash. History proves this.
The financial disaster was the ultimate manifestation of a far deeper problem – a wholesale malfunction of the global economic system.
Ah well - close but not quite. The "global economic system" hasn't malfunctioned - it is working exactly as one would expect it to.
For decades, we in the Anglophone West borrowed too much, while the other half of the world saved too much. It was the tectonic collision of these imbalances which caused the crisis, which brought about the worst recession since the 1930s, and which could trigger another bust decades in the future.
That's more like it! There was a massive market "imbalance" - and what does the market do with imbalances? It finds a way to correct them - that is exactly how the market works. It hasn't malfunctioned - it has performed entirely according to the theory.
The history of economics over the past two centuries revolves around this quandary over international trade imbalances, and the series of crises they have caused.
Yep - and we thought we'd found a way around it choosing to ignore the history of economics. Arrogant or stupid? I'm betting on arrogant AND stupid.
To try and get around this imbalance we relied on debt. To fund this debt we relied on rising property values resulting in a huge distortion in the housing market - both here in the UK and in the USA .... and in Europe to a lesser extent (Europe isn't so hooked on property ownership as the UK and USA).
You can not buck the market. It will always, eventually, find a way to correct an imbalance and that is what it is doing now. Our governments are desperately firefighting to prevent that causing a complete and utter economic crash in the west, but ultimately the market has to correct.
The only way for any nation to withstand that is to protect its economy - that is the ONLY way any nation can cope with a market imbalance. Anything else is just so much hogwash. History proves this.
Protectionism at work
While our own government dithers impotently on the sidelines, the German government are taking direct action to protect workers and production for Germany as they bail out GM Europe and effectively take control of the company.
The German government has pledged billions of euros in loan guarantees to the company that takes over GM Europe.
Of course, the German government are not going to pledge billions of euros of German taxpayers cash to support British workers.
Professor David Bailey, a car expert at Coventry University Business School, said that, taking into account suppliers as well as Vauxhall itself, the total number of jobs that could be affected by the takeover is between 15,000 and 20,000.
This is the modern form of protectionism in action - with the German government carefully working around the EU rules to ensure that they protect their industrial base and their workers. Rather than clear, open and transparent rules protection of industry and workers is achieved through horse trading and back room deals done in secret.
The British government has blown its chance again. The deals will be done without them and the victims will be British workers in British jobs. It won't result in the immediate closure of the Vauxhall plants - Vauxhall is, after all, one of the few profitable parts of GM - but ultimately you will see production of the Astra move to Germany.
The crisis at GM was a golden chance for the British government to save the British car manufacturing industry - possibly the last chance. They've blown it.
The German government has pledged billions of euros in loan guarantees to the company that takes over GM Europe.
Of course, the German government are not going to pledge billions of euros of German taxpayers cash to support British workers.
Professor David Bailey, a car expert at Coventry University Business School, said that, taking into account suppliers as well as Vauxhall itself, the total number of jobs that could be affected by the takeover is between 15,000 and 20,000.
This is the modern form of protectionism in action - with the German government carefully working around the EU rules to ensure that they protect their industrial base and their workers. Rather than clear, open and transparent rules protection of industry and workers is achieved through horse trading and back room deals done in secret.
The British government has blown its chance again. The deals will be done without them and the victims will be British workers in British jobs. It won't result in the immediate closure of the Vauxhall plants - Vauxhall is, after all, one of the few profitable parts of GM - but ultimately you will see production of the Astra move to Germany.
The crisis at GM was a golden chance for the British government to save the British car manufacturing industry - possibly the last chance. They've blown it.
Wednesday, May 27, 2009
Why do we keep falling for the same old lie?
It's incredible. It's been thirty six years since we joined the EU - or the Common Market as it was then. Since then we've had a succession of Prime Ministers - Heath, Wilson, Callaghan, Thatcher, Major, Blair and Brown - and a number of party leaders - Foot, Smith, Steel, Owen, Jenkins, Williams, Ashdown, Kennedy, Campbell, Clegg, Hague, Duncan-Smith, Howard - all telling us that we can change the EU better from inside.
And not one of them ever has.
Nobody - ever - has changed the EU in any way that it did not want to change.
Now I hear Cameron make one speech full of empty promises which he knows he can not keep and we're all falling for the same old lie. Return power from Brussels to Britain! Yeah - like that has EVER happened before. Thatcher tried - Thatcher failed. All she managed to achieve was a minor rebate on our expenses as a concession for giving away even more of our sovereignty - and that concession was time limited and eventually given up by Blair.
And yet I still hear what I would normally consider to be reasonably sensible, rational conservatives saying that Cameron can change the EU!
How many times are you people going to fall for this garbage?
The objective of the EU is to achieve political union into a single EU state. For the first 30 years they didn't actually admit that, but for the last five years or so it has been more or less openly admitted.
It will not be stopped. It will not turn back. It will not change.
Come on conservatives of Britain - WAKE UP!!!!
And not one of them ever has.
Nobody - ever - has changed the EU in any way that it did not want to change.
Now I hear Cameron make one speech full of empty promises which he knows he can not keep and we're all falling for the same old lie. Return power from Brussels to Britain! Yeah - like that has EVER happened before. Thatcher tried - Thatcher failed. All she managed to achieve was a minor rebate on our expenses as a concession for giving away even more of our sovereignty - and that concession was time limited and eventually given up by Blair.
And yet I still hear what I would normally consider to be reasonably sensible, rational conservatives saying that Cameron can change the EU!
How many times are you people going to fall for this garbage?
The objective of the EU is to achieve political union into a single EU state. For the first 30 years they didn't actually admit that, but for the last five years or so it has been more or less openly admitted.
It will not be stopped. It will not turn back. It will not change.
Come on conservatives of Britain - WAKE UP!!!!
Tuesday, May 26, 2009
Blair in a blue tie
Much is being made today on Cameron's speech promising to give power to the people.
“I believe there is only one way out of this national crisis we face," he said. "We need a massive, sweeping, radical redistribution of power.
“From the state to citizens; from the government to parliament; from Whitehall to communities; from Brussels to Britain; from judges to the people; from bureaucracy to democracy.
“Through decentralisation, transparency and accountability, we must take power away from the political elite and hand it to the man and woman in the street.”
Yeah, yeah - fine words, but with little meaning behind them. With as much as 80% of our laws originating from the EU Commission, rubber stamped by our parliament and implemented through the direction of a myriad of quangos and agencies with no public accountability there is no prospect of this happening under a Cameron government anymore than there is under a Labour or Lib Dem government.
As long as we remain part of the EU we can not change that and Cameron is committed to keeping Britain in the EU.
I'll give Cameron credit for being able to tap into the mood of public opinion as well as Blair used to do, but he also shares with Blair an empty void of principle behind the rhetoric.
Cameron knows he can't deliver the promise of moving power from "Brussels to Britain" without withdrawing from the EU - and without that first step he can not decentralise or reverse the corporatisation of government.
I'll now wait and see if anyone decides to challenge him on this. It should be interesting to see how he answers them if and when they do, but given the media craven acceptance - no, their preference - for Cameron as the heir to Blair I doubt that they will.
“I believe there is only one way out of this national crisis we face," he said. "We need a massive, sweeping, radical redistribution of power.
“From the state to citizens; from the government to parliament; from Whitehall to communities; from Brussels to Britain; from judges to the people; from bureaucracy to democracy.
“Through decentralisation, transparency and accountability, we must take power away from the political elite and hand it to the man and woman in the street.”
Yeah, yeah - fine words, but with little meaning behind them. With as much as 80% of our laws originating from the EU Commission, rubber stamped by our parliament and implemented through the direction of a myriad of quangos and agencies with no public accountability there is no prospect of this happening under a Cameron government anymore than there is under a Labour or Lib Dem government.
As long as we remain part of the EU we can not change that and Cameron is committed to keeping Britain in the EU.
I'll give Cameron credit for being able to tap into the mood of public opinion as well as Blair used to do, but he also shares with Blair an empty void of principle behind the rhetoric.
Cameron knows he can't deliver the promise of moving power from "Brussels to Britain" without withdrawing from the EU - and without that first step he can not decentralise or reverse the corporatisation of government.
I'll now wait and see if anyone decides to challenge him on this. It should be interesting to see how he answers them if and when they do, but given the media craven acceptance - no, their preference - for Cameron as the heir to Blair I doubt that they will.
Monday, May 25, 2009
Beware the "modernisers"
I see a couple of Labour "modernisers" have taken the opportunity of the expenses scandal to launch their own agenda for change. Not the change we need - a fresh crop of politicians untainted by the discredited party machines - but the electoral and parliamentary change that THEY want.
Alan Johnson launches a daring attempt to lead Labour’s renewal today, urging Gordon Brown to offer voters a referendum on electoral reform.
Charming. And what will be on offer? A choice between what they want or what they really want? Some choice! The only referendum we really want is whether to be part of the EU or not - how about we start with that one before we discuss anything else?
“The current public mood of anger and disquiet . . . demands a response,” the Health Secretary writes in The Times today. In an article setting out his modernising credentials, he adds: “We need to overhaul the engine, not just clean the upholstery."
Actually, what we want is to sack the useless grease monkeys who've buggered up the machine and left their filthy pawprints all over the upholstery. Seriously, why would we trust this bunch to tinker with the engine of British democracy when they've sent the last 30 years smashing into it with sledge hammer?
Voters should be given a choice between the “elegant” option of Alternative Vote Plus and the present first-past-the-post system in a referendum held alongside the next general election, he says. “This is a genuinely radical alternative that only Labour in government can facilitate.”
Elegant, my arse! Alternative Vote Plus is about as elegant as an elephant on ice skates. It's a complex, bureaucratic nightmare likely to leave us with even more of a one party state than we are now or governed by coalitions incapable of making the decisions necessary for government to function correctly.
There is nothing much wrong with our current system - it has worked successfully for donkeys years without any fuss. The problem lies with the corrupt, self-serving politicians who now infest our parliament and the overly powerful political parties who dominate the media and the agenda.
What we need to do is hold fast against these "modernisers" whose real intention is not to improve democracy, but to limit it further than they already have done. For the last fifty years they have been conducting a slow motion coup d'etat in Britain, but have been unable to apply the final coup de grace. They see this as their opportunity to do that and we need to be wary of them.
Alan Johnson launches a daring attempt to lead Labour’s renewal today, urging Gordon Brown to offer voters a referendum on electoral reform.
Charming. And what will be on offer? A choice between what they want or what they really want? Some choice! The only referendum we really want is whether to be part of the EU or not - how about we start with that one before we discuss anything else?
“The current public mood of anger and disquiet . . . demands a response,” the Health Secretary writes in The Times today. In an article setting out his modernising credentials, he adds: “We need to overhaul the engine, not just clean the upholstery."
Actually, what we want is to sack the useless grease monkeys who've buggered up the machine and left their filthy pawprints all over the upholstery. Seriously, why would we trust this bunch to tinker with the engine of British democracy when they've sent the last 30 years smashing into it with sledge hammer?
Voters should be given a choice between the “elegant” option of Alternative Vote Plus and the present first-past-the-post system in a referendum held alongside the next general election, he says. “This is a genuinely radical alternative that only Labour in government can facilitate.”
Elegant, my arse! Alternative Vote Plus is about as elegant as an elephant on ice skates. It's a complex, bureaucratic nightmare likely to leave us with even more of a one party state than we are now or governed by coalitions incapable of making the decisions necessary for government to function correctly.
There is nothing much wrong with our current system - it has worked successfully for donkeys years without any fuss. The problem lies with the corrupt, self-serving politicians who now infest our parliament and the overly powerful political parties who dominate the media and the agenda.
What we need to do is hold fast against these "modernisers" whose real intention is not to improve democracy, but to limit it further than they already have done. For the last fifty years they have been conducting a slow motion coup d'etat in Britain, but have been unable to apply the final coup de grace. They see this as their opportunity to do that and we need to be wary of them.
Robbing hoods
Quietly slipped out beneath the radar of the MP expenses scandal comes the revelation that some 700,000 hone owners have been paying too much council tax year - and ministers knew about it!
Officials have known since at least 2005 that many homes were in the wrong tax bands and may have overpaid by tens of millions.
But ministers tried to keep the details secret because publicising them would have embarrassed the Government and reduced its tax income.
That is disgraceful. Furthermore, I'd question whether it is legal - surely it constitutes theft or fraud to knowingly take money which did not belong to you? There's certainly been enough of a furore over that NZ couple who disappeared after their bank wrongly put 10 million dollars into their account - if it's illegal for them to take money paid to them incorrectly then it must be illegal for our government to do the same?
Regardless of the legal implications, the sheer contempt for taxpayers is the issue here. They've known about this issue for at least four years (it doesn't say how many years this has been going on - only how long they've known about it). They weren't concerned about how this would affect the people paying the tax - only about how it would look in the media!
The minutes read: "Concern was expressed about the possibly knock-on implications for billing authorities and adverse press coverage this could generate in the current climate."
Who was in charge of the Treasury in 2005?
A certain chap called Gordon Brown.
Officials have known since at least 2005 that many homes were in the wrong tax bands and may have overpaid by tens of millions.
But ministers tried to keep the details secret because publicising them would have embarrassed the Government and reduced its tax income.
That is disgraceful. Furthermore, I'd question whether it is legal - surely it constitutes theft or fraud to knowingly take money which did not belong to you? There's certainly been enough of a furore over that NZ couple who disappeared after their bank wrongly put 10 million dollars into their account - if it's illegal for them to take money paid to them incorrectly then it must be illegal for our government to do the same?
Regardless of the legal implications, the sheer contempt for taxpayers is the issue here. They've known about this issue for at least four years (it doesn't say how many years this has been going on - only how long they've known about it). They weren't concerned about how this would affect the people paying the tax - only about how it would look in the media!
The minutes read: "Concern was expressed about the possibly knock-on implications for billing authorities and adverse press coverage this could generate in the current climate."
Who was in charge of the Treasury in 2005?
A certain chap called Gordon Brown.
Sunday, May 24, 2009
Ranting Stan's Sunday Drive: Standard Vanguard
I suspect that most British people under the age of 40 have probably never heard of the Standard Motor Company, but the Coventry based manufacturer was a familiar name in Britain up until the early sixties. Even for someone as old as me the Standard was a rare sight by the time I was old enough to appreciate cars, but the marque remains high on my radar mostly due to the sheer loyalty that so many Standard owners seemed to have for their cars.In particular there was one good friend of mine from junior school whose father had bought Standards from new since the war. When they stopped using the name, preferring to use the Triumph badge they acquired in 1945 he stopped buying new cars and continued to run his 1960 Standard Vanguard up until he died in the late 1990's. Considering he was a solicitor and not short of a bob or two, that is particularly surprising.
The Standard Vanguard Phase I was launched in 1948, but was originally an export only model and didn't make it's debut on British streets until 1950. The car featured a very American look which was quite a departure from the usual British designed car of the time.
Obviously, though, the version of the Vanguard most familiar to me was the later Vanguard Phase III - as owned by my friend's father. By this time the Vanguard had lost most of it's US influence and looked much more like it's contemporaries. From what I recall of it, it was an outstandingly comfortable car to ride in even if it wasn't particularly quick for a car with a 2 litre lump under the bonnet.
Despite my friend's dad's affection for the marque, there weren't enough people sharing his love for the Standard name and in 1963 it was quietly dropped with the Triumph name taking prominence - except, oddly enough, in India where the name Standard continued to be used up until the mid 80's with the last car to carry the name being a version of the Rover SD1.
Friday, May 22, 2009
About those "green shoots"
I think the frost just got to them.
Household spending tumbles to lowest level since 1980 as wages suffer record fall.
City analysts yesterday described the figures as both 'staggering' and 'awful'.
How about staggeringly awful?
Most companies have been running down stocks held in their warehouses. These inventories have fallen at their fastest rate since 1948.
In fact stock levels are now so low that firms will now have to start issuing orders, which will help manufacturers.
Indeed. Unfortunately, few of those manufacturers are in Britain. So a good proportion of that £125 billion recently pumped into the economy by the Bank of England will float off abroad never to be seen again - bye bye money, bye bye.
We're fast running out of things we can flog off to foreign companies to try and recoup some of that cash. The Royal Mail is up next, but after that ..... perhaps we can privatise parliament? It might not work any better, but at least as a privately run enterprise they are likely to find their expenses tightened up a bit if they were run by the Tata Group.
The Mail is also suggesting that Labour ministers are backing the idea of an October election - which sounds like a barking mad idea given the current climate, but one that I would not rule out.
Mr Brown is said to be preparing a 'national plan' showing how Britain will climb out of recession, to be announced after the expected rout in the local and European elections.
Yeeeesss - but more importantly it will be just about the time when the "stimulus" has had its greatest effect so that those "green shoots" look a little more promising, but not too late so that the looming prospect of rampant inflation and stagnating economy has appeared over the horizon. It may not be enough to win the election, but it might limit the damage - and then, of course, once the tsunami of national debt, stagflation and burgeoning unemployment finally hit home it will be jolly old Dave and the Cameroons running the show.
Two years of sheer hell for the Tories as they are forced to radically cut spending, massively raise taxes and struggle to maintain order before they are forced to the polls once more and another Labour landslide.
Household spending tumbles to lowest level since 1980 as wages suffer record fall.
City analysts yesterday described the figures as both 'staggering' and 'awful'.
How about staggeringly awful?
Most companies have been running down stocks held in their warehouses. These inventories have fallen at their fastest rate since 1948.
In fact stock levels are now so low that firms will now have to start issuing orders, which will help manufacturers.
Indeed. Unfortunately, few of those manufacturers are in Britain. So a good proportion of that £125 billion recently pumped into the economy by the Bank of England will float off abroad never to be seen again - bye bye money, bye bye.
We're fast running out of things we can flog off to foreign companies to try and recoup some of that cash. The Royal Mail is up next, but after that ..... perhaps we can privatise parliament? It might not work any better, but at least as a privately run enterprise they are likely to find their expenses tightened up a bit if they were run by the Tata Group.
The Mail is also suggesting that Labour ministers are backing the idea of an October election - which sounds like a barking mad idea given the current climate, but one that I would not rule out.
Mr Brown is said to be preparing a 'national plan' showing how Britain will climb out of recession, to be announced after the expected rout in the local and European elections.
Yeeeesss - but more importantly it will be just about the time when the "stimulus" has had its greatest effect so that those "green shoots" look a little more promising, but not too late so that the looming prospect of rampant inflation and stagnating economy has appeared over the horizon. It may not be enough to win the election, but it might limit the damage - and then, of course, once the tsunami of national debt, stagflation and burgeoning unemployment finally hit home it will be jolly old Dave and the Cameroons running the show.
Two years of sheer hell for the Tories as they are forced to radically cut spending, massively raise taxes and struggle to maintain order before they are forced to the polls once more and another Labour landslide.
Why relying on "comparative advantage" is chasing rainbows
Research carried out by the Institute of Education, part of the University of London, has reached the conclusion that "work-based training" is a waste of time and money and that "many courses would do little to help Britain emerge from the economic downturn".
Professor Lorna Unwin, who carried out the study alongside academics from Cardiff and Southampton universities, said: "All too often learning is regarded as something separate from work itself and is seen solely in terms of formal episodes of 'training' that can be counted and costed – the bean-counting approach.
We'll come on to the "bean-counting" in a moment, but first ponder this.
At the moment, official estimates state there are around five million adults in Britain lacking basic literacy, while 17 million struggle with simple arithmetic.
That 17 million adults equates to more than one half of the available British workforce. That on it's own is a statistic that damns any pretence that the comprehensive school programme has been a success - if we had known, when they embarked on the wrecking of our education system, that after 40 years half our adults would be barely numerate with a further 5 million barely able to read would we have gone ahead with it?
Why do we persist with the lie that comprehensive education is "working" when it clearly isn't? The answer, of course, is that comprehensive education is part of the progressive doctrine - and as all our parties are progressive parties, none of them will actually admit the damning truth.
However, this condemns them.
Ministers have encouraged adults to enrol on courses to boost the level of basic skills.
If comprehensive education was working, why would ministers have to encourage adults to enrol on courses to boost the level of basic skills. That is what we have eleven years of state education for! If they've not reached the required level of basic skill in eleven years then there is clearly something wrong with the system.
So, state education is not providing our population with even the basic skills - but that's not the end of the problem.
In the latest study, researchers investigated the different courses being offered across Britain but insisted many were "unrelated" to businesses' needs.
It blamed Government targets which they said were fixated by the number of people with qualifications - rather than the type of course.
Which brings us back to the bean-counters. The Labour government's fixation with targets is what drives the bean-counting - the aim of which is not specifically to improve standards, but to provide the government with the figures so that they can feel good about themselves - and to use as propaganda.
Take the goal of having 50% of school leavers attending university - a spurious figure plucked out of the air. Why 50% - why not 70% or 100%? The important thing about university is not how many are going, but that we have the required number for our needs doing the courses that our industries and businesses require. Thirty years ago or so, that was roughly around 30% - and that was at a time when we a considerably larger industrial base than we do now.
I don't know how close we are to that 50%, but what is apparent is that many graduates are struggling to find employment related to their degree. What is the point of spending countless thousands of pounds educating someone to degree standard just so that they can work in McDonalds or end up using those skills in some other country?
The article goes on to bash the quango system.
Authors of the study - Improving Working as Learning - also criticised the complex system of bodies set up to lead training and skills initiatives.
"What was once a collection of disparate bodies jostling for the right to serve and influence employers has itself become a many-headed bureaucratic hydra, which, in turn, devours part of the funding intended for the 'real' economy," researchers said.
Not just "part" of the funding - a considerable chunk of it. The Learning and Skills Council alone has a budget of some £10.4 billion! - and that is just one of the bewildering myriad of bodies set up in the education sector.
All of this brings me to my point. I keep hearing people - in newspapers, websites, blogs and so on - talking about our "comparative advantage" in the globalised economy. This "comparative advantage" is based on the belief that we, as a supposedly developed high technology nation, have skills which the rest of the world needs. Although we don't make anything anymore, they argue, that doesn't matter because we have the skills to develop the technology and design the things that the rest of the world wants.
BULLSHIT!
Our education system is so completely wrecked that half our workforce is barely literate or numerate - and it isn't getting any better. Meanwhile, those developing nations are churning out hundreds of thousands of highly qualified, highly skilled and exceptionally competent graduates year after year. Why on earth would they come to us for something they can get better and cheaper in their own nation?
There are only two areas where we maintain any sort of comparative advantage with the rest of the world - arms and pharmaceuticals. Our arms industry is shrinking rapidly with the bulk of it now residing with one company - Bae - while pharmaceuticals gets a universally bad press thanks to the demonic outpourings of the left who moan about these companies "profiteering" from the sick and needy in the third world (does anyone realise how much it costs to develop a drug, how long it takes to get it approved and how little time is left on the patent by the time it gets to market? - and that's with the 1 in 20 drugs that ever get that far! What are they supposed to do - give it away?).
Neither of those two industries are sufficient to maintain that comparative advantage - and pretty soon we won't be world leaders in those areas either.
Without a decent education system to produce the workforce we need we can not maintain a comparative advantage. Without a decent industrial and production base we can not maintain an economy that matches our living standards - something has to give. Any changes we make in our education system will take a generation or more to bear fruit - even if we started today we would not feel the benefit for 25 years or more and there is no indication whatsoever from any of our political parties that they have either the will or the know how to do that anyway.
Without that decent education system we have no comparative advantage. There are seventeen million adults in Britain who can not add up properly - there are probably three times that many Chinese adults with high quality degrees in highly sought after subjects. How are we supposed to compete with that?
Comparative advantage does not exist for Britain. Either we adopt protectionism or we accept that we're going to have to get used to considerably lower living standards.
Professor Lorna Unwin, who carried out the study alongside academics from Cardiff and Southampton universities, said: "All too often learning is regarded as something separate from work itself and is seen solely in terms of formal episodes of 'training' that can be counted and costed – the bean-counting approach.
We'll come on to the "bean-counting" in a moment, but first ponder this.
At the moment, official estimates state there are around five million adults in Britain lacking basic literacy, while 17 million struggle with simple arithmetic.
That 17 million adults equates to more than one half of the available British workforce. That on it's own is a statistic that damns any pretence that the comprehensive school programme has been a success - if we had known, when they embarked on the wrecking of our education system, that after 40 years half our adults would be barely numerate with a further 5 million barely able to read would we have gone ahead with it?
Why do we persist with the lie that comprehensive education is "working" when it clearly isn't? The answer, of course, is that comprehensive education is part of the progressive doctrine - and as all our parties are progressive parties, none of them will actually admit the damning truth.
However, this condemns them.
Ministers have encouraged adults to enrol on courses to boost the level of basic skills.
If comprehensive education was working, why would ministers have to encourage adults to enrol on courses to boost the level of basic skills. That is what we have eleven years of state education for! If they've not reached the required level of basic skill in eleven years then there is clearly something wrong with the system.
So, state education is not providing our population with even the basic skills - but that's not the end of the problem.
In the latest study, researchers investigated the different courses being offered across Britain but insisted many were "unrelated" to businesses' needs.
It blamed Government targets which they said were fixated by the number of people with qualifications - rather than the type of course.
Which brings us back to the bean-counters. The Labour government's fixation with targets is what drives the bean-counting - the aim of which is not specifically to improve standards, but to provide the government with the figures so that they can feel good about themselves - and to use as propaganda.
Take the goal of having 50% of school leavers attending university - a spurious figure plucked out of the air. Why 50% - why not 70% or 100%? The important thing about university is not how many are going, but that we have the required number for our needs doing the courses that our industries and businesses require. Thirty years ago or so, that was roughly around 30% - and that was at a time when we a considerably larger industrial base than we do now.
I don't know how close we are to that 50%, but what is apparent is that many graduates are struggling to find employment related to their degree. What is the point of spending countless thousands of pounds educating someone to degree standard just so that they can work in McDonalds or end up using those skills in some other country?
The article goes on to bash the quango system.
Authors of the study - Improving Working as Learning - also criticised the complex system of bodies set up to lead training and skills initiatives.
"What was once a collection of disparate bodies jostling for the right to serve and influence employers has itself become a many-headed bureaucratic hydra, which, in turn, devours part of the funding intended for the 'real' economy," researchers said.
Not just "part" of the funding - a considerable chunk of it. The Learning and Skills Council alone has a budget of some £10.4 billion! - and that is just one of the bewildering myriad of bodies set up in the education sector.
All of this brings me to my point. I keep hearing people - in newspapers, websites, blogs and so on - talking about our "comparative advantage" in the globalised economy. This "comparative advantage" is based on the belief that we, as a supposedly developed high technology nation, have skills which the rest of the world needs. Although we don't make anything anymore, they argue, that doesn't matter because we have the skills to develop the technology and design the things that the rest of the world wants.
BULLSHIT!
Our education system is so completely wrecked that half our workforce is barely literate or numerate - and it isn't getting any better. Meanwhile, those developing nations are churning out hundreds of thousands of highly qualified, highly skilled and exceptionally competent graduates year after year. Why on earth would they come to us for something they can get better and cheaper in their own nation?
There are only two areas where we maintain any sort of comparative advantage with the rest of the world - arms and pharmaceuticals. Our arms industry is shrinking rapidly with the bulk of it now residing with one company - Bae - while pharmaceuticals gets a universally bad press thanks to the demonic outpourings of the left who moan about these companies "profiteering" from the sick and needy in the third world (does anyone realise how much it costs to develop a drug, how long it takes to get it approved and how little time is left on the patent by the time it gets to market? - and that's with the 1 in 20 drugs that ever get that far! What are they supposed to do - give it away?).
Neither of those two industries are sufficient to maintain that comparative advantage - and pretty soon we won't be world leaders in those areas either.
Without a decent education system to produce the workforce we need we can not maintain a comparative advantage. Without a decent industrial and production base we can not maintain an economy that matches our living standards - something has to give. Any changes we make in our education system will take a generation or more to bear fruit - even if we started today we would not feel the benefit for 25 years or more and there is no indication whatsoever from any of our political parties that they have either the will or the know how to do that anyway.
Without that decent education system we have no comparative advantage. There are seventeen million adults in Britain who can not add up properly - there are probably three times that many Chinese adults with high quality degrees in highly sought after subjects. How are we supposed to compete with that?
Comparative advantage does not exist for Britain. Either we adopt protectionism or we accept that we're going to have to get used to considerably lower living standards.
Thursday, May 21, 2009
Garbage in, garbage out
The Telegraph reports that a new "study" predicts global temperatures rise by 7C by the end of this century killing billions.
The study, carried out in unprecedented detail, projected that without "rapid and massive action" temperatures worldwide will increase by as much as 7.4C (13.3F) by 2100, from levels seen in 2000.
Scary stuff, eh? Except that the "study" is actually just another computer simulation.
The results are based on 400 trials of the new system, each time using slightly different variations in data at the start to try and iron out errors.
Hmmm, I wonder if any of these "trials" started at a baseline of - say - 1940 and projected to 1980 and when man made CO2 output was at its peak but temperatures declined? How do they know that their projections are accurate when we have no knowledge of what the climate will actually be in 2100?
No doubt the alarmists will cite this as "evidence" of dangerous man-made global warming.
Friends of the Earth climate campaigner Tom Picken said that if the new research by MIT is accurate the results for the planet would be catastrophic.
Oh, they have. Well. Mr Picken - when you have proven that they are accurate, come back and tell us. See you in a hundred years. Meanwhile, the sun continues to doze, the earth continues to cool, the Arctic ice refuses to go away and the Antarctic ice continues to expand.
All of which the computer models failed completely to predict - sorry, "project".
Does anyone still take these people seriously?
Why?
The study, carried out in unprecedented detail, projected that without "rapid and massive action" temperatures worldwide will increase by as much as 7.4C (13.3F) by 2100, from levels seen in 2000.
Scary stuff, eh? Except that the "study" is actually just another computer simulation.
The results are based on 400 trials of the new system, each time using slightly different variations in data at the start to try and iron out errors.
Hmmm, I wonder if any of these "trials" started at a baseline of - say - 1940 and projected to 1980 and when man made CO2 output was at its peak but temperatures declined? How do they know that their projections are accurate when we have no knowledge of what the climate will actually be in 2100?
No doubt the alarmists will cite this as "evidence" of dangerous man-made global warming.
Friends of the Earth climate campaigner Tom Picken said that if the new research by MIT is accurate the results for the planet would be catastrophic.
Oh, they have. Well. Mr Picken - when you have proven that they are accurate, come back and tell us. See you in a hundred years. Meanwhile, the sun continues to doze, the earth continues to cool, the Arctic ice refuses to go away and the Antarctic ice continues to expand.
All of which the computer models failed completely to predict - sorry, "project".
Does anyone still take these people seriously?
Why?
Reform in haste, repent at leisure
From Steven Glover in The Mail.
But whatever reforms there are, let them be few in number, and well- considered. The system that New Labour inherited and has so abused was the product of gradual evolution over decades and centuries. One can be certain that a new constitution brewed up by politicians and academics in a few weeks would be a defective one.
Very well put. I know "reform" is a popular theme at the moment - and let me be quite clear that a reform of how MPs are recompensed is essential - but a radical shake-up of parliament itself is not what is needed.
What is needed, as Glover suggests, is for the government and politicians to respect the institution they work in and not to seek ways circumvent its workings as this Labour administration has done.
Let's be straight about this - Blair was completely dismissive of parliament preferring to run a Presidential style of government with a highly politicised civil service. The failings of the last few years are not a failure of parliament, but a failure of THAT Blairite system which deliberately bypassed parliament.
If any reform is needed, what is needed is for those conventions and processes which this Labour administration has frequently run roughshod over to be hardened and codified (if necessary) so that neither they, nor any future government can do that again.
I recommend the Glover article as required reading - he says what I pretty much think, but does it much better - but I know that many people are so angry about the MPs expenses row that they've convinced themselves that radical reform is essential. I'd caution against that. I'm a conservative - I don't believe in radical reform unless it is to abolish a new system and restore the original working system.
What I am certain of, as a conservative, is that any major reforms undertaken in haste will be a disaster - both for parliament and for this nation.
But whatever reforms there are, let them be few in number, and well- considered. The system that New Labour inherited and has so abused was the product of gradual evolution over decades and centuries. One can be certain that a new constitution brewed up by politicians and academics in a few weeks would be a defective one.
Very well put. I know "reform" is a popular theme at the moment - and let me be quite clear that a reform of how MPs are recompensed is essential - but a radical shake-up of parliament itself is not what is needed.
What is needed, as Glover suggests, is for the government and politicians to respect the institution they work in and not to seek ways circumvent its workings as this Labour administration has done.
Let's be straight about this - Blair was completely dismissive of parliament preferring to run a Presidential style of government with a highly politicised civil service. The failings of the last few years are not a failure of parliament, but a failure of THAT Blairite system which deliberately bypassed parliament.
If any reform is needed, what is needed is for those conventions and processes which this Labour administration has frequently run roughshod over to be hardened and codified (if necessary) so that neither they, nor any future government can do that again.
I recommend the Glover article as required reading - he says what I pretty much think, but does it much better - but I know that many people are so angry about the MPs expenses row that they've convinced themselves that radical reform is essential. I'd caution against that. I'm a conservative - I don't believe in radical reform unless it is to abolish a new system and restore the original working system.
What I am certain of, as a conservative, is that any major reforms undertaken in haste will be a disaster - both for parliament and for this nation.
This is England?
A man arrested because his MOT certificate was a dubious shade of green.
Mr Cook, a self-employed roofer, was informed that staff at the centre in Gosforth, Newcastle, believed his new MOT certificate to be fake because it was a lighter colour than the old one.
He was taken to a nearby police station where he had to give a DNA swab, was fingerprinted and photographed, then placed in a cell.
I can't believe that this sort of thing can happen in England - especially as I know that the DVLA can check almost instantly whether an MOT certificate is valid or not. They must be able to do that because I renew my tax disc by phone and that process includes them checking my insurance and MOT electronically.
So the staff at this centre must have known that Mr Cook had a valid MOT, but still chose to call the police over a questionable piece of evidence - and the police must also have known that the MOT was valid, but still decided to waste time and persecute this man on the basis of the most flimsy suspicion?
Next time someone tells you that if you've done nothing wrong you've nothing to fear from the proliferation of intrusive databases, monitoring and surveillance by the state - think about this incident. A man arrested because they didn't like the colour of his paper.
For Christ's sake - this is England! We're not living in some satellite state of the USSR, but it's increasingly starting to feel that way. We're fast becoming a nation where we're constantly checking over our shoulders to see who is watching us - like the old East Germany where there was a state police snooper on every street corner, in every office and often in every family.
Why did the police have to arrest this man? Was that really necessary? A bit of common sense and a couple of phone calls would have sufficed to determine that the MOT was genuine, but I'm not convinced that they even had to go that far.
As soon as they arrived at the DVLA centre a quick word with the staff, a 30 second check on the computer - problem solved. Mr Cook gets his tax disc, the police get on with something more important and the DVLA staff don't get to look like complete dickheads in a national newspaper.
Mr Cook, a self-employed roofer, was informed that staff at the centre in Gosforth, Newcastle, believed his new MOT certificate to be fake because it was a lighter colour than the old one.
He was taken to a nearby police station where he had to give a DNA swab, was fingerprinted and photographed, then placed in a cell.
I can't believe that this sort of thing can happen in England - especially as I know that the DVLA can check almost instantly whether an MOT certificate is valid or not. They must be able to do that because I renew my tax disc by phone and that process includes them checking my insurance and MOT electronically.
So the staff at this centre must have known that Mr Cook had a valid MOT, but still chose to call the police over a questionable piece of evidence - and the police must also have known that the MOT was valid, but still decided to waste time and persecute this man on the basis of the most flimsy suspicion?
Next time someone tells you that if you've done nothing wrong you've nothing to fear from the proliferation of intrusive databases, monitoring and surveillance by the state - think about this incident. A man arrested because they didn't like the colour of his paper.
For Christ's sake - this is England! We're not living in some satellite state of the USSR, but it's increasingly starting to feel that way. We're fast becoming a nation where we're constantly checking over our shoulders to see who is watching us - like the old East Germany where there was a state police snooper on every street corner, in every office and often in every family.
Why did the police have to arrest this man? Was that really necessary? A bit of common sense and a couple of phone calls would have sufficed to determine that the MOT was genuine, but I'm not convinced that they even had to go that far.
As soon as they arrived at the DVLA centre a quick word with the staff, a 30 second check on the computer - problem solved. Mr Cook gets his tax disc, the police get on with something more important and the DVLA staff don't get to look like complete dickheads in a national newspaper.
Wednesday, May 20, 2009
The end justifies the means
I've read quite a few comment pieces, op-eds and even bloggers who insist that the MPs expense scandal and the row over the Speaker is demonstrable evidence that our parliamentary system is in crisis and needs, at least, fundamental reform.
It's a view I disagree with. My argument is that it is not the system that is at fault, but the people using it. It doesn't matter what system you put in its place, unless something is done about the sort of people we now have sitting in Parliament, nothing will improve - although things could get considerably worse.
The fundamental problem with the people who now make up Parliament - and the Commons in particular - is that they are mostly members of parties who support our membership of the European Union.
Membership of that "club" requires that you subscribe to a particular political doctrine - progressivism. As the EU is essentially a progressive (socialist) construct, this is hardly surprising. As more and more of what we control is handed over to the EU, so there is less and less that our politicians can have significant differences on.
Consequently, all three main parties are now progressive parties and, of course, that means that the vast majority of MPs are supporters of progressivism. There are still a few - generally older - MPs who remain true to the original principles of their parties, but there are fewer and fewer of them each term.
This is why voters are increasingly turned off politics and increasingly do not bother to vote - it makes no difference. It can't as long as all three main parties support EU membership - they have to be the same. The differences can only be presentational and minimal - they have to follow the course dictated by the EU on so many issues now that there simply isn't enough wiggle room for strategic differences.
Now, as I hope I've pointed out, the House of Commons is now dominated on both sides by progressive parties and progressive politicians. The point with the progressivism is that it is not simply about making general societal progress - conservatism does that far more efficiently - it is about making progress towards specific goals.
Progressivism is just another form of socialism and it's ultimate destination is to create a Utopian world along socialist principles. However, that goal is never ever expressed or conceded to. Instead they use a series of smaller "goals" usually phrased in terms that no one could possibly disagree with - ending poverty, equality, racial harmony etc.
Because these are perfectly noble causes it is hardly surprising that progressives feel that they are justified in pushing us towards them. All well and good in principle, but the cause overlooks the basic flaw in its argument - people are not perfect.
And because people are not perfect, progressives find that the only way to move people towards those goals is by coercion and enforcement. With that in mind, the last thing you want getting in your way, if you're a progressive, is the bloody people having their say - which is why democracy tends to get sidelined along the way.
That doesn't matter to progressives. Democracy is the means by which they attain power, but it is also the means by which they can be dispossessed of power. That's the last thing they want!
That was the principle behind the 1972 European Communities Act - the shameful piece of legislation which enabled the progressives to hand power to the EU and thus circumvent the British parliament and, therefore, the democratic will of the British people.
Democracy is the antithesis of progressivism. All it does is hold back their cause. So it is hardly surprising that, with our parliament stuffed full of progressives, there is little evidence of democracy in our nation.
That is not the fault of the parliamentary system. Indeed, if it weren't for that system I suspect we would be even further along that progressive path and more tightly integrated with the EU than we currently are. The fault lies entirely with the fact that our membership of the EU and our party system does not allow for anything other than progressivism. We live, effectively, in a one party state and you can not have democracy in a one party state.
That doesn't matter to progressives. To them, all that matters is the goal - how they get there isn't important and if it means bypassing democracy - so be it. The end justifies the means.
So, when you talk about reforming parliament - the House of Commons, the House of Lords or whatever - just remember who dominates that institution and how they may prosper from that "reform". As I suggested the other day, the Labour "reforms" of the House of Lords were not intended to improve democracy or accountability, but to entrench their power.
The progressives created the mess in the first place, but they must not be trusted to sort it out. Once we've left the EU, repealed the 1972 European Communities Act (and, therefore, all the laws that flow from the EU) and once we've kicked progressivism into touch in this country then we might want to talk about it. However, by then we are likely to have found that much if not all of our previously dearly held democracy has been restored and there is nothing we need to change anyway.
It's a view I disagree with. My argument is that it is not the system that is at fault, but the people using it. It doesn't matter what system you put in its place, unless something is done about the sort of people we now have sitting in Parliament, nothing will improve - although things could get considerably worse.
The fundamental problem with the people who now make up Parliament - and the Commons in particular - is that they are mostly members of parties who support our membership of the European Union.
Membership of that "club" requires that you subscribe to a particular political doctrine - progressivism. As the EU is essentially a progressive (socialist) construct, this is hardly surprising. As more and more of what we control is handed over to the EU, so there is less and less that our politicians can have significant differences on.
Consequently, all three main parties are now progressive parties and, of course, that means that the vast majority of MPs are supporters of progressivism. There are still a few - generally older - MPs who remain true to the original principles of their parties, but there are fewer and fewer of them each term.
This is why voters are increasingly turned off politics and increasingly do not bother to vote - it makes no difference. It can't as long as all three main parties support EU membership - they have to be the same. The differences can only be presentational and minimal - they have to follow the course dictated by the EU on so many issues now that there simply isn't enough wiggle room for strategic differences.
Now, as I hope I've pointed out, the House of Commons is now dominated on both sides by progressive parties and progressive politicians. The point with the progressivism is that it is not simply about making general societal progress - conservatism does that far more efficiently - it is about making progress towards specific goals.
Progressivism is just another form of socialism and it's ultimate destination is to create a Utopian world along socialist principles. However, that goal is never ever expressed or conceded to. Instead they use a series of smaller "goals" usually phrased in terms that no one could possibly disagree with - ending poverty, equality, racial harmony etc.
Because these are perfectly noble causes it is hardly surprising that progressives feel that they are justified in pushing us towards them. All well and good in principle, but the cause overlooks the basic flaw in its argument - people are not perfect.
And because people are not perfect, progressives find that the only way to move people towards those goals is by coercion and enforcement. With that in mind, the last thing you want getting in your way, if you're a progressive, is the bloody people having their say - which is why democracy tends to get sidelined along the way.
That doesn't matter to progressives. Democracy is the means by which they attain power, but it is also the means by which they can be dispossessed of power. That's the last thing they want!
That was the principle behind the 1972 European Communities Act - the shameful piece of legislation which enabled the progressives to hand power to the EU and thus circumvent the British parliament and, therefore, the democratic will of the British people.
Democracy is the antithesis of progressivism. All it does is hold back their cause. So it is hardly surprising that, with our parliament stuffed full of progressives, there is little evidence of democracy in our nation.
That is not the fault of the parliamentary system. Indeed, if it weren't for that system I suspect we would be even further along that progressive path and more tightly integrated with the EU than we currently are. The fault lies entirely with the fact that our membership of the EU and our party system does not allow for anything other than progressivism. We live, effectively, in a one party state and you can not have democracy in a one party state.
That doesn't matter to progressives. To them, all that matters is the goal - how they get there isn't important and if it means bypassing democracy - so be it. The end justifies the means.
So, when you talk about reforming parliament - the House of Commons, the House of Lords or whatever - just remember who dominates that institution and how they may prosper from that "reform". As I suggested the other day, the Labour "reforms" of the House of Lords were not intended to improve democracy or accountability, but to entrench their power.
The progressives created the mess in the first place, but they must not be trusted to sort it out. Once we've left the EU, repealed the 1972 European Communities Act (and, therefore, all the laws that flow from the EU) and once we've kicked progressivism into touch in this country then we might want to talk about it. However, by then we are likely to have found that much if not all of our previously dearly held democracy has been restored and there is nothing we need to change anyway.
Frank Field must not become Speaker
There seems to be a groundswell of opinion that Frank Field would make the ideal choice to replace Michael Martin.
Mr Field is a man of monumental principle and integrity. He has a vocation of public service almost second to none in the House. Having served for 30 years he understands the institution perfectly.
I don't disagree with that and I accept that Field would probably make a very good Speaker, but it is because of another reason that I am completely opposed to his taking the post.
His impartiality can be judged by the fights he has had throughout the decades with his own party.
That's why I don't want him as Speaker. He would be effectively muzzled and Labour can wave goodbye to one of the few dissenting voices in its ranks - something that would make Gordon Brown very happy. Frank Field is one of the few people who will openly discuss issues such as multiculturalism and immigration and whose opinion reflects that of a majority of Britons.
Indeed, as all three main parties know damn well that they are unable to do anything about immigration as long as we remain in the EU it would suit them all very well to have the one man who frequently reminds them of this fact effectively silenced.
That's why, although I agree Field would make an ideal Speaker in many ways, I believe his appointment would be a huge blow for the voice of the average person being heard in Parliament.
Mr Field is a man of monumental principle and integrity. He has a vocation of public service almost second to none in the House. Having served for 30 years he understands the institution perfectly.
I don't disagree with that and I accept that Field would probably make a very good Speaker, but it is because of another reason that I am completely opposed to his taking the post.
His impartiality can be judged by the fights he has had throughout the decades with his own party.
That's why I don't want him as Speaker. He would be effectively muzzled and Labour can wave goodbye to one of the few dissenting voices in its ranks - something that would make Gordon Brown very happy. Frank Field is one of the few people who will openly discuss issues such as multiculturalism and immigration and whose opinion reflects that of a majority of Britons.
Indeed, as all three main parties know damn well that they are unable to do anything about immigration as long as we remain in the EU it would suit them all very well to have the one man who frequently reminds them of this fact effectively silenced.
That's why, although I agree Field would make an ideal Speaker in many ways, I believe his appointment would be a huge blow for the voice of the average person being heard in Parliament.
Tuesday, May 19, 2009
Change you can believe in?
From the American Thinker comes this rather disturbing letter.
On Thursday, May 14, 2009 I was notified that my Dodge franchise, that we purchased, will be taken away from my family on June 9, 2009 without compensation and given to another dealer at no cost to them. My new vehicle inventory consists of 125 vehicles with a financed balance of 3 million dollars. This inventory becomes impossible to sell with no factory incentives beyond June 9, 2009. Without the Dodge franchise we can no longer sell a new Dodge as "new," nor will we be able to do any warranty service work. Additionally, my Dodge parts inventory, (approximately $300,000.) is virtually worthless without the ability to perform warranty service. There is no offer from Chrysler to buy back the vehicles or parts inventory.
I don't know if this is genuine, but it appears to be.
Change you can believe in?
If you're from Zimbabwe, then yes.
On Thursday, May 14, 2009 I was notified that my Dodge franchise, that we purchased, will be taken away from my family on June 9, 2009 without compensation and given to another dealer at no cost to them. My new vehicle inventory consists of 125 vehicles with a financed balance of 3 million dollars. This inventory becomes impossible to sell with no factory incentives beyond June 9, 2009. Without the Dodge franchise we can no longer sell a new Dodge as "new," nor will we be able to do any warranty service work. Additionally, my Dodge parts inventory, (approximately $300,000.) is virtually worthless without the ability to perform warranty service. There is no offer from Chrysler to buy back the vehicles or parts inventory.
I don't know if this is genuine, but it appears to be.
Change you can believe in?
If you're from Zimbabwe, then yes.
CCTV fails where police on the beat works
Home Office research has revealed that CCTV has little or no effect on deterring crime.
Cameras in town centres, housing estates and on public transport 'did not have a significant effect', a report concluded.
This won't come as a surprise to many of us who've thought this for years. One of the problems of CCTV is that criminals can use technology to circumvent it. This technology comes in the form of a cloth attachment to an upper garment known as a "hood". The hood covers the head and makes it very difficult for the CCTV to distinguish the features of a criminal. This device is often used in conjunction with another device known as a "baseball cap" which features a large peak further obscuring facial features.
It is believed that many of these devices are easily available to the criminal underworld through a system of outlets known as "shops" and can often change hands for as little as a pound or two.
Further research has revealed that even when a criminal commits a crime and is captured doing so by CCTV they can escape justice by employing a measure called "running away" completely fooling the police who arrive at the scene ten minutes later - after negotiating the heavy traffic, road works and traffic calming measures that surround town centres - expecting to find the criminal waiting patiently to explain their actions.
It's actually quite astounding that apparently sensible people can believe that a static device mounted 50 feet above the ground on a pole can replace a constable patrolling the streets on foot.
Cameras in town centres, housing estates and on public transport 'did not have a significant effect', a report concluded.
This won't come as a surprise to many of us who've thought this for years. One of the problems of CCTV is that criminals can use technology to circumvent it. This technology comes in the form of a cloth attachment to an upper garment known as a "hood". The hood covers the head and makes it very difficult for the CCTV to distinguish the features of a criminal. This device is often used in conjunction with another device known as a "baseball cap" which features a large peak further obscuring facial features.
It is believed that many of these devices are easily available to the criminal underworld through a system of outlets known as "shops" and can often change hands for as little as a pound or two.
Further research has revealed that even when a criminal commits a crime and is captured doing so by CCTV they can escape justice by employing a measure called "running away" completely fooling the police who arrive at the scene ten minutes later - after negotiating the heavy traffic, road works and traffic calming measures that surround town centres - expecting to find the criminal waiting patiently to explain their actions.
It's actually quite astounding that apparently sensible people can believe that a static device mounted 50 feet above the ground on a pole can replace a constable patrolling the streets on foot.
Liberal inspiration
I'm fast running out of appropriate adjectives to describe Mary Riddell's scribblings in The Telegraph - ludicrous, ridiculous, preposterous, inane - all of them apply, but none really sums up this piece of garbage satisfactorily.
To be fair, I agree with some of her comments - such as this.
Besides, Parliament, marginalised by Tony Blair, has also had its reputation diminished by forces other than sleaze. The sparsely filled Commons benches resemble a rural station waiting room, circa 1950: Bills, which tend to be pernicious or unnecessary (or both), are so poorly drafted or under-scrutinised (or both) that the legislative process must constantly be salvaged by an upper chamber where reforms have been abandoned.
Well, let's leave the "reforms" for a moment and concentrate on the main point - that the failure of our political system has occurred almost entirely in the elected chamber. Blair did not marginalise Parliament - he marginalised the Commons and, when the Lords refused to play ball, bypassed them by using the Parliament Act indiscriminately.
The Commons benches are empty because there is little for MPs to debate as most of the "pernicious" and/or "unnecessary" Bills originate not from our Parliament but from a foreign organisation which drafts law in secret and is completely unaccountable, but one which Riddell is a keen supporter of - the EU Commission.
Overall, though, Riddell appears to be conceding that the half-reformed Lords is the only bit of Parliament which is more or less working as it ought to - which makes her next statement so ridiculous.
We need an elected House of Lords and a Parliament whose bywords are efficiency, modernity and accountability.
Sooo, her solution to the problem is to take the one bit of Parliament that is working, throw it away then replace it with a model of the one bit which, by her own concession, is failing?
I wonder where she got her inspiration from? The education reforms of the sixties, perhaps?
To be fair, I agree with some of her comments - such as this.
Besides, Parliament, marginalised by Tony Blair, has also had its reputation diminished by forces other than sleaze. The sparsely filled Commons benches resemble a rural station waiting room, circa 1950: Bills, which tend to be pernicious or unnecessary (or both), are so poorly drafted or under-scrutinised (or both) that the legislative process must constantly be salvaged by an upper chamber where reforms have been abandoned.
Well, let's leave the "reforms" for a moment and concentrate on the main point - that the failure of our political system has occurred almost entirely in the elected chamber. Blair did not marginalise Parliament - he marginalised the Commons and, when the Lords refused to play ball, bypassed them by using the Parliament Act indiscriminately.
The Commons benches are empty because there is little for MPs to debate as most of the "pernicious" and/or "unnecessary" Bills originate not from our Parliament but from a foreign organisation which drafts law in secret and is completely unaccountable, but one which Riddell is a keen supporter of - the EU Commission.
Overall, though, Riddell appears to be conceding that the half-reformed Lords is the only bit of Parliament which is more or less working as it ought to - which makes her next statement so ridiculous.
We need an elected House of Lords and a Parliament whose bywords are efficiency, modernity and accountability.
Sooo, her solution to the problem is to take the one bit of Parliament that is working, throw it away then replace it with a model of the one bit which, by her own concession, is failing?
I wonder where she got her inspiration from? The education reforms of the sixties, perhaps?
Monday, May 18, 2009
The democracy lie
Over on The Times comment section, William Rees-Mogg believes he has a solution to the MPs expenses row - an elected House of Lords (no, I can't work out how that fixes the MPs expense abuses either).
I now believe that the parliamentary crisis can generate the energy to create a fully elected House of Lords. In some ways that would be less efficient and less well informed than the present House, and it will certainly be more expensive. Yet an unelected House lacks representative authority.
But the House of Lords is not supposed to be a "representative authority". That entirely misrepresents the role and purpose of our second chamber which is not to reflect party politics but to act as a vital check and balance to the House of Commons to prevent abuses of power and the concentration of power.
An elected Lords will not be able to do that. If we have an elected Lords it will inevitably end up dominated one way or the other by either the party of government or the party of opposition resulting in a government with no effective check and balance or one unable to operate effectively - a lame duck government.
Anyone who doubts this needs only to look to the USA to see what that means. In George W. Bush's first term the Republicans dominated both houses leading to an overly powerful president. In his second term the Democrats gained control of the House of Representatives and Bush was dead in the water for the next two years.
And that is in the USA where representatives are free to vote according to their conscience whereas an elected Lords would be as prone to the whip system as the Commons where any dissent is ruthlessly crushed and any ambition is impossible unless you conform to the official party line. It's a recipe for disaster.
Over the last 12 years Labour has sought to undermine the Lords with "reforms" which were in fact barely disguised class warfare and amounted to nothing less than constitutional vandalism. The whole point was not to make the Lords work better, but to make it more compliant. When the Lords refused to play ball Labour resorted to the Parliament Act almost indiscriminately and then bullied the Lords with threats of more "reform".
I maintain that an elected Lords will not make Britain more democratic. It really makes me sick that so many people think that more voting will mean more democracy. It won't - it will just mean more power concentrated in party hands and lead to the final erosion of the only effective check and balance on our government.
That check and balance is vital to ensure that we have a properly accountable government and to ensure that no government passes laws which are contrary to the principles, traditions and history of our long held and hard won democracy.
There is a clear warning from history of how this can be used to subvert democracy. The (written) Weimar constitution was described as "on paper, the most liberal and democratic document of its kind the twentieth century had ever seen ... full of ingenious and admirable devices which seemed to guarantee the working of an almost flawless democracy." - but this did not stop Adolf Hitler rising to power and then using that constitution to entrench his power.
That could never have happened here because of the Lords - but if the Lords were elected? When an unscrupulous party attains power it is essential to have an effective check and balance to prevent that party abusing that power. Some might say that it couldn't happen here - I would argue that this Labour administration demonstrates that it already has.
Labour's motivation was not about making democracy work better - nothing could be further from the truth - it was about making the socialist advances of progressive liberalism over the last decade irreversible. Because so few people actually understand that true democracy isn't just about having a vote it doesn't surprise me that the moves are quite popular amongst the electorate, but it worries me that even staunch conservatives like Rees-Mogg are falling for the lie.
I now believe that the parliamentary crisis can generate the energy to create a fully elected House of Lords. In some ways that would be less efficient and less well informed than the present House, and it will certainly be more expensive. Yet an unelected House lacks representative authority.
But the House of Lords is not supposed to be a "representative authority". That entirely misrepresents the role and purpose of our second chamber which is not to reflect party politics but to act as a vital check and balance to the House of Commons to prevent abuses of power and the concentration of power.
An elected Lords will not be able to do that. If we have an elected Lords it will inevitably end up dominated one way or the other by either the party of government or the party of opposition resulting in a government with no effective check and balance or one unable to operate effectively - a lame duck government.
Anyone who doubts this needs only to look to the USA to see what that means. In George W. Bush's first term the Republicans dominated both houses leading to an overly powerful president. In his second term the Democrats gained control of the House of Representatives and Bush was dead in the water for the next two years.
And that is in the USA where representatives are free to vote according to their conscience whereas an elected Lords would be as prone to the whip system as the Commons where any dissent is ruthlessly crushed and any ambition is impossible unless you conform to the official party line. It's a recipe for disaster.
Over the last 12 years Labour has sought to undermine the Lords with "reforms" which were in fact barely disguised class warfare and amounted to nothing less than constitutional vandalism. The whole point was not to make the Lords work better, but to make it more compliant. When the Lords refused to play ball Labour resorted to the Parliament Act almost indiscriminately and then bullied the Lords with threats of more "reform".
I maintain that an elected Lords will not make Britain more democratic. It really makes me sick that so many people think that more voting will mean more democracy. It won't - it will just mean more power concentrated in party hands and lead to the final erosion of the only effective check and balance on our government.
That check and balance is vital to ensure that we have a properly accountable government and to ensure that no government passes laws which are contrary to the principles, traditions and history of our long held and hard won democracy.
There is a clear warning from history of how this can be used to subvert democracy. The (written) Weimar constitution was described as "on paper, the most liberal and democratic document of its kind the twentieth century had ever seen ... full of ingenious and admirable devices which seemed to guarantee the working of an almost flawless democracy." - but this did not stop Adolf Hitler rising to power and then using that constitution to entrench his power.
That could never have happened here because of the Lords - but if the Lords were elected? When an unscrupulous party attains power it is essential to have an effective check and balance to prevent that party abusing that power. Some might say that it couldn't happen here - I would argue that this Labour administration demonstrates that it already has.
Labour's motivation was not about making democracy work better - nothing could be further from the truth - it was about making the socialist advances of progressive liberalism over the last decade irreversible. Because so few people actually understand that true democracy isn't just about having a vote it doesn't surprise me that the moves are quite popular amongst the electorate, but it worries me that even staunch conservatives like Rees-Mogg are falling for the lie.
Sunday, May 17, 2009
Ranting Stan's Sunday Drive: Jaguar XK140
I've got to admit that I've ummed and ahhed about this choice. The reason for that is that, when it comes to the post-war Jaguar XK range most people prefer the XK140's predecessor - the XK120.However, I've always thought the XK140 was not only the prettier car it was also the car that seemed to best reflect that golden age of Hollywood glamour from the fifties. I suspect that is partly due to this ad from the nineties featuring the XK140, a pretty blonde, a broken fan belt, a pair of stockings and a Doris Day soundtrack.
Nevertheless, the XK140 perfectly demonstrates the glamour of that era but underneath that pretty exterior it shouldn't be forgotten that the XK140 was a cat with bite. A 120 mph top speed and sub 9 seconds 0-60 time ensured the Jaguar had a performance to match it's gorgeous looks even if drum brakes all round meant it had a little trouble bringing that grace and power to a stop.
Unfortunately, I've never had the chance to either drive or be driven in the XK140 - and I suspect I never will - but if do I hope it's along some dramatic coastline with a Hollywood starlet by my side and Doris Day singing "Move Over Darling" on the radio. I don't think I'd mind even if the car did break down.
By the way - sorry I couldn't find a better pic. I wanted an XK140 that was right hand drive, a DHC with the top down, had the wire wheels, white and in a nice setting. I got most of those apart from the colour and the setting. The BRG is nice, but sorry about the drab brick wall back drop.
Saturday, May 16, 2009
Leadership
There's been a lot of praise for Cameron in the press and in the blogosphere regarding his "leadership" during this expenses scandal.
Let's get something straight here.
Cameron, like Brown, has known for months that MPs expenses were to be published but was expecting that to be in July - and only after much of them had been redacted (covered up). At no time during this period has Cameron made any significant statement regarding these expenses - far from it, lots of people have remarked how odd it was that the Tories were silent on this issue ..... until the Telegraph published.
Only then did he come out of his shell and say or do anything.
All he has done is followed a lead by the Telegraph and only then after his hand was forced.
That is NOT leadership - that is reactionary posturing.
Let's get something straight here.
Cameron, like Brown, has known for months that MPs expenses were to be published but was expecting that to be in July - and only after much of them had been redacted (covered up). At no time during this period has Cameron made any significant statement regarding these expenses - far from it, lots of people have remarked how odd it was that the Tories were silent on this issue ..... until the Telegraph published.
Only then did he come out of his shell and say or do anything.
All he has done is followed a lead by the Telegraph and only then after his hand was forced.
That is NOT leadership - that is reactionary posturing.
Friday, May 15, 2009
Classic car leasing
Mark Wadsworth brings up an interesting point regarding the car scrappage scheme.
The £2,000 incentive under the Government's "cash for bangers" car-scrappage scheme will be wiped out in just 88 days due to depreciation, it has been revealed.
It's also worth pointing out that few dealers - if any - are prepared to offer the usual discounts that could be negotiated if your taking part in the car scrappage scheme. That alone could wipe out any perceived benefit for the buyer.
Whilst on the subject of cars, I wonder how many people are aware of the benefits of choosing a classic car instead of a new model for their company car? If you're the sort who qualifies for a company car, but doesn't do an awful lot of company miles then you can save a fortune in tax by choosing a car over 15 years old with a current market value more than the original list price.
Hmmm - is there a market to be exploited there? Classic car leasing? What was the list price of a '78 Triumph Stag or a '64 Zephyr 6?
'Scuse me - I've got a business plan to write.
The £2,000 incentive under the Government's "cash for bangers" car-scrappage scheme will be wiped out in just 88 days due to depreciation, it has been revealed.
It's also worth pointing out that few dealers - if any - are prepared to offer the usual discounts that could be negotiated if your taking part in the car scrappage scheme. That alone could wipe out any perceived benefit for the buyer.
Whilst on the subject of cars, I wonder how many people are aware of the benefits of choosing a classic car instead of a new model for their company car? If you're the sort who qualifies for a company car, but doesn't do an awful lot of company miles then you can save a fortune in tax by choosing a car over 15 years old with a current market value more than the original list price.
Hmmm - is there a market to be exploited there? Classic car leasing? What was the list price of a '78 Triumph Stag or a '64 Zephyr 6?
'Scuse me - I've got a business plan to write.
Prolonging the agony
Over on The Telegraph, Dean Nelson wonders why we don't care about Sri Lanka.
Do we have favourites when it comes to civilian casualties? Do we care about some peoples’ suffering more than others?
To answer the second question first the answer is yes. Sorry about this, but the suffering of people in my family, my friends and community is something I care more about than the suffering of someone in some remote outpost - like Barnsley.
When it comes to civilian casualties I "favour" those who were deliberately targeted rather than those who were accidental victims. That might sound a bit harsh - every death of an innocent civilian is a tragedy - but you have to draw a distinction between those killed deliberately and those who are killed in the crossfire. Thousands died in the Twin Towers - that's murder. Hundreds of thousands died in the liberation of Europe - that's war.
An estimated 50,000 are trapped inside a tiny strip of Sri Lanka’s north-east coast by rebel fighters of the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE), who will shoot them if they try to escape, and the army, which may shell them if they don’t.
Really? The Sri Lankan army are going to deliberately shell civilians if they don't leave?
I don't think so. You see, people like Nelson can't see that subtle difference. The LTTE will deliberately shoot civilians trying to flee the zone, but the Sri Lankan army are not shelling the civilians - they are trying to shell LTTE positions which, thanks the actions of the LTTE, are surrounded by civilians. I'm sure the Sri Lankan army would much rather the civilians all left and they could get on with engaging the remnants of the LTTE, but the LTTE are preventing that.
The thing is, Nelson actually hits on the real issue later on.
It’s a race against time: The Tamil Tigers need the world to be so moved that its leaders force Colombo to stop its assault, and the Sri Lankan government wants to keep out the media until the LTTE is finally crushed and it can tell the story on its own terms.
How long has this conflict being going on? Thirty years or so? How many civilians have been killed in that time? I don't know, but what is apparent is that if we let the Sri Lankan government get on with it a few hundred or so civilians will probably die, but it will be over in weeks. But if people like Nelson get their way the world will be "so moved" that the offensive is called off and the LTTE can continue their campaign for another 30 years and thousands more will suffer and die.
Too often, in my opinion, we allow sentiment to get in the way of cold reality. Far too often, in my opinion, the principles of humanitarianism actually prolong and amplify the suffering of the very people it is supposed to be helping. Sometimes this is due to aid, sometimes due to sentimentalist reporting.
Sometimes, the best thing to do is to allow a conflict to run its course. It's tough in the short term, but in the long run it is often better for the vast majority. If we applied the principles of Nelson during WW2 the world would have been so moved by the suffering of the people of Caen the Allies would still be hunkered down on the beaches of Normandy today.
Do we have favourites when it comes to civilian casualties? Do we care about some peoples’ suffering more than others?
To answer the second question first the answer is yes. Sorry about this, but the suffering of people in my family, my friends and community is something I care more about than the suffering of someone in some remote outpost - like Barnsley.
When it comes to civilian casualties I "favour" those who were deliberately targeted rather than those who were accidental victims. That might sound a bit harsh - every death of an innocent civilian is a tragedy - but you have to draw a distinction between those killed deliberately and those who are killed in the crossfire. Thousands died in the Twin Towers - that's murder. Hundreds of thousands died in the liberation of Europe - that's war.
An estimated 50,000 are trapped inside a tiny strip of Sri Lanka’s north-east coast by rebel fighters of the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE), who will shoot them if they try to escape, and the army, which may shell them if they don’t.
Really? The Sri Lankan army are going to deliberately shell civilians if they don't leave?
I don't think so. You see, people like Nelson can't see that subtle difference. The LTTE will deliberately shoot civilians trying to flee the zone, but the Sri Lankan army are not shelling the civilians - they are trying to shell LTTE positions which, thanks the actions of the LTTE, are surrounded by civilians. I'm sure the Sri Lankan army would much rather the civilians all left and they could get on with engaging the remnants of the LTTE, but the LTTE are preventing that.
The thing is, Nelson actually hits on the real issue later on.
It’s a race against time: The Tamil Tigers need the world to be so moved that its leaders force Colombo to stop its assault, and the Sri Lankan government wants to keep out the media until the LTTE is finally crushed and it can tell the story on its own terms.
How long has this conflict being going on? Thirty years or so? How many civilians have been killed in that time? I don't know, but what is apparent is that if we let the Sri Lankan government get on with it a few hundred or so civilians will probably die, but it will be over in weeks. But if people like Nelson get their way the world will be "so moved" that the offensive is called off and the LTTE can continue their campaign for another 30 years and thousands more will suffer and die.
Too often, in my opinion, we allow sentiment to get in the way of cold reality. Far too often, in my opinion, the principles of humanitarianism actually prolong and amplify the suffering of the very people it is supposed to be helping. Sometimes this is due to aid, sometimes due to sentimentalist reporting.
Sometimes, the best thing to do is to allow a conflict to run its course. It's tough in the short term, but in the long run it is often better for the vast majority. If we applied the principles of Nelson during WW2 the world would have been so moved by the suffering of the people of Caen the Allies would still be hunkered down on the beaches of Normandy today.
Core beliefs
First of all, let's start with the best joke of the day from Tim Montgomerie talking about the possibility that the BNP may win a seat in the EU Parliament.
Britain will no longer be able to proudly say it has kept fascists out of high office.
That's funny for a couple of reasons. First of all, the BNP don't claim to be fascist - that assertion is put forward by people like Montgomerie - they claim to be just another democratic political party, but one with a different world view to that of the three main parties. Just because someone says different doesn't make it so - it's what they do that matters.
Which is why it is funny on the second level - because if you want evidence of fascism you only have to look at our current government for that. Fascism is characterised by authoritarianism, corporatism and the suppression of free speech - three major features of this Labour administration. Fascists in high office? We already have them, Tim old boy.
The main thrust of Montgomerie's article though is to claim that the BNP present a veneer of respectability to hide their core beliefs and have successfully used the internet to promote this. Montgomerie uses an anecdote about a conversation with two people who were suggesting they would vote BNP.
I asked if they knew about the Nazi ideology that many BNP activists followed. I asked if they knew about the party's preference for an all-white Britain. They didn't. They were horrified and promised to find a different vehicle for their protest vote.
Now this may be true about some BNP members, but the point is that it is not necessarily the position of all of them or even the majority of them. I'm pretty sure you'll find plenty of Tory, Labour and Lib Dem members who actively support elements of Nazi ideology - such as anti-smoking, animal "rights", environmental obsession and suppression of free speech and thought.
More to the point, you will find amongst the ranks of the senior Labour party many MPs and even current and former Cabinet members who were supporters and followers of the communist ideology. Let's be honest about this, Hitler was a madman and responsible for the death of some 15 million people, but he pales in comparison with the heroes of the left.
The ideology that so many Labour members, MPs and leaders followed caused the death of hundreds of millions of people. It's repellent enough that the Nazis murdered some 6 million people in their concentration camps - why is it less repellent that the communists so beloved of Labour murdered tens of millions more in their gulags?
Why do we forget this? Why do we forgive it?
I know it's hard, but if you remove Hitler's anti-semitism and the fact he led Europe into a major conflagration there is no doubt that he transformed Germany from a broken and pathetic nation into a major industrial and economic power. People forget just how low Germany had sunk in 1933. Hitler's Germany gave us BMW and Volkswagen. Communism gave us the Moskvitch and Lada.
So if you're talking about core beliefs - are BNP any worse than Labour?
I don't think so.
Britain will no longer be able to proudly say it has kept fascists out of high office.
That's funny for a couple of reasons. First of all, the BNP don't claim to be fascist - that assertion is put forward by people like Montgomerie - they claim to be just another democratic political party, but one with a different world view to that of the three main parties. Just because someone says different doesn't make it so - it's what they do that matters.
Which is why it is funny on the second level - because if you want evidence of fascism you only have to look at our current government for that. Fascism is characterised by authoritarianism, corporatism and the suppression of free speech - three major features of this Labour administration. Fascists in high office? We already have them, Tim old boy.
The main thrust of Montgomerie's article though is to claim that the BNP present a veneer of respectability to hide their core beliefs and have successfully used the internet to promote this. Montgomerie uses an anecdote about a conversation with two people who were suggesting they would vote BNP.
I asked if they knew about the Nazi ideology that many BNP activists followed. I asked if they knew about the party's preference for an all-white Britain. They didn't. They were horrified and promised to find a different vehicle for their protest vote.
Now this may be true about some BNP members, but the point is that it is not necessarily the position of all of them or even the majority of them. I'm pretty sure you'll find plenty of Tory, Labour and Lib Dem members who actively support elements of Nazi ideology - such as anti-smoking, animal "rights", environmental obsession and suppression of free speech and thought.
More to the point, you will find amongst the ranks of the senior Labour party many MPs and even current and former Cabinet members who were supporters and followers of the communist ideology. Let's be honest about this, Hitler was a madman and responsible for the death of some 15 million people, but he pales in comparison with the heroes of the left.
The ideology that so many Labour members, MPs and leaders followed caused the death of hundreds of millions of people. It's repellent enough that the Nazis murdered some 6 million people in their concentration camps - why is it less repellent that the communists so beloved of Labour murdered tens of millions more in their gulags?
Why do we forget this? Why do we forgive it?
I know it's hard, but if you remove Hitler's anti-semitism and the fact he led Europe into a major conflagration there is no doubt that he transformed Germany from a broken and pathetic nation into a major industrial and economic power. People forget just how low Germany had sunk in 1933. Hitler's Germany gave us BMW and Volkswagen. Communism gave us the Moskvitch and Lada.
So if you're talking about core beliefs - are BNP any worse than Labour?
I don't think so.
Thursday, May 14, 2009
Criminals aren't victims
Trafficking survivors are not 'illegal immigrants' says Heather Harvey on The Grauniad.
Oh yes they are, says Stan. You've got to admire the sheer cheek of the liberal elite who threw open our borders to all and sundry then feign shock and disgust when unscrupulous organised gangs of foreign criminals take advantage of that to make a bit of cash.
It might not be right in every respect (which I'll come back to shortly) but this is a major and important report from Keith Vaz.
Actually, it's wrong in virtually every respect - as you'd expect from some one with the moral probity of Keith Vaz.
These include officials' insistence on viewing trafficking through an immigration lens, the creation of a flawed identification system that is dominated by the police and immigration authorities while keeping NGOs and other specialists at arm's length.
Who'd have thought we'd resort to using the proper instruments of the state for dealing with illegal activity and immigration rather than self-appointed and self-declared "specialists"? What next? Maybe we ought to let the RAC decide how to deal with motoring offenders.
Harvey's intention - and probably that of the loathsome Vaz - is to portray illegal immigrants as "victims" of crime, but these people are victims through their own choosing not because of circumstance. It's the same principle that we apply to drug users who choose to wreck their lives through their choice to do something illegal.
They aren't victims - they are criminals and the only correct thing to do is treat them as such.
Of course, all this ignores the one simple fact that if we maintained control of our borders and actually made a real effort to determine who is and is not allowed into this country then none of this would matter - there wouldn't be trafficking on any significant scale.
As with the drugs issue, the liberals are attempting to tackle the supply rather than the demand. It won't work - as soon as you close down one supplier another will take it's place. As long as there is a demand there will be supply. The correct thing to do is kill the demand and that means ending the reason why people come here - the ease of access and the generous benefits system.
I agree with Harvey that trafficking is a form of slavery, but it's entirely thanks to the likes of her and the rest of the liberal elite that we have a renewed form of slavery sweeping the world. The best thing she could do to stop is shut up, fuck off and leave us conservatives to deal with it.
Hey, it worked in the 19th century.
Oh yes they are, says Stan. You've got to admire the sheer cheek of the liberal elite who threw open our borders to all and sundry then feign shock and disgust when unscrupulous organised gangs of foreign criminals take advantage of that to make a bit of cash.
It might not be right in every respect (which I'll come back to shortly) but this is a major and important report from Keith Vaz.
Actually, it's wrong in virtually every respect - as you'd expect from some one with the moral probity of Keith Vaz.
These include officials' insistence on viewing trafficking through an immigration lens, the creation of a flawed identification system that is dominated by the police and immigration authorities while keeping NGOs and other specialists at arm's length.
Who'd have thought we'd resort to using the proper instruments of the state for dealing with illegal activity and immigration rather than self-appointed and self-declared "specialists"? What next? Maybe we ought to let the RAC decide how to deal with motoring offenders.
Harvey's intention - and probably that of the loathsome Vaz - is to portray illegal immigrants as "victims" of crime, but these people are victims through their own choosing not because of circumstance. It's the same principle that we apply to drug users who choose to wreck their lives through their choice to do something illegal.
They aren't victims - they are criminals and the only correct thing to do is treat them as such.
Of course, all this ignores the one simple fact that if we maintained control of our borders and actually made a real effort to determine who is and is not allowed into this country then none of this would matter - there wouldn't be trafficking on any significant scale.
As with the drugs issue, the liberals are attempting to tackle the supply rather than the demand. It won't work - as soon as you close down one supplier another will take it's place. As long as there is a demand there will be supply. The correct thing to do is kill the demand and that means ending the reason why people come here - the ease of access and the generous benefits system.
I agree with Harvey that trafficking is a form of slavery, but it's entirely thanks to the likes of her and the rest of the liberal elite that we have a renewed form of slavery sweeping the world. The best thing she could do to stop is shut up, fuck off and leave us conservatives to deal with it.
Hey, it worked in the 19th century.
Domestic violence
I'm not sure what they were actually talking about - something to do with Baby P, I think - but on this morning's BBC Breakfast there was a senior Manchester police chief who said that there were 68000 incidents of domestic violence last year - in Manchester alone.
I can't help wondering if that was more than there were across the whole of Great Britain 50 years ago. The only conclusion I can draw from that is that 50 years of feminism and progressive liberalism has made things worse for women, not better.
I can't help wondering if that was more than there were across the whole of Great Britain 50 years ago. The only conclusion I can draw from that is that 50 years of feminism and progressive liberalism has made things worse for women, not better.
The vicious cycle
The Bank Of England has revealed that they are less optimistic about the economic outlook than many people.
Mervyn King, governor of the Bank of England, cut his growth forecast and declared that there is as much chance that the economy will still be shrinking this time next year, as there is of it growing.
This will be bad news for the Labour Party who were hoping for a sign of recovery before they are forced to go to the polls next year although, with the way things are going, even a remarkable turnaround in the economy seems unlikely to save them.
Mr King said: "The economy will eventually heal but the process may be slow. This is not like the typical business cycle in the post-war period... Even if there is some recovery in output over the next six to nine months, we don't know how sustainable that will prove to be."
As you will know, this more or less reflects my own view - but obviously phrased in more diplomatic terms than I would do. There may be a minor bounce in the general downward trend, but I still believe that we are set for a long and protracted depression.
The reason I think this is that the fundamental flaws in the economy have not been addressed.
The first issue is the trade deficit. Any growth in GDP has to be balanced by what is going out of our economy through trade - and for the last 15 years or more that deficit has been growing and now far outstrips any increase in GDP. As I've pointed out before, if your GDP grows by 1.5%, but your trade deficit is 4% of GDP that is a net shrinkage in your economy.
It really is a simple issue. Annual growth in GDP equates to your annual pay rise while the trade deficit equates to inflation. If your income increases by 2%, but inflation rises by 5% you are 3% worse off.
Then there is the question of debt. The credit crunch is a symptom of that - not the cause. The apparent failure in regulation of banks is basically due to the fact that our economy is based on the accumulation of debt to feed economic growth. To regulate that would have meant curtailing growth and that was why the governments didn't just fail to act - they couldn't act.
And because that debt is used to buy goods which are largely sourced from overseas that adds to the trade deficit - it's a vicious cycle. The more you need to grow the economy the more we have to borrow to buy. The more we buy the bigger our trade deficit gets. The bigger our trade deficit gets the more we need to grow our economy and so we borrow ... and so on.
Only when we address these two fundamental weaknesses in our economy will we start to see a real sustainable upturn in our economy. The only way I can see us doing that is by making more of what we buy - and the only way I can see us doing that is through protectionism.
If anyone has a better idea then let's hear it.
Mervyn King, governor of the Bank of England, cut his growth forecast and declared that there is as much chance that the economy will still be shrinking this time next year, as there is of it growing.
This will be bad news for the Labour Party who were hoping for a sign of recovery before they are forced to go to the polls next year although, with the way things are going, even a remarkable turnaround in the economy seems unlikely to save them.
Mr King said: "The economy will eventually heal but the process may be slow. This is not like the typical business cycle in the post-war period... Even if there is some recovery in output over the next six to nine months, we don't know how sustainable that will prove to be."
As you will know, this more or less reflects my own view - but obviously phrased in more diplomatic terms than I would do. There may be a minor bounce in the general downward trend, but I still believe that we are set for a long and protracted depression.
The reason I think this is that the fundamental flaws in the economy have not been addressed.
The first issue is the trade deficit. Any growth in GDP has to be balanced by what is going out of our economy through trade - and for the last 15 years or more that deficit has been growing and now far outstrips any increase in GDP. As I've pointed out before, if your GDP grows by 1.5%, but your trade deficit is 4% of GDP that is a net shrinkage in your economy.
It really is a simple issue. Annual growth in GDP equates to your annual pay rise while the trade deficit equates to inflation. If your income increases by 2%, but inflation rises by 5% you are 3% worse off.
Then there is the question of debt. The credit crunch is a symptom of that - not the cause. The apparent failure in regulation of banks is basically due to the fact that our economy is based on the accumulation of debt to feed economic growth. To regulate that would have meant curtailing growth and that was why the governments didn't just fail to act - they couldn't act.
And because that debt is used to buy goods which are largely sourced from overseas that adds to the trade deficit - it's a vicious cycle. The more you need to grow the economy the more we have to borrow to buy. The more we buy the bigger our trade deficit gets. The bigger our trade deficit gets the more we need to grow our economy and so we borrow ... and so on.
Only when we address these two fundamental weaknesses in our economy will we start to see a real sustainable upturn in our economy. The only way I can see us doing that is by making more of what we buy - and the only way I can see us doing that is through protectionism.
If anyone has a better idea then let's hear it.
Wednesday, May 13, 2009
Meanwhile, the real fraud goes on
OK, it's out now. The Lib Dems are having their day in the sun and the MP expenses furore has, if nothing else, been seen to be completely non-partisan. All three major parties are on the fiddle.
And this will make a difference .... how, exactly?
Tory voters will continue to vote Tory, Labour voters will continue to vote Labour and Lib Dem voters will continue to waver around depending on which way the wind blows - but will ultimately vote for one of the big three - or the Greens if they are feeling particularly pious and self-flagellating.
The honorable members will show some contrition, pay back some of the cash and then set about finding other ways to fund their lifestyles at taxpayers expense. Essentially, absolutely nothing will change - except, maybe, a fresh crop of people will be added to the growing number who don't vote anymore because "it doesn't make any difference".
Meanwhile, the real fraud will continue. The ongoing con-trick that has been perpetrated by the ruling elite on the people of Great Britain for more than thirty years - membership of the undemocratic, anti-British and unremittingly socialist European Union.
The House of Commons will continue to pretend that they are our lawmakers when they know full well that they do nothing more than rubber stamp 75% of our law which originates from the EU (and much of what doesn't is the precursor to something that will).
They'll continue to deceive us by claiming that we have some influence over this when they know damn well that in a lot of cases - and in an increasing number of areas - we don't. Our opt outs and vetos are being eroded one after the other.
They'll carry on insisting that the EU is democratic using the EU parliament as an example when they know damn well that the EU parliament is a mere fig leaf and that the laws themselves are drafted in secret by unelected and unaccountable appointees and bureaucrats.
Gordon Brown will pretend that he has the interests of "British jobs" and "British workers" when the reality is that he is incapable - thanks to the EU - of doing so.
David Cameron will persist in his claims to repatriate areas of sovereignty which he knows only too well it is impossible to do without withdrawal or wholesale renegotiation of previously ratified treaties which has never ever been done by anyone at any time - despite several attempts. All that happens is a new treaty comes out where even more sovereignty is swallowed up!
Nick Clegg will continue to ..... well, look like an overgrown schoolboy completely out of his depth.
Nothing that has happened over the past few weeks will alter the basic fact that we are being systematically defrauded by our politicians and have been for more than thirty years. Tebbit might have a whinge about it, but he's s culpable as the rest.
It's cost us our industry, control of our borders and laws, our pride and billions of pounds every single year. Now that is worth talking about - isn't it?
And this will make a difference .... how, exactly?
Tory voters will continue to vote Tory, Labour voters will continue to vote Labour and Lib Dem voters will continue to waver around depending on which way the wind blows - but will ultimately vote for one of the big three - or the Greens if they are feeling particularly pious and self-flagellating.
The honorable members will show some contrition, pay back some of the cash and then set about finding other ways to fund their lifestyles at taxpayers expense. Essentially, absolutely nothing will change - except, maybe, a fresh crop of people will be added to the growing number who don't vote anymore because "it doesn't make any difference".
Meanwhile, the real fraud will continue. The ongoing con-trick that has been perpetrated by the ruling elite on the people of Great Britain for more than thirty years - membership of the undemocratic, anti-British and unremittingly socialist European Union.
The House of Commons will continue to pretend that they are our lawmakers when they know full well that they do nothing more than rubber stamp 75% of our law which originates from the EU (and much of what doesn't is the precursor to something that will).
They'll continue to deceive us by claiming that we have some influence over this when they know damn well that in a lot of cases - and in an increasing number of areas - we don't. Our opt outs and vetos are being eroded one after the other.
They'll carry on insisting that the EU is democratic using the EU parliament as an example when they know damn well that the EU parliament is a mere fig leaf and that the laws themselves are drafted in secret by unelected and unaccountable appointees and bureaucrats.
Gordon Brown will pretend that he has the interests of "British jobs" and "British workers" when the reality is that he is incapable - thanks to the EU - of doing so.
David Cameron will persist in his claims to repatriate areas of sovereignty which he knows only too well it is impossible to do without withdrawal or wholesale renegotiation of previously ratified treaties which has never ever been done by anyone at any time - despite several attempts. All that happens is a new treaty comes out where even more sovereignty is swallowed up!
Nick Clegg will continue to ..... well, look like an overgrown schoolboy completely out of his depth.
Nothing that has happened over the past few weeks will alter the basic fact that we are being systematically defrauded by our politicians and have been for more than thirty years. Tebbit might have a whinge about it, but he's s culpable as the rest.
It's cost us our industry, control of our borders and laws, our pride and billions of pounds every single year. Now that is worth talking about - isn't it?
Tuesday, May 12, 2009
The definition of irony (2)
From The Times.
Outside a large, modern pub on the edge of Barnsley, penned in by police, 150 demonstrators chant “Nazi scum off our streets” and “String ’em up like Mussolini”.
Incredibly, I bet none of those at the protest recognise the irony. I'm not sure, but wouldn't chanting "string 'em up" be incitement to violence? I wonder how many of those at the protest were arrested?
Just as a test, substitute the fact they were a bunch of "anti-fascists" protesting at a BNP meeting for a bunch of anti-gay Catholics protesting at a Stonewall meeting. Do you think they'd be able to chant "gay scum off our streets" and "string 'em up" without being arrested?
Even if they could, do you think they would?
Outside a large, modern pub on the edge of Barnsley, penned in by police, 150 demonstrators chant “Nazi scum off our streets” and “String ’em up like Mussolini”.
Incredibly, I bet none of those at the protest recognise the irony. I'm not sure, but wouldn't chanting "string 'em up" be incitement to violence? I wonder how many of those at the protest were arrested?
Just as a test, substitute the fact they were a bunch of "anti-fascists" protesting at a BNP meeting for a bunch of anti-gay Catholics protesting at a Stonewall meeting. Do you think they'd be able to chant "gay scum off our streets" and "string 'em up" without being arrested?
Even if they could, do you think they would?
Nuts in May
Is it me or has everyone gone a bit barmy over the MP expenses row?
It's something that I really find hard to get excited about, but it seems to be just about the only thing occupying the thoughts of not only the MSM but the blogosphere as well. I know it's an important issue, but it's not THE important issue and with a major election coming up I'm sure there are some important issues which are being overlooked.
Not least the fact of the EU. We're about to have a vote for the EU Parliament where expenses abuses and gravy trains abound far more than they do in our own parliament. There's the EU constitutional treaty to worry about and the various vague promises to hold a referendum on that disgraceful document.
Both the Tories and the Lib Dems have been remarkably quiet on the issue of expenses - hardly surprising as they are up to their neck in it as well - but they've not exactly been vociferous in debating the issues that this up coming election is all about either.
As far as I can see, although these revelations have been embarrassing they aren't going to change our voting preferences in any substantial way. All the main parties have been exposed by this, but they know damn well that they operate in a closed shop - voters will still vote Lib Dem, labour or Tory and they'll still dominate parliament come the next General Election.
It's time we started having a proper debate about the issues at the heart of this election - and the fact is that all three parties are once more operating a closed shop. There is no debate because they all agree. The expenses row actually gives them the opportunity to avoid talking about those issues and the fact that they do all agree - so, in a way, we're actually letting them off the hook.
With even a Tory grandee like Tebbit telling voters not to vote for the main parties, this should be a great opportunity for UKIP to make some political capital. Although he never mentioned them by name, his words are a clear indication that he is backing UKIP - I doubt they could get a better endorsement bar Margaret Thatcher wearing a UKIP rosette.
It's also being suggested that Tebbit will be expelled from the Tory party for failing to back the Conservatives. What an opportunity that would be for UKIP!
Personally, I've still not decided who I will vote for - if anyone - but if there is any party I suppose it is UKIP. They are, after all, the party which reflects my own views closer than any other, but I do find them utterly infuriating. They have such potential, but they fail to maximise it again and again. If UKIP could be as motivated, organised and direct as the BNP they could really make some progress. I really believe there is a huge untapped, disenfranchised, conservative voter base crying out for UKIP to make themselves more electable - but they always seem to muck up any opportunity that comes their way.
A lot of that comes from UKIP wanting to run before they can walk. They've failed to build the core support at the grass roots in the way BNP does and their electoral gains in 2004 went to their heads.
From what I understand, the UKIP share of the vote in the coming election is likely to collapse substantially - they will have only themselves to blame if it does. Whatever happens, UKIP must start to concentrate on building that core support in the way the BNP does. You may not like the BNP, but you have to admire the way they've built their share of the vote - slowly and determinedly.
UKIP must learn from that. Are they able to? I'm not sure.
It's something that I really find hard to get excited about, but it seems to be just about the only thing occupying the thoughts of not only the MSM but the blogosphere as well. I know it's an important issue, but it's not THE important issue and with a major election coming up I'm sure there are some important issues which are being overlooked.
Not least the fact of the EU. We're about to have a vote for the EU Parliament where expenses abuses and gravy trains abound far more than they do in our own parliament. There's the EU constitutional treaty to worry about and the various vague promises to hold a referendum on that disgraceful document.
Both the Tories and the Lib Dems have been remarkably quiet on the issue of expenses - hardly surprising as they are up to their neck in it as well - but they've not exactly been vociferous in debating the issues that this up coming election is all about either.
As far as I can see, although these revelations have been embarrassing they aren't going to change our voting preferences in any substantial way. All the main parties have been exposed by this, but they know damn well that they operate in a closed shop - voters will still vote Lib Dem, labour or Tory and they'll still dominate parliament come the next General Election.
It's time we started having a proper debate about the issues at the heart of this election - and the fact is that all three parties are once more operating a closed shop. There is no debate because they all agree. The expenses row actually gives them the opportunity to avoid talking about those issues and the fact that they do all agree - so, in a way, we're actually letting them off the hook.
With even a Tory grandee like Tebbit telling voters not to vote for the main parties, this should be a great opportunity for UKIP to make some political capital. Although he never mentioned them by name, his words are a clear indication that he is backing UKIP - I doubt they could get a better endorsement bar Margaret Thatcher wearing a UKIP rosette.
It's also being suggested that Tebbit will be expelled from the Tory party for failing to back the Conservatives. What an opportunity that would be for UKIP!
Personally, I've still not decided who I will vote for - if anyone - but if there is any party I suppose it is UKIP. They are, after all, the party which reflects my own views closer than any other, but I do find them utterly infuriating. They have such potential, but they fail to maximise it again and again. If UKIP could be as motivated, organised and direct as the BNP they could really make some progress. I really believe there is a huge untapped, disenfranchised, conservative voter base crying out for UKIP to make themselves more electable - but they always seem to muck up any opportunity that comes their way.
A lot of that comes from UKIP wanting to run before they can walk. They've failed to build the core support at the grass roots in the way BNP does and their electoral gains in 2004 went to their heads.
From what I understand, the UKIP share of the vote in the coming election is likely to collapse substantially - they will have only themselves to blame if it does. Whatever happens, UKIP must start to concentrate on building that core support in the way the BNP does. You may not like the BNP, but you have to admire the way they've built their share of the vote - slowly and determinedly.
UKIP must learn from that. Are they able to? I'm not sure.
How to reform MPs allowances
OK - we all agree that MPs who have a constituency outside of London need somewhere to stay when parliament is sitting and a reasonable living allowance - but we also agree that they are out of touch with reality. So here's a way to solve two problems in one go.
First, buy up a number of flats in the worst sink estates dotted around London and plonk them in there. The flats will be owned by the local council and maintained in the usual local authority way.
Second, give them a weekly allowance which they consider reasonable - equivalent to a single person's pension. If it's enough for a pensioner's total income it's more than enough for an MP's expenses.
Third, tax them exactly the same as they tax us. No exemptions.
That should bring them back down to earth.
First, buy up a number of flats in the worst sink estates dotted around London and plonk them in there. The flats will be owned by the local council and maintained in the usual local authority way.
Second, give them a weekly allowance which they consider reasonable - equivalent to a single person's pension. If it's enough for a pensioner's total income it's more than enough for an MP's expenses.
Third, tax them exactly the same as they tax us. No exemptions.
That should bring them back down to earth.
Monday, May 11, 2009
Why I'm pro-choice
Whenever there is a discussion about abortion it always seems to boil down to the woman's right to choose. Well, I'm all in favour of women having the right to choose - the right to choose whether to have sex or not - but having made that choice I believe that they should accept the consequences of their decision.
That doesn't mean I want abortion banned - just more strictly limited and the reasons for wanting it more stringently tested. Every year some 200,000* babies are aborted in Britain. Are we seriously supposed to believe that these are all the result of a rape or broken condom? Is anyone seriously suggesting that the majority of these women having abortions are Catholics who can't face the prospect of bringing a ninth child into the world with their resources so badly stretched?
I don't think so. The vast majority of abortions are the result of women refusing to exercise the self-discipline and restraint required to say "no". That's their choice - they should live with it.
*Just for context, since abortion was liberalised we have ended more lives than the Nazis managed with the Holocaust - in Britain alone.
And I still can not understand why liberals think it is OK to kill an innocent baby, but not OK to hang a murdering bastard.
That doesn't mean I want abortion banned - just more strictly limited and the reasons for wanting it more stringently tested. Every year some 200,000* babies are aborted in Britain. Are we seriously supposed to believe that these are all the result of a rape or broken condom? Is anyone seriously suggesting that the majority of these women having abortions are Catholics who can't face the prospect of bringing a ninth child into the world with their resources so badly stretched?
I don't think so. The vast majority of abortions are the result of women refusing to exercise the self-discipline and restraint required to say "no". That's their choice - they should live with it.
*Just for context, since abortion was liberalised we have ended more lives than the Nazis managed with the Holocaust - in Britain alone.
And I still can not understand why liberals think it is OK to kill an innocent baby, but not OK to hang a murdering bastard.
Peace or war in the Middle East? What's new?
The King of Jordan is suggesting that the latest "make or break" talks to solve the Middle East crisis will be the last.
King Abdullah II told The Times. Failure to reach agreement at this critical juncture would draw the world into a new Middle East war next year. “If we delay our peace negotiations, then there is going to be another conflict between Arabs or Muslims and Israel in the next 12-18 months,” the King said.
“What we are talking about is not Israelis and Palestinians sitting at the table, but Israelis sitting with Palestinians, Israelis sitting with Syrians, Israelis sitting with Lebanese,” said the King, who hatched the plan with Mr Obama in Washington last month. He added that, if Mr Obama did not make good his promise for peace, then his credibility would evaporate overnight.
Obama has credibility? If that wasn't shocking enough the next bit from the Telegraph is even more so.
The Israeli Government has so far rejected any moves that would lead to a two-state solution, the creation of a Palestinian state living side by side with Israel.....
Is that true? I don't believe it is. The Israeli government has never been adverse to the idea of a two state solution - isn't that one of the reasons they pulled out of Gaza? - it's just been unhappy with the idea of one of those states having the expressed intent of destroying Israel. To me that seems quite understandable.
[T]he King insisted that what was being proposed was a “57-state solution”, whereby the Arab and entire Muslim world would recognise the Jewish state as part of the deal.
Yeah - well good luck with that one, your Highness. Trouble is - even if you get that agreement from the Heinz (57) states there are all the non-state actors and various proxy armies to deal with who will never ever accept Israel's right to exist.
King Abdullah II told The Times. Failure to reach agreement at this critical juncture would draw the world into a new Middle East war next year. “If we delay our peace negotiations, then there is going to be another conflict between Arabs or Muslims and Israel in the next 12-18 months,” the King said.
“What we are talking about is not Israelis and Palestinians sitting at the table, but Israelis sitting with Palestinians, Israelis sitting with Syrians, Israelis sitting with Lebanese,” said the King, who hatched the plan with Mr Obama in Washington last month. He added that, if Mr Obama did not make good his promise for peace, then his credibility would evaporate overnight.
Obama has credibility? If that wasn't shocking enough the next bit from the Telegraph is even more so.
The Israeli Government has so far rejected any moves that would lead to a two-state solution, the creation of a Palestinian state living side by side with Israel.....
Is that true? I don't believe it is. The Israeli government has never been adverse to the idea of a two state solution - isn't that one of the reasons they pulled out of Gaza? - it's just been unhappy with the idea of one of those states having the expressed intent of destroying Israel. To me that seems quite understandable.
[T]he King insisted that what was being proposed was a “57-state solution”, whereby the Arab and entire Muslim world would recognise the Jewish state as part of the deal.
Yeah - well good luck with that one, your Highness. Trouble is - even if you get that agreement from the Heinz (57) states there are all the non-state actors and various proxy armies to deal with who will never ever accept Israel's right to exist.
The savage streets
Another day, another dad beaten to death by a gang of youths.
The youths launched their attack just a few yards from Mr Wass's home in Loxley, Sheffield, after he came out of his house at 11.30pm on Saturday night and asked the gang to be quiet.
The police, of course, were nowhere to be seen as they long ago retreated from the streets to the comfort of their motor cars and corporate headquarters. That really doesn't matter much anyway as the march of the "rights" brigade and the awareness of these rights by such youths usually means that the police, even if they are around, can do nothing except arrest the homeowners who "take the law into their own hands".
As it's usually a group of "youths" - rarely one on his own - they can then make up whatever story they like and get the dad arrested - usually claiming an assault. In the absence of the rule of law, the tyranny of the mob will reign supreme.
But if the police aren't around, the trouble making youths will just kick, beat and stone the dad to death - or, if he's really unlucky, into a dribbling vegetable. They know they are unlikely to get caught and punished and they know that even if they are it will only mean a few months in some cushy youth offending institute.
No doubt there will be more pleading for understanding from the bleeding heart liberals; more claims from the progressives that crime isn't really that bad - it's just our imagination and "fear"; more social scientist statistics to demonstrate that crime is falling .... honestly, and more assurances from the distant police forces that they are "determined" to bring those who commit such acts to justice - followed by more arrests of people trying to stop gangs of youths pissing in their gardens.
The only reason crime falls is because the law-abiding take more and more steps to avoid being victims of crime. What that means in real terms is that more and more people are locking themselves into their homes and not venturing outside for any reason - particularly at night.
That's the Britain of today - the social liberal Britain where we are forced to imprison ourselves every night because the criminals rule the streets.
The youths launched their attack just a few yards from Mr Wass's home in Loxley, Sheffield, after he came out of his house at 11.30pm on Saturday night and asked the gang to be quiet.
The police, of course, were nowhere to be seen as they long ago retreated from the streets to the comfort of their motor cars and corporate headquarters. That really doesn't matter much anyway as the march of the "rights" brigade and the awareness of these rights by such youths usually means that the police, even if they are around, can do nothing except arrest the homeowners who "take the law into their own hands".
As it's usually a group of "youths" - rarely one on his own - they can then make up whatever story they like and get the dad arrested - usually claiming an assault. In the absence of the rule of law, the tyranny of the mob will reign supreme.
But if the police aren't around, the trouble making youths will just kick, beat and stone the dad to death - or, if he's really unlucky, into a dribbling vegetable. They know they are unlikely to get caught and punished and they know that even if they are it will only mean a few months in some cushy youth offending institute.
No doubt there will be more pleading for understanding from the bleeding heart liberals; more claims from the progressives that crime isn't really that bad - it's just our imagination and "fear"; more social scientist statistics to demonstrate that crime is falling .... honestly, and more assurances from the distant police forces that they are "determined" to bring those who commit such acts to justice - followed by more arrests of people trying to stop gangs of youths pissing in their gardens.
The only reason crime falls is because the law-abiding take more and more steps to avoid being victims of crime. What that means in real terms is that more and more people are locking themselves into their homes and not venturing outside for any reason - particularly at night.
That's the Britain of today - the social liberal Britain where we are forced to imprison ourselves every night because the criminals rule the streets.
Sunday, May 10, 2009
Ranting Stan's Sunday Drive: Fiat 850 Coupe
When I was a young lad having just passed my driving test there were lots of cars available to buy in my price range - between £100 and £200. There were big old cars like early Cortinas, slightly younger mid sized cars like the Anglia or Austin 1100 or there were cheap little cars like the Riley Elf I eventually settled on. As new young drivers we could get hold of just about every kind of car you wanted - except a fast one.There were fast cars around, of course, but these were generally expensive to both buy and insure - so, instead we looked for cars that looked like they might be fast even if they weren't. The astonishingly pretty Fiat 850 Coupe was just such a car. Developed from the 850 saloon - itself a development of the Fiat 600 - the 850 Coupe was a pretty little rear engined fast back that made a very decent alternative to the Imps and Minis which so many young drivers favoured.
It had a similar performance to these cars, but the different layout and slightly exotic flavour made it an attractive proposition to someone who wanted something a bit different so the 850 coupe was my first choice. I spent many hours poring over the Thames Valley Trader looking for an 850 Coupe in my price range only to find once I'd identified one that it was already sold or badly afflicted by the metal moth (rust).
Eventually I gave up and bought the Elf from a friend of a friend of my mother. Over 10 years old and less than 30,000 miles on the clock with leather seats, wood dash and go kart handling .... for £185, but I always retained an affection for the pretty little Fiat that was my first choice.
Friday, May 08, 2009
English Poetry: Insects
It's been ages since I featured a poem on here so it's about time we had one. Here's a beautiful and evocative lyric from one of my favourites - John Clare - on a rather unusual subject.
Insects
These tiny loiterers on the barley's beard,
And happy units of a numerous herd
Of playfellows, the laughing Summer brings,
Mocking the sunshine on their glittering wings,
How merrily they creep, and run, and fly!
No kin they bear to labour's drudgery,
Smoothing the velvet of the pale hedge-rose;
And where they fly for dinner no one knows -
The dew-drops feed them not - they love the shine
Of noon, whose suns may bring them golden wine
All day they're playing in their Sunday dress -
When night reposes, for they can do no less;
Then, to the heath-bell's purple hood they fly,
And like to princes in their slumbers lie,
Secure from rain, and dropping dews, and all,
In silken beds and roomy painted hall.
So merrily they spend their summer-day,
Now in the corn-fields, now in the new-mown hay.
One almost fancies that such happy things,
With coloured hoods and richly burnished wings,
Are fairy folk, in splendid masquerade
Disguised, as if of mortal folk afraid,
Keeping their joyous pranks a mystery still,
Lest glaring day should do their secrets ill.
John Clare (1793 - 1864)
Insects
These tiny loiterers on the barley's beard,
And happy units of a numerous herd
Of playfellows, the laughing Summer brings,
Mocking the sunshine on their glittering wings,
How merrily they creep, and run, and fly!
No kin they bear to labour's drudgery,
Smoothing the velvet of the pale hedge-rose;
And where they fly for dinner no one knows -
The dew-drops feed them not - they love the shine
Of noon, whose suns may bring them golden wine
All day they're playing in their Sunday dress -
When night reposes, for they can do no less;
Then, to the heath-bell's purple hood they fly,
And like to princes in their slumbers lie,
Secure from rain, and dropping dews, and all,
In silken beds and roomy painted hall.
So merrily they spend their summer-day,
Now in the corn-fields, now in the new-mown hay.
One almost fancies that such happy things,
With coloured hoods and richly burnished wings,
Are fairy folk, in splendid masquerade
Disguised, as if of mortal folk afraid,
Keeping their joyous pranks a mystery still,
Lest glaring day should do their secrets ill.
John Clare (1793 - 1864)
Major's lament
Over on The Telegraph comment section there is an article by ex-PM, John Major, with the tagline (in quotes) that "Britain must be put first".
John Major on Gordon Brown: 'Britain must be put first'
I've read and re-read the article several times - even run a "find" on it - and can't find that phrase anywhere in the entire piece. Not only that, I can't even find a mention of "Britain"!
What I did find were a series of comments by Major seeking to defend his record and that of his government. My personal view of Major is that he was quite probably the worst Prime Minister we have ever had - until Tony Blair .... and Gordon Brown.
As I think he was the worst Conservative PM, it's hardly surprising that I also think he was the worst leader of the Conservative Party we've ever had. Indeed, it was under Major that the slow decline of the Tory party into social liberalism gathered pace. If you want a clue as to why this happened, then this line might help .....
Indeed, on the morrow of the 1992 election victory, Chris Patten and I speculated on the unlikelihood of a fifth win.
Jesus Christ - his party had just secured a fourth consecutive term and he'd already given up any hope of winning the next election! Could you imagine Thatcher being so defeatist?
I actually opened the article looking forward to hearing someone say (at last) that the British government ought to put the interests of the British nation and British people before any others. I was, admittedly, surprised that it should be Major who was to say it, but I didn't really care who it was as long as someone prominent said it.
What a let down. Get back to the cricket, Major - it's all you were ever really cut out for.
John Major on Gordon Brown: 'Britain must be put first'
I've read and re-read the article several times - even run a "find" on it - and can't find that phrase anywhere in the entire piece. Not only that, I can't even find a mention of "Britain"!
What I did find were a series of comments by Major seeking to defend his record and that of his government. My personal view of Major is that he was quite probably the worst Prime Minister we have ever had - until Tony Blair .... and Gordon Brown.
As I think he was the worst Conservative PM, it's hardly surprising that I also think he was the worst leader of the Conservative Party we've ever had. Indeed, it was under Major that the slow decline of the Tory party into social liberalism gathered pace. If you want a clue as to why this happened, then this line might help .....
Indeed, on the morrow of the 1992 election victory, Chris Patten and I speculated on the unlikelihood of a fifth win.
Jesus Christ - his party had just secured a fourth consecutive term and he'd already given up any hope of winning the next election! Could you imagine Thatcher being so defeatist?
I actually opened the article looking forward to hearing someone say (at last) that the British government ought to put the interests of the British nation and British people before any others. I was, admittedly, surprised that it should be Major who was to say it, but I didn't really care who it was as long as someone prominent said it.
What a let down. Get back to the cricket, Major - it's all you were ever really cut out for.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)