Watching BBC Breakfast this morning I was intrigued by the story of the black councillor who had been prosecuted for "racial harassment" after describing an Asian councillor as a "coconut".
Councillor Shirley Brown was apparently so incensed by the demand of her Asian colleague that, what with money being tight and everything, it would be a good idea to cut spending on council projects for black and Asian people, that she accused her fellow councillor of being a "coconut" - i.e. brown on the outside, but white underneath.
I found this story interesting for two reasons. First of all, I couldn't help wondering why - with incidents and prosecutions for racial incidents involving councillors going on up and down the country all the time - this particular incident was worthy of prime coverage on the BBC Breakfast programme.
The other thing I find interesting is that councils throw money into projects that specifically exclude white people and no one gives a damn.
It seems overt discrimination and blatant racism are acceptable after all.
Tuesday, June 29, 2010
Saturday, June 26, 2010
Ranting Stan's Irrational Hatred Of The Week: "Now only four nine nine"
I'm sure you've seen those adverts - usually for large electronic goods or furniture - where some breathless voice over actor tells us that the price of a television or sofa is now just "four nine nine".
Four nine nine what? Does he mean four hundred and ninety nine pounds? If so, why not say so?
Why has it become so hard to say numbers properly?
Almost as annoying is the habit of saying something is "now under five hundred pounds" when the sticker price is £499.99.
I hate it.
Four nine nine what? Does he mean four hundred and ninety nine pounds? If so, why not say so?
Why has it become so hard to say numbers properly?
Almost as annoying is the habit of saying something is "now under five hundred pounds" when the sticker price is £499.99.
I hate it.
Thursday, June 24, 2010
Breaking the cycle
In case you haven't noticed, I am more than a little sceptical about the coalition governments plans to fix our economy. More than this, I am not convinced that any current political party - or coalition thereof - understands what our economy needs long term for real growth based on wealth rather than pseudo growth based on debt.
I believe that we are set for a decade of, at best, stagnation and inflation - stagflation they used to call it - and, at worst, a full blown, full on depression that will have profound and long term consequences for this nation, its people, their living standards and prosperity. Nothing I have seen from government or read in the media has changed my mind about this - indeed, I've read various articles from various sources which tend to support my view.
However, even if I am wrong and this coalition does manage to stave off the worst case scenario in the short to medium term there remains the problem of what happens in the future when we are back to where we were - say - in 2000?
This coalition - from both the Lib Dems and Conservative flanks - have made much of how they are a "progressive" government. Both the Prime Minister and his Chancellor have claimed that they are progressive politicians and dedicated to the causes of progressivism - and, by implication, the fallacies that ideology is based on.
Consequently, there is no reason to believe that once the economy is "fixed", they will not resort to throwing money into schemes and ideas which progressivism favours - and all that entails. For me there are two major problem areas with this - welfare and manufacturing.
The problem regarding welfare is perhaps the most obvious. Progressivism insists on certain universal "truths" which are either uncertain or patently wrong. For example, the belief that crime is linked to poverty and that if you give people enough money they won't commit crime is clearly daft - but it is considered a "truth" by progressives.
Hence they pour billions of pounds every year into "supporting" criminals and their lifestyles in the vain hope this will solve the problem. It doesn't, of course, because crime is not caused by poverty but by greed, avarice and laziness - and welfare supports all of these traits.
That's just one example of many, but the point I'm trying to make is that to genuinely have a hope of fixing Britain's problems in the long term we need a government committed to breaking the cycle of dependency which so many people in Britain have fallen into. That needs a government that is tough and, above all, socially conservative - because any government that subscribes to the social liberal position is going to fall into the same traps as previous social liberal governments.
There isn't a hope in hell that this coalition will have either the will or the strength needed to break that cycle so the only conclusion that can be reached is that, even in the unlikely event that they do sort out our current problems, they will only make the same mistakes as Brown, Blair and Major.
Remember, before the "credit crunch" struck and the reality of our "economic miracle" was exposed, Cameron and his party backed the Labour government spending plans completely. It was only after the dire situation was revealed that the Tories decided to change tack - and then only marginally.
They do not have the answers. They don't even understand the questions. All they have is the same misguided beliefs that Brown and Blair had and the result will be exactly the same.
Disaster
I believe that we are set for a decade of, at best, stagnation and inflation - stagflation they used to call it - and, at worst, a full blown, full on depression that will have profound and long term consequences for this nation, its people, their living standards and prosperity. Nothing I have seen from government or read in the media has changed my mind about this - indeed, I've read various articles from various sources which tend to support my view.
However, even if I am wrong and this coalition does manage to stave off the worst case scenario in the short to medium term there remains the problem of what happens in the future when we are back to where we were - say - in 2000?
This coalition - from both the Lib Dems and Conservative flanks - have made much of how they are a "progressive" government. Both the Prime Minister and his Chancellor have claimed that they are progressive politicians and dedicated to the causes of progressivism - and, by implication, the fallacies that ideology is based on.
Consequently, there is no reason to believe that once the economy is "fixed", they will not resort to throwing money into schemes and ideas which progressivism favours - and all that entails. For me there are two major problem areas with this - welfare and manufacturing.
The problem regarding welfare is perhaps the most obvious. Progressivism insists on certain universal "truths" which are either uncertain or patently wrong. For example, the belief that crime is linked to poverty and that if you give people enough money they won't commit crime is clearly daft - but it is considered a "truth" by progressives.
Hence they pour billions of pounds every year into "supporting" criminals and their lifestyles in the vain hope this will solve the problem. It doesn't, of course, because crime is not caused by poverty but by greed, avarice and laziness - and welfare supports all of these traits.
That's just one example of many, but the point I'm trying to make is that to genuinely have a hope of fixing Britain's problems in the long term we need a government committed to breaking the cycle of dependency which so many people in Britain have fallen into. That needs a government that is tough and, above all, socially conservative - because any government that subscribes to the social liberal position is going to fall into the same traps as previous social liberal governments.
There isn't a hope in hell that this coalition will have either the will or the strength needed to break that cycle so the only conclusion that can be reached is that, even in the unlikely event that they do sort out our current problems, they will only make the same mistakes as Brown, Blair and Major.
Remember, before the "credit crunch" struck and the reality of our "economic miracle" was exposed, Cameron and his party backed the Labour government spending plans completely. It was only after the dire situation was revealed that the Tories decided to change tack - and then only marginally.
They do not have the answers. They don't even understand the questions. All they have is the same misguided beliefs that Brown and Blair had and the result will be exactly the same.
Disaster
Wednesday, June 23, 2010
Did I miss something?
While All the news channels and newspapers are going on about Osborne's "tough" budget cuts, I'm still trying to work out what they heard that I didn't.
Aside from the completely expected rise in VAT and CGT there was little in this budget that put any flesh on the bones of the cuts we are all told to expect. A public sector pay freeze? Well, no doubt the public sector will complain, but let's be honest - this was two years overdue (at least).
Instead the Chancellor has deferred adding any detail on the cuts until October - which makes me wonder why he had this budget now when half the stuff he mentioned was deferred until next year anyway! It looks to me as if this was designed to grab headlines - which it has - and, perhaps more than this, it looks like it was forced by the Lib Dems to push their election pledges.
When it came to actual cuts, there was no detail whatsoever - hardly surprising as the government haven't held their comprehensive spending review yet - but the media have gone mad over the prospect of a 25% cut in public sector spending.
Which wasn't what was said - if I understood it. I thought the Chancellor said the cuts would "average" 25% - not that public sector spending would be slashed by 25%. There is a difference - if you cut the spending of a minor department by 50% and that of a larger department by 1% you'll get an average cut of around 25% - but that won't necessarily slash the combined spending of those two departments by 25%.
If the budget of the first department is £6 billion and the second is £60 billion then you'll save around £3.5 billion pounds off a total spend of £66 billion - which is about 5%. So, although you've cut departmental budgets by an average 25% the actual savings in money terms is only 5% - hardly the sort of thing to solve this crisis.
So, unless I missed something, I'll defer my opinion on whether this is enough to stave off the coming crisis until Osborne actually adds some specifics. So far, all we've got is a paltry few billion pounds worth of cuts which won't make the slightest difference in the long run - or even in the short term.
Aside from the completely expected rise in VAT and CGT there was little in this budget that put any flesh on the bones of the cuts we are all told to expect. A public sector pay freeze? Well, no doubt the public sector will complain, but let's be honest - this was two years overdue (at least).
Instead the Chancellor has deferred adding any detail on the cuts until October - which makes me wonder why he had this budget now when half the stuff he mentioned was deferred until next year anyway! It looks to me as if this was designed to grab headlines - which it has - and, perhaps more than this, it looks like it was forced by the Lib Dems to push their election pledges.
When it came to actual cuts, there was no detail whatsoever - hardly surprising as the government haven't held their comprehensive spending review yet - but the media have gone mad over the prospect of a 25% cut in public sector spending.
Which wasn't what was said - if I understood it. I thought the Chancellor said the cuts would "average" 25% - not that public sector spending would be slashed by 25%. There is a difference - if you cut the spending of a minor department by 50% and that of a larger department by 1% you'll get an average cut of around 25% - but that won't necessarily slash the combined spending of those two departments by 25%.
If the budget of the first department is £6 billion and the second is £60 billion then you'll save around £3.5 billion pounds off a total spend of £66 billion - which is about 5%. So, although you've cut departmental budgets by an average 25% the actual savings in money terms is only 5% - hardly the sort of thing to solve this crisis.
So, unless I missed something, I'll defer my opinion on whether this is enough to stave off the coming crisis until Osborne actually adds some specifics. So far, all we've got is a paltry few billion pounds worth of cuts which won't make the slightest difference in the long run - or even in the short term.
Tuesday, June 22, 2010
Time to tighten your belts
The long awaited day has arrived and we will finally learn the details of the coalition government's plan to rescue Britain from the depths of recession and stave off the depression that will engulf this nation for a decade or more if they fail.
Yes, it really is that important. It is, quite probably, the most important budget since the end of the Second World War and we've entrusted it to the boy George Osborne. Personally, I can't think of many people whose hands I would be less inclined to place my fate and that of the nation in - but that's who we've got so we'll just have to hope he's up to it. Perhaps he'll surprise me - I certainly hope so.
However, I've not been impressed with what he has done so far and I'm set to be disappointed again. I expect taxes to go up sharply for most of us and I suspect that a lot of what is introduced will do more harm to our already weak jobs market.
Let's be honest about this. Tinkering around the edges of an economy where jobs are rare and getting rarer isn't going to help much - and those jobs have to be real, productive jobs and not the non-jobs which proliferate in the public sector.
It doesn't matter how much this budget helps reduce the deficit if there is no long term plan to get the millions of Britons off benefits and back to working in the productive sector.
That is the key for the future - making stuff.
Yes, it really is that important. It is, quite probably, the most important budget since the end of the Second World War and we've entrusted it to the boy George Osborne. Personally, I can't think of many people whose hands I would be less inclined to place my fate and that of the nation in - but that's who we've got so we'll just have to hope he's up to it. Perhaps he'll surprise me - I certainly hope so.
However, I've not been impressed with what he has done so far and I'm set to be disappointed again. I expect taxes to go up sharply for most of us and I suspect that a lot of what is introduced will do more harm to our already weak jobs market.
Let's be honest about this. Tinkering around the edges of an economy where jobs are rare and getting rarer isn't going to help much - and those jobs have to be real, productive jobs and not the non-jobs which proliferate in the public sector.
It doesn't matter how much this budget helps reduce the deficit if there is no long term plan to get the millions of Britons off benefits and back to working in the productive sector.
That is the key for the future - making stuff.
Monday, June 21, 2010
Shock, horror! MP exposed as a lying, cheating hypocrite!
So it turns out that, while promoting himself as a decent family man during the election campaign - devoted to his wife of 26 years and their children - the Lib Dem MP and EUphile, Chris Huhne was actually conducting a long term, clandestine affair with another woman.
As others have pointed out before, there was a time when such behaviour was deemed sufficiently bad that ministers were expected to resign. These days they cling on to their jobs pretty much regardless of what they get up to - which says a lot about the moral standards of our modern world and the current generation of politicians.
Perhaps the only real surprise here, though, is that anyone should be surprised that an MP should turn out to be a lying, cheating hypocrite.
That's partly the trouble - we've all become so used to our MPs being skilled in the art of deception that we're no longer surprised or even bothered by it. I've no doubt that Huhne's constituency party will rally around him and, by the time of the next election, it will have been sufficiently forgotten about for the electorate to vote him back in again.
But the reality is that all this stuff builds up over time. MPs wonder why the public no longer believe them or have and trust in them when they have repeatedly seen that these politicians have no loyalty to even those closest to them - so why are they amazed to find the public doesn't trust them either?
If they really want to restore public faith in politics - or rather politicians - then this would be a good place to start. Huhne should resign as a minister and stand down as an MP - if he doesn't then Cameron should sack him and his party should deselect him.
If they want us to trust them then they better start giving us reasons why we should - and one way of doing that is by not giving jobs to lying, cheating hypocrites.
As others have pointed out before, there was a time when such behaviour was deemed sufficiently bad that ministers were expected to resign. These days they cling on to their jobs pretty much regardless of what they get up to - which says a lot about the moral standards of our modern world and the current generation of politicians.
Perhaps the only real surprise here, though, is that anyone should be surprised that an MP should turn out to be a lying, cheating hypocrite.
That's partly the trouble - we've all become so used to our MPs being skilled in the art of deception that we're no longer surprised or even bothered by it. I've no doubt that Huhne's constituency party will rally around him and, by the time of the next election, it will have been sufficiently forgotten about for the electorate to vote him back in again.
But the reality is that all this stuff builds up over time. MPs wonder why the public no longer believe them or have and trust in them when they have repeatedly seen that these politicians have no loyalty to even those closest to them - so why are they amazed to find the public doesn't trust them either?
If they really want to restore public faith in politics - or rather politicians - then this would be a good place to start. Huhne should resign as a minister and stand down as an MP - if he doesn't then Cameron should sack him and his party should deselect him.
If they want us to trust them then they better start giving us reasons why we should - and one way of doing that is by not giving jobs to lying, cheating hypocrites.
Saturday, June 19, 2010
Blame the system
Prior to this World Cup, it's been years since I watched any live football and judging on last night's performance by England against Algeria it doesn't look like I've missed much.
Although I'm always saying that I'm not much of a football fan I did used to play the game up to a reasonable level in my youth. I'm no master tactician or qualified coach, but I do understand the game a little. But after listening to the pundits last night there is something I don't understand - so perhaps someone can explain this to me?
How does playing a 4-4-2 formation make players unable to shoot, head, pass or control a football?
Although I'm always saying that I'm not much of a football fan I did used to play the game up to a reasonable level in my youth. I'm no master tactician or qualified coach, but I do understand the game a little. But after listening to the pundits last night there is something I don't understand - so perhaps someone can explain this to me?
How does playing a 4-4-2 formation make players unable to shoot, head, pass or control a football?
Friday, June 18, 2010
Ranting Stan's Irrational Hatred Of The Week: Affected Accents
It's pretty hard to explain this one, but basically I'm fed up with the way newsreaders - and particularly BBC newsreaders - feel obliged to assume a dodgy French accent when pronouncing the name of the President of France. For some reason they mumble along in their usual estuary English until they get to his name and suddenly they go all Sacha Distel and it's "Neecoola Saarcorzee"!
Who are they trying to impress? It's bad enough that they insist on calling Peking "Beijing" or Bombay "Mumbai" - they don't call Munich "Munchen" or Rome "Roma" - but now they are starting to adopt a fake foreign accent when they attempt foreign names.
Why? It's pathetic and I hate it.
Who are they trying to impress? It's bad enough that they insist on calling Peking "Beijing" or Bombay "Mumbai" - they don't call Munich "Munchen" or Rome "Roma" - but now they are starting to adopt a fake foreign accent when they attempt foreign names.
Why? It's pathetic and I hate it.
Thursday, June 17, 2010
Is the message getting through, yet?
As yet another nation distorted by the corrupt and bankrupt policy of multiculturalism collapses into violent, bloody ethnic conflict Central Asia I can not help but wonder whether anyone in Britain is taking note of this.
The first thing to say about the troubles in Kyrgyzstan is that it really isn't any of our business directly. However, what I will say is that the lessons we can learn from this (and from similar previous incidents such as what happened in the Balkans) is that multiculturalism does not work - ever.
Which is why our leaders and politicians are playing a dangerous game by insisting that they can make it work and that it is good for Britain - and they are playing this dangerous game with our nation and the futures of our children and grandchildren.
It should be impossible for them to ignore the evidence that multiculturalism is not just a misguided policy, but a potentially explosive and catastrophic policy - everywhere it is tried the end result is eventually violence and bloodshed. It should be impossible, but somehow they do.
They do because they stupidly deceive themselves that this can not happen here because we are British and its just not the "British way" to do things. That may have been true fifty years ago, but after decades of multiculturalism being imposed on the people of Britain we no longer have a British cultural dominance and we also have an increasing ethnic population who have no attachment to "the British way" of doing things.
We must make our politicians listen to us. Multiculturalism has never worked anywhere and it is stupid to assume that we can make it work in Britain. They have to abandon their belief in this dangerous policy now and abandon it for ever.
The first thing to say about the troubles in Kyrgyzstan is that it really isn't any of our business directly. However, what I will say is that the lessons we can learn from this (and from similar previous incidents such as what happened in the Balkans) is that multiculturalism does not work - ever.
Which is why our leaders and politicians are playing a dangerous game by insisting that they can make it work and that it is good for Britain - and they are playing this dangerous game with our nation and the futures of our children and grandchildren.
It should be impossible for them to ignore the evidence that multiculturalism is not just a misguided policy, but a potentially explosive and catastrophic policy - everywhere it is tried the end result is eventually violence and bloodshed. It should be impossible, but somehow they do.
They do because they stupidly deceive themselves that this can not happen here because we are British and its just not the "British way" to do things. That may have been true fifty years ago, but after decades of multiculturalism being imposed on the people of Britain we no longer have a British cultural dominance and we also have an increasing ethnic population who have no attachment to "the British way" of doing things.
We must make our politicians listen to us. Multiculturalism has never worked anywhere and it is stupid to assume that we can make it work in Britain. They have to abandon their belief in this dangerous policy now and abandon it for ever.
Removing the barriers to being a good neighbour
I read something the other day that said that more and more of us don't know our neighbours. Some people might have thousands of "virtual" friends on FaceSpace or MyTwit with whom they will spend hours chatting with, but have never said anything much to their next door neighbour beyond "hello".
I don't know what the reason for this is, but I personally suspect that fences have something to do with it - that and this modern craving for "privacy".
When I was a kid growing up at the family home we lived in an ordinary 3 bedroom semi. When I was young I would play out in the back garden as did the neighbours kids. Between us were the herbaceous borders and a three foot high cross link fence over which we would talk and play - it made a very good net for tennis or badminton.
Consequently, my mum would often spend time chatting with the mum next door while hanging out the washing or just enjoying the garden. They became firm friends and remained so even after the neighbours moved on. This scenario applied to just about every other home I knew or visited - the low fences meant that neighbours knew one another and looked out for one another as well.
When we moved to our current home this also had the standard three foot high cross link wire fence between us and the neighbours. As a result we got to know them and they got to know us, but when they moved out a few years back and the new lot moved in, the first thing they did was install a six foot high wooden fence between us and them (and the other side too). When I asked why they told us it was for "privacy" - what they hell were they planning to do in their garden I wondered, but didn't ask.
As a result we barely talk to one another beyond the odd exchange out front as we pass. As far as I can tell they don't do anything in their garden that requires such "privacy", but their bloody great fence does a great job of blocking out the afternoon sun from my garden. The thing is, just about every home I go to these days has the same six foot high wooden fence between them and the neighbours - so it's hardly surprising that nobody knows their neighbour anymore.
Let's get rid of these bloody great fences between our gardens, install short cross link fences and start chatting with real people who live next door instead of some fat, balding 50 year old pretending to be a 25 year old Brad Pitt look-a-like online.
I don't know what the reason for this is, but I personally suspect that fences have something to do with it - that and this modern craving for "privacy".
When I was a kid growing up at the family home we lived in an ordinary 3 bedroom semi. When I was young I would play out in the back garden as did the neighbours kids. Between us were the herbaceous borders and a three foot high cross link fence over which we would talk and play - it made a very good net for tennis or badminton.
Consequently, my mum would often spend time chatting with the mum next door while hanging out the washing or just enjoying the garden. They became firm friends and remained so even after the neighbours moved on. This scenario applied to just about every other home I knew or visited - the low fences meant that neighbours knew one another and looked out for one another as well.
When we moved to our current home this also had the standard three foot high cross link wire fence between us and the neighbours. As a result we got to know them and they got to know us, but when they moved out a few years back and the new lot moved in, the first thing they did was install a six foot high wooden fence between us and them (and the other side too). When I asked why they told us it was for "privacy" - what they hell were they planning to do in their garden I wondered, but didn't ask.
As a result we barely talk to one another beyond the odd exchange out front as we pass. As far as I can tell they don't do anything in their garden that requires such "privacy", but their bloody great fence does a great job of blocking out the afternoon sun from my garden. The thing is, just about every home I go to these days has the same six foot high wooden fence between them and the neighbours - so it's hardly surprising that nobody knows their neighbour anymore.
Let's get rid of these bloody great fences between our gardens, install short cross link fences and start chatting with real people who live next door instead of some fat, balding 50 year old pretending to be a 25 year old Brad Pitt look-a-like online.
The song remains the same
I've got to be honest, I know very little about the financial sector or how it is regulated, but the "sweeping" changes being suggested by the Chancellor, George Osborne, don't sound that much different to me.
A powerful new body – the Consumer Protection and Markets Authority – will regulate the conduct of every authorised financial firm providing services to consumers, Mr Osborne said.
Isn't this just the FSA with a different name and a new face? Wasn't regulating the conduct of every authorised financial firm providing services to consumers what the FSA was set up to do? Isn't this just creating new quangos and regulatory bodies stuffed with faceless and unaccountable bureaucrats the same way that New Labour did?
A month into a new government and it is already indistinguishable from the government it replaced. Their ideas are the same as the last government; their way of doing things is the same as the last government and the results will be the same as the last government- hardly surprising as their policies were more or less the same as the last government and the parties now in power share the political ideology of the party last in government.
The band members might have changed, but they are still singing the same old songs.
A powerful new body – the Consumer Protection and Markets Authority – will regulate the conduct of every authorised financial firm providing services to consumers, Mr Osborne said.
Isn't this just the FSA with a different name and a new face? Wasn't regulating the conduct of every authorised financial firm providing services to consumers what the FSA was set up to do? Isn't this just creating new quangos and regulatory bodies stuffed with faceless and unaccountable bureaucrats the same way that New Labour did?
A month into a new government and it is already indistinguishable from the government it replaced. Their ideas are the same as the last government; their way of doing things is the same as the last government and the results will be the same as the last government- hardly surprising as their policies were more or less the same as the last government and the parties now in power share the political ideology of the party last in government.
The band members might have changed, but they are still singing the same old songs.
Tuesday, June 15, 2010
The blame game
I'm no Obama supporter, but I do feel the criticism of the US President by various sections of the media for his "anti-British" rhetoric is a bit rich.
After all, when Gordon Brown was telling anyone and everyone that the global financial crisis was the Yanks fault they all just seemed to nod along in agreement as if this was an obvious fact (it wasn't and isn't. The global financial crisis was the fault of every western nation - the sub-prime mortgage scam was just the ultimate symptom of a system out of control - and the system is called "globalisation").
Now that the boot is on the other fault and Obama is blaming a British company for the environmental catastrophe that has struck the Gulf Of Mexico the media are getting all huffy about it. Tough luck, guys - you shouldn't live in glass houses if you're gonna go around chucking bricks.
What is unforgivable, however, is for Obama to equate the Gulf oil spill crisis with 9/11.
What was the man thinking of? The attack on the twin towers was a premeditated and carefully planned act of wilful destruction and murder that cost the lives of almost 3000 people. The BP oil platform explosion was an accident - possibly an avoidable, but an accident all the same. There is no comparison - none whatsoever.
Of course BP should pay for clearing up the mess - and they will - but running about pointing fingers and shouting "it's your fault" isn't going to solve anything.
And just with the financial crisis we should all take a good long hard look at ourselves before we point the finger - as someone once said (Bob Marley?), when you point your finger there are three more pointing back at you. You could just as easily blame the US drive for energy independence (and thus the exploiting of offshore oil reserves) for the disaster - and when you boil that down that comes down to each and every one of us who demand cheap and reliable energy supplies.
Of course, I am one of those and I still support that demand for energy independence and cheap and reliable sources of energy (and, believe me, if wind farms could do it I would support them - but they can't so I don't). However, as far as Britain is concerned I believe we should be doing more than we are to exploit our natural coal reserves - estimated at 200 years of readily accessible supplies and a thousand years of harder to reach supplies.
Accidents and disasters happen in coal mines too and, when they do, it is right and proper that there inquiries to ascertain what went wrong, what could have been done to avoid it, how it can be avoided in the future and who is to blame.
None of this is helped by the leaders of any nation going around blaming other nations - whether it is a global financial crisis or an oil spill. If you really feel you must blame something then blame the thing that is really at the root of this - globalisation.
After all, when Gordon Brown was telling anyone and everyone that the global financial crisis was the Yanks fault they all just seemed to nod along in agreement as if this was an obvious fact (it wasn't and isn't. The global financial crisis was the fault of every western nation - the sub-prime mortgage scam was just the ultimate symptom of a system out of control - and the system is called "globalisation").
Now that the boot is on the other fault and Obama is blaming a British company for the environmental catastrophe that has struck the Gulf Of Mexico the media are getting all huffy about it. Tough luck, guys - you shouldn't live in glass houses if you're gonna go around chucking bricks.
What is unforgivable, however, is for Obama to equate the Gulf oil spill crisis with 9/11.
What was the man thinking of? The attack on the twin towers was a premeditated and carefully planned act of wilful destruction and murder that cost the lives of almost 3000 people. The BP oil platform explosion was an accident - possibly an avoidable, but an accident all the same. There is no comparison - none whatsoever.
Of course BP should pay for clearing up the mess - and they will - but running about pointing fingers and shouting "it's your fault" isn't going to solve anything.
And just with the financial crisis we should all take a good long hard look at ourselves before we point the finger - as someone once said (Bob Marley?), when you point your finger there are three more pointing back at you. You could just as easily blame the US drive for energy independence (and thus the exploiting of offshore oil reserves) for the disaster - and when you boil that down that comes down to each and every one of us who demand cheap and reliable energy supplies.
Of course, I am one of those and I still support that demand for energy independence and cheap and reliable sources of energy (and, believe me, if wind farms could do it I would support them - but they can't so I don't). However, as far as Britain is concerned I believe we should be doing more than we are to exploit our natural coal reserves - estimated at 200 years of readily accessible supplies and a thousand years of harder to reach supplies.
Accidents and disasters happen in coal mines too and, when they do, it is right and proper that there inquiries to ascertain what went wrong, what could have been done to avoid it, how it can be avoided in the future and who is to blame.
None of this is helped by the leaders of any nation going around blaming other nations - whether it is a global financial crisis or an oil spill. If you really feel you must blame something then blame the thing that is really at the root of this - globalisation.
New look for Ranting Stan
It's about time I refreshed the look of this blog and I thought this had a nice summery feel to it.
Hope you like it.
Hope you like it.
Monday, June 14, 2010
The man who can't make his mind up
A few months ago, Nick Clegg was a nobody in politics. He had very little support from the electorate, not a great deal of support within his own party and it didn't matter much that he seemed incapable of making a decision or statement and sticking to it.
But since the election Clegg has been elevated to a position well beyond that which he deserved after his party's election performance and even further beyond his capabilities. He is, whether he deserves it or is capable of it, the deputy prime minister - for now, anyway.
People in such a position should know what to say and when to say it - and when they say something they should mean it. People in such a position should realise that they are no longer speaking to just their party supporters - they are speaking to and for the people of the country.
So how is it that a week ago Mr Clegg was telling us that the forthcoming cuts will be nothing like those of the Thatcher era (where, in reality, public sector spending actually rose), but is now telling us that savage cuts are necessary if we are to avoid “decades of debt, higher interest rates and fewer jobs"
A week is a long time in politics, but not so long in economics that what you say one week is completely negated by what you say the following week. If he didn't know just how bad things were last week then he should have kept his mouth shut until he did know.
The truth is that Clegg is so far out of his depth he is already looking like a drowning man. He's trying to balance keeping his party supporters on board while dealing with a crisis that will prove that everything he and his party believe in is false. The man has a choice to make and he has to make it soon - does he put his party first or his country?
Given his opinion of Britain from the statements he made before he found himself in a position of power I'm not putting much faith on the latter. When it comes to loyalty Clegg's starts with the EU, followed by his party, followed by various ethnic victim groups - at the bottom of the list for his loyalty is the country which he now finds himself the deputy prime minister of.
You can bet if Clegg had to make the choice between doing what is right for Britain or doing what is right for the eurozone it will be the eurozone every time. If he has to make a choice about what is right for British farmers or Greek tobacco growers it will be the latter.
I'm not sure it is good for Britain to have a man with such dubious loyalty in such a position of authority, but I'm certain it isn't good to have a man in such a position who can't make his mind up when tough decisions have to be made and made quickly and decisively.
But since the election Clegg has been elevated to a position well beyond that which he deserved after his party's election performance and even further beyond his capabilities. He is, whether he deserves it or is capable of it, the deputy prime minister - for now, anyway.
People in such a position should know what to say and when to say it - and when they say something they should mean it. People in such a position should realise that they are no longer speaking to just their party supporters - they are speaking to and for the people of the country.
So how is it that a week ago Mr Clegg was telling us that the forthcoming cuts will be nothing like those of the Thatcher era (where, in reality, public sector spending actually rose), but is now telling us that savage cuts are necessary if we are to avoid “decades of debt, higher interest rates and fewer jobs"
A week is a long time in politics, but not so long in economics that what you say one week is completely negated by what you say the following week. If he didn't know just how bad things were last week then he should have kept his mouth shut until he did know.
The truth is that Clegg is so far out of his depth he is already looking like a drowning man. He's trying to balance keeping his party supporters on board while dealing with a crisis that will prove that everything he and his party believe in is false. The man has a choice to make and he has to make it soon - does he put his party first or his country?
Given his opinion of Britain from the statements he made before he found himself in a position of power I'm not putting much faith on the latter. When it comes to loyalty Clegg's starts with the EU, followed by his party, followed by various ethnic victim groups - at the bottom of the list for his loyalty is the country which he now finds himself the deputy prime minister of.
You can bet if Clegg had to make the choice between doing what is right for Britain or doing what is right for the eurozone it will be the eurozone every time. If he has to make a choice about what is right for British farmers or Greek tobacco growers it will be the latter.
I'm not sure it is good for Britain to have a man with such dubious loyalty in such a position of authority, but I'm certain it isn't good to have a man in such a position who can't make his mind up when tough decisions have to be made and made quickly and decisively.
Sunday, June 13, 2010
Ranting Stan's Irrational Hatred Of The Week: England football flags on cars
I hope, by now, that anyone who reads this blog knows that I am a patriot and nationalist - and very, very proud of both my country and its flag.
I also should say that I have no objection to people hanging bunting or draping the English flag from their homes, but I draw the line at those who have the English flag fluttering from their cars.
I don't object because of any safety reasons or because of any assumed disrespect to the English flag - my objection is to the sheer bloody hypocrisy of people driving around with an English flag proclaiming their patriotism from a German/Japanese/Italian/French/Korean car.
Yes, I know people have no choice these days if they are buying a mainstream car, but to buy a foreign mainstream car - but it still smacks of hypocrisy.
I also should say that I have no objection to people hanging bunting or draping the English flag from their homes, but I draw the line at those who have the English flag fluttering from their cars.
I don't object because of any safety reasons or because of any assumed disrespect to the English flag - my objection is to the sheer bloody hypocrisy of people driving around with an English flag proclaiming their patriotism from a German/Japanese/Italian/French/Korean car.
Yes, I know people have no choice these days if they are buying a mainstream car, but to buy a foreign mainstream car - but it still smacks of hypocrisy.
Saturday, June 12, 2010
Good luck, England
Even though I am not a big sports fan, I wish the England football team the best of luck in their World Cup campaign that kicks off this evening against the USA.
I seriously hope they do well as it is always a boost to England and Britain if our sports teams perform well - but I'm sure I'm not the only one who is already pretty fed up with all the hype and coverage that this has already received.
Nevertheless ....
Come On, England!
I seriously hope they do well as it is always a boost to England and Britain if our sports teams perform well - but I'm sure I'm not the only one who is already pretty fed up with all the hype and coverage that this has already received.
Nevertheless ....
Come On, England!
Thursday, June 10, 2010
Furthering education
A couple of things caught my eye on the news this morning. The first was the suggestion that university tuition fees will have to rise and the second was something about Britain's status as one of the world's leading science and research nations is in decline.
They both caught my eye individually, but the curious thing is that they are, in my opinion, related.
First of all, you would think that with more and more youngsters entering university these days that our science and research traditions would be boosted, wouldn't you? But they are not - and the reason is that, although more and more children go on to university, fewer and fewer are studying degrees of serious academic worth.
The second thing that bothers me - and is something which I've been ranting about for a long time - is the fact that I can not stand the way my generation are depriving future generations of the things we had access to and enjoyed - and one of those was the student grant system. The majority of MPs in parliament who went through university probably did so at a time when students got grants to study - instead of student loans which leave them up to their necks in debt before they even start their careers.
I just don't think it's right that the people who took advantage of a benefit should be the ones who deprive the next generation of that benefit to just suit their own political and personal ambitions.
The truth is that we need to get people into university and get them studying worthwhile degrees that will bring long term benefits to this country - medicine, physics, chemistry, engineering and so on. I think the government should identify a few core degrees such as these, plus a few of the "classics" and offer student grants (not loans and free from tuition fees) for anyone studying these degrees at an approved university.
This will do two things. It will encourage more of the most able people to study degrees that will benefit the nation in the longer term, but have fallen out of favour - and this, in turn, will boost our science and research fields.
If other children want to go and study media studies, pop music or social science then they can have the student loans and pay tuition fees.
I also believe that the whole point of university is to educate the brightest and the best - and the sad fact is that, in any society, the brightest and the best is unlikely to be much more than 30% of the population - so that should be the benchmark target for children going on to university.
Of course I want to see the other 70% of children getting further education when they leave school - but I think that is best served through a combination of technical colleges, incentivized employer sponsorships and day release - not state financed mickey mouse degrees.
They both caught my eye individually, but the curious thing is that they are, in my opinion, related.
First of all, you would think that with more and more youngsters entering university these days that our science and research traditions would be boosted, wouldn't you? But they are not - and the reason is that, although more and more children go on to university, fewer and fewer are studying degrees of serious academic worth.
The second thing that bothers me - and is something which I've been ranting about for a long time - is the fact that I can not stand the way my generation are depriving future generations of the things we had access to and enjoyed - and one of those was the student grant system. The majority of MPs in parliament who went through university probably did so at a time when students got grants to study - instead of student loans which leave them up to their necks in debt before they even start their careers.
I just don't think it's right that the people who took advantage of a benefit should be the ones who deprive the next generation of that benefit to just suit their own political and personal ambitions.
The truth is that we need to get people into university and get them studying worthwhile degrees that will bring long term benefits to this country - medicine, physics, chemistry, engineering and so on. I think the government should identify a few core degrees such as these, plus a few of the "classics" and offer student grants (not loans and free from tuition fees) for anyone studying these degrees at an approved university.
This will do two things. It will encourage more of the most able people to study degrees that will benefit the nation in the longer term, but have fallen out of favour - and this, in turn, will boost our science and research fields.
If other children want to go and study media studies, pop music or social science then they can have the student loans and pay tuition fees.
I also believe that the whole point of university is to educate the brightest and the best - and the sad fact is that, in any society, the brightest and the best is unlikely to be much more than 30% of the population - so that should be the benchmark target for children going on to university.
Of course I want to see the other 70% of children getting further education when they leave school - but I think that is best served through a combination of technical colleges, incentivized employer sponsorships and day release - not state financed mickey mouse degrees.
Tuesday, June 08, 2010
Use it or lose it
I don't have much time for squatters or their proclaimed rights - but I have even less time for those people who leave buildings abandoned and unoccupied for years either.
At a time when there is increasing pressure to expand into green belt land to provide housing for our rapidly expanding population (it doesn't need to be rapidly expanding and the reason it is is almost entirely due to immigration - but that's a whole different rant) it is nothing short of a national scandal that there are hundreds of thousands of empty homes in Britain today.
Having said all that, I can completely understand why people do leave them unoccupied and abandoned - particularly if they are in prime locations such as town centres. I know of two instances reasonably local to me where the owners of a property on a large piece of prime real estate have left that site unused and abandoned for a decade or more - both were previously business sites.
They left them like that because the local council would not allow them to develop the land the way the land owners wanted to develop the land. The local councils wanted them to remain as business sites while the land owners wanted to build large blocks of luxury flats. Both sites were recently given the go ahead and one now has a humongous square lump of a building that more resembles a prison block than a luxury condo while the other is set to be developed into more luxury flats.
Of course, that's not the only reason such sites get left abandoned and empty. For some inexplicable reason, buildings that are left unoccupied get a discount on business rates - 75% I believe.
This has got to be the most stupid and self-defeating rule ever in the history of town planning. The last thing any town wants is to have its lucrative business areas not contributing to their full potential. Not only are they losing out on the business rate taxation, but they are losing out on jobs and the income that those jobs will generate.
Furthermore, if a prospective employer is looking at your town as somewhere to base their business in they won't be much impressed with rows of abandoned offices and industrial units. If anything, business units that are left unoccupied should attract an increase in business rates to make up for the loss that they would otherwise bring in - I would suggest double the rate.
This would encourage landlords to get tenants in as quickly as possible rather than leave these units abandoned and unoccupied. They might have to drop the rental a little, but better to have the property earning some money.
I also think that there should be a "use it or lose it" policy for any empty building or site. By that, I mean that once a council has identified a property as being unused they should issue the owner a notice that they have two years to submit an acceptable planning proposal or get that site occupied or the property/site will fall into council ownership.
I know that sounds draconian - and it is - but I would also expect councils to be more flexible on their planning consents. As long as the planning proposal isn't for a fifteen storey mega casino with attached brothel and nuclear reprocessing plant then they should allow the landowners to do pretty much whatever they want with their land - except leave it vacant.
At a time when there is increasing pressure to expand into green belt land to provide housing for our rapidly expanding population (it doesn't need to be rapidly expanding and the reason it is is almost entirely due to immigration - but that's a whole different rant) it is nothing short of a national scandal that there are hundreds of thousands of empty homes in Britain today.
Having said all that, I can completely understand why people do leave them unoccupied and abandoned - particularly if they are in prime locations such as town centres. I know of two instances reasonably local to me where the owners of a property on a large piece of prime real estate have left that site unused and abandoned for a decade or more - both were previously business sites.
They left them like that because the local council would not allow them to develop the land the way the land owners wanted to develop the land. The local councils wanted them to remain as business sites while the land owners wanted to build large blocks of luxury flats. Both sites were recently given the go ahead and one now has a humongous square lump of a building that more resembles a prison block than a luxury condo while the other is set to be developed into more luxury flats.
Of course, that's not the only reason such sites get left abandoned and empty. For some inexplicable reason, buildings that are left unoccupied get a discount on business rates - 75% I believe.
This has got to be the most stupid and self-defeating rule ever in the history of town planning. The last thing any town wants is to have its lucrative business areas not contributing to their full potential. Not only are they losing out on the business rate taxation, but they are losing out on jobs and the income that those jobs will generate.
Furthermore, if a prospective employer is looking at your town as somewhere to base their business in they won't be much impressed with rows of abandoned offices and industrial units. If anything, business units that are left unoccupied should attract an increase in business rates to make up for the loss that they would otherwise bring in - I would suggest double the rate.
This would encourage landlords to get tenants in as quickly as possible rather than leave these units abandoned and unoccupied. They might have to drop the rental a little, but better to have the property earning some money.
I also think that there should be a "use it or lose it" policy for any empty building or site. By that, I mean that once a council has identified a property as being unused they should issue the owner a notice that they have two years to submit an acceptable planning proposal or get that site occupied or the property/site will fall into council ownership.
I know that sounds draconian - and it is - but I would also expect councils to be more flexible on their planning consents. As long as the planning proposal isn't for a fifteen storey mega casino with attached brothel and nuclear reprocessing plant then they should allow the landowners to do pretty much whatever they want with their land - except leave it vacant.
Monday, June 07, 2010
The storm is brewing
David Cameron is expected to announce that the scale of Britain's economic crisis is worse than expected and that Britain faces cuts, austerity measures and tax rises which will effect the country for decades.
OK, maybe he won't mention the tax rises, but they're coming. My point is, though, that my claim that this "recession" - far from being nearly over - was merely the precursor to the deep depression that is going to effect our nation for the next ten years or so.
While all this is going on we will be expected to stump up more and more to assist the other EU nations who are going through the same problems - including those eurozone members - and this will probably mean the end of what is left of the rebate.
This deep depression is going to effect most of the developed world, but the nations that will fare best will be those who retained their manufacturing and production capability and who have the sense to protect it - Germany and Japan for example. The nations that will struggle most will be those who rely on imports the most and make the least effort to protect their industries - and that, I'm afraid, means Britain.
Further still, until we wise up to the basic fact that a service industry needs a strong manufacturing base to service then we will continue to struggle - and as we can not compete on level terms with developing nations that means using protectionism.
There is no alternative - we have a choice now between protectionism or a completely failed economy for decades. It's not a hard choice is it?
OK, maybe he won't mention the tax rises, but they're coming. My point is, though, that my claim that this "recession" - far from being nearly over - was merely the precursor to the deep depression that is going to effect our nation for the next ten years or so.
While all this is going on we will be expected to stump up more and more to assist the other EU nations who are going through the same problems - including those eurozone members - and this will probably mean the end of what is left of the rebate.
This deep depression is going to effect most of the developed world, but the nations that will fare best will be those who retained their manufacturing and production capability and who have the sense to protect it - Germany and Japan for example. The nations that will struggle most will be those who rely on imports the most and make the least effort to protect their industries - and that, I'm afraid, means Britain.
Further still, until we wise up to the basic fact that a service industry needs a strong manufacturing base to service then we will continue to struggle - and as we can not compete on level terms with developing nations that means using protectionism.
There is no alternative - we have a choice now between protectionism or a completely failed economy for decades. It's not a hard choice is it?
Friday, June 04, 2010
Shrinking clothes
I'm not a great shopper. By that I don't mean that I'm no good at spotting a bargain - I mean that it's not something I get a lot of pleasure out of so tend only to do it when absolutely necessary and nowhere is that more evident than in clothes buying.
When the sun comes out, though, I do tend to start wearing short sleeved shirts and the truth is that most of my short sleeved shirts are a little on the old side. Twelve to fifteen years old to be precise. Don't get me wrong - they aren't tatty. Well, not very - but Mrs Stan had decided that I need something a little newer so took it upon herself to buy me three new short sleeved shirts.
But there is a problem. The shirts themselves are fine - there is nothing wrong with Mrs Stan's impeccable taste - it's just that they don't fit. They should do - they are marked as XL and all the other (old) XL shirts I have fit with room to spare - but they don't.
Of course, I'm not quite as svelte as I was ten to twelve years ago, but I'm not that different (I'm about half a stone heavier than I was when my kids were born) and I certainly haven't grown any taller, but not only are the new shirts too tight around the chest and neck, but they are too short.
The old XL shirts still fit fine - so the only conclusion I can draw from this is that XL isn't XL anymore. At least not a British XL. No doubt they are fine for your average Indonesian, but they don't quite work on a six foot plus Englishman.
The odd thing is that Mrs Stan - who is and always has been a size 12 - has had to resort recently to buying size 10 clothes to get a decent fit (which she is chuffed to bits about), so it's obvious that women's clothes are getting bigger while men's clothes are getting smaller.
Is this just a coincidence or is there a conspiracy going on here?
When the sun comes out, though, I do tend to start wearing short sleeved shirts and the truth is that most of my short sleeved shirts are a little on the old side. Twelve to fifteen years old to be precise. Don't get me wrong - they aren't tatty. Well, not very - but Mrs Stan had decided that I need something a little newer so took it upon herself to buy me three new short sleeved shirts.
But there is a problem. The shirts themselves are fine - there is nothing wrong with Mrs Stan's impeccable taste - it's just that they don't fit. They should do - they are marked as XL and all the other (old) XL shirts I have fit with room to spare - but they don't.
Of course, I'm not quite as svelte as I was ten to twelve years ago, but I'm not that different (I'm about half a stone heavier than I was when my kids were born) and I certainly haven't grown any taller, but not only are the new shirts too tight around the chest and neck, but they are too short.
The old XL shirts still fit fine - so the only conclusion I can draw from this is that XL isn't XL anymore. At least not a British XL. No doubt they are fine for your average Indonesian, but they don't quite work on a six foot plus Englishman.
The odd thing is that Mrs Stan - who is and always has been a size 12 - has had to resort recently to buying size 10 clothes to get a decent fit (which she is chuffed to bits about), so it's obvious that women's clothes are getting bigger while men's clothes are getting smaller.
Is this just a coincidence or is there a conspiracy going on here?
Why why?
With the events in Whitehaven and west Cumbria still very fresh in the mind, I don't want to appear insensitive, but I have a problem with the news and the ongoing investigation.
The big question on everyones lips is "why"?
What I want to know is why it is considered so important to know why he did what he did - and particularly why the police need to continue to investigate. They know the crimes committed and who did it - so surely that is the end of the investigation? They have the victims and the killer. The killer is dead so there is no need to prepare a case to prosecute and I really can't figure out what they think they will gain by knowing why he did what he did.
I could understand the need to know why if, for example, this was a politically motivated killing spree, but in these sorts of incidents the trigger will be different from person to person. Understanding why Derrick Bird flipped his lid and went around shooting people at random will not help to prevent the next nutter losing his rag and going on a murder rampage.
I'm sure the police think they are doing the right thing - after all, isn't it all about that dreadful word "closure", but I am dubious of this. Firstly because whatever reason they come up with will only be speculation - Bird is dead so you're never going to know why he did this really - and secondly because I don't think "closure" in these circumstances is achieved by knowing why someone killed your relative - only by knowing who and that is already known.
The big question on everyones lips is "why"?
What I want to know is why it is considered so important to know why he did what he did - and particularly why the police need to continue to investigate. They know the crimes committed and who did it - so surely that is the end of the investigation? They have the victims and the killer. The killer is dead so there is no need to prepare a case to prosecute and I really can't figure out what they think they will gain by knowing why he did what he did.
I could understand the need to know why if, for example, this was a politically motivated killing spree, but in these sorts of incidents the trigger will be different from person to person. Understanding why Derrick Bird flipped his lid and went around shooting people at random will not help to prevent the next nutter losing his rag and going on a murder rampage.
I'm sure the police think they are doing the right thing - after all, isn't it all about that dreadful word "closure", but I am dubious of this. Firstly because whatever reason they come up with will only be speculation - Bird is dead so you're never going to know why he did this really - and secondly because I don't think "closure" in these circumstances is achieved by knowing why someone killed your relative - only by knowing who and that is already known.
Wednesday, June 02, 2010
Both necessary and honourable
Over on Peter Hitchens' blog there has been an interesting discussion about Dunkirk.
Some people, including Mr. Hitchens (as I understand it) have suggested that Britain's guarantee to support Poland and our declaration of war was both unnecessary and damaging - and that if we had not given this guarantee we may have stayed out of the war and held on to our Empire.
Although I agree that our offer of support to Poland was useless from any practical point of view, I do not agree that it would have made any difference to the way the war was to pan out.
First of all, a lot of people seem to think that had we not gone to war over Poland then Hitler would never have invaded western Europe. They seem to think that the war was always going to be between Germany and the Soviet Union.
This is nonsense. Hitler's motivation leading up to the war was to erase the ignominy Germany had suffered at Versailles. That is what reclaiming the Rhineland was about, that was what invading Czechoslovakia was about and that was what invading Poland was about.
British intelligence were already aware at the outbreak of war that the next target for Germany was an invasion of western Europe to begin in November 1939 and the defeat and humiliation of France. This would be the ultimate prize for Hitler to make up for Versailles and was not only central to his plan for a "United Europe", but essential to his personal ambition.
In other words, we were always going to be dragged into the war regardless of whether we declared war in September 1939 or not. If things had gone to schedule then there would have been no "Phoney War", the BEF would have still gone out to France, would still have been kicked out at Dunkirk only we'd have been trying to extract them from the beaches in the middle of a harsh winter rather than a dull early summer.
As it happens, the November invasion was postponed due to bad weather - but it is possible that our support for Poland gave those people the spirit to fight on for more than a month when their defeat was predicted in 2-3 weeks. Had they not held on then the invasion of western Europe may have begun earlier and the above scenario played out. I doubt that we could have used the "little ships" to assist in getting 30,000 men off the winter beaches of Dunkirk let alone 300,000 and Britain would have been in a far worse predicament than we eventually were.
And let's not forget that at this time, the Soviet Union were our enemy, Germany's ally and were supplying the Nazis with the oil with which they would launch their invasion of France and the low countries.
There was never going to be just a war between Germany and the Soviet Union. Western Europe was always the principle goal and the defeat and humiliation of France the prize for Hitler. Had we not declared war in September 1939 we would stil have declared war in May 1940 and it is only through luck that we weren't at war sooner than we wanted and even more unprepared than we eventually were.
There was never any chance that Britain could have stayed out of the war and our guarantee to Poland made no significant difference whatsoever.
What did make a difference and is severely under rated by modern historians is the North Africa campaign. When the allies finally kicked the Nazis out of North Africa they took over a quarter of a million of Germany's most experienced troops prisoner - three times as many as were captured at Stalingrad - while the Germans suffered more casualties and lost more tanks and planes in North Africa than they did at Stalingrad too. This massive loss of men and materiel was crucial to the outcome of the war - every bit as important as Stalingrad.
And while all this was going on, we were also fighting the Japanese in the Far East - so we would still have lost our Empire regardless. Far from being an "unnecessary" war, WW2 was unavoidable for Britain. There were disasters, defeats and humiliations - but we also have much to be proud of too. Not least that - when the rest of the world thought we were defeated - we stood and fought against the evil of fascism.
That we ultimately failed Poland was shameful - but not our fault. Churchill pushed for free elections for Poland and insisted that Britain could not be content with a situation that didn't leave Poland as a free and independent state. It was Roosevelt who sold Poland out - not Churchill or Britain.
Some people, including Mr. Hitchens (as I understand it) have suggested that Britain's guarantee to support Poland and our declaration of war was both unnecessary and damaging - and that if we had not given this guarantee we may have stayed out of the war and held on to our Empire.
Although I agree that our offer of support to Poland was useless from any practical point of view, I do not agree that it would have made any difference to the way the war was to pan out.
First of all, a lot of people seem to think that had we not gone to war over Poland then Hitler would never have invaded western Europe. They seem to think that the war was always going to be between Germany and the Soviet Union.
This is nonsense. Hitler's motivation leading up to the war was to erase the ignominy Germany had suffered at Versailles. That is what reclaiming the Rhineland was about, that was what invading Czechoslovakia was about and that was what invading Poland was about.
British intelligence were already aware at the outbreak of war that the next target for Germany was an invasion of western Europe to begin in November 1939 and the defeat and humiliation of France. This would be the ultimate prize for Hitler to make up for Versailles and was not only central to his plan for a "United Europe", but essential to his personal ambition.
In other words, we were always going to be dragged into the war regardless of whether we declared war in September 1939 or not. If things had gone to schedule then there would have been no "Phoney War", the BEF would have still gone out to France, would still have been kicked out at Dunkirk only we'd have been trying to extract them from the beaches in the middle of a harsh winter rather than a dull early summer.
As it happens, the November invasion was postponed due to bad weather - but it is possible that our support for Poland gave those people the spirit to fight on for more than a month when their defeat was predicted in 2-3 weeks. Had they not held on then the invasion of western Europe may have begun earlier and the above scenario played out. I doubt that we could have used the "little ships" to assist in getting 30,000 men off the winter beaches of Dunkirk let alone 300,000 and Britain would have been in a far worse predicament than we eventually were.
And let's not forget that at this time, the Soviet Union were our enemy, Germany's ally and were supplying the Nazis with the oil with which they would launch their invasion of France and the low countries.
There was never going to be just a war between Germany and the Soviet Union. Western Europe was always the principle goal and the defeat and humiliation of France the prize for Hitler. Had we not declared war in September 1939 we would stil have declared war in May 1940 and it is only through luck that we weren't at war sooner than we wanted and even more unprepared than we eventually were.
There was never any chance that Britain could have stayed out of the war and our guarantee to Poland made no significant difference whatsoever.
What did make a difference and is severely under rated by modern historians is the North Africa campaign. When the allies finally kicked the Nazis out of North Africa they took over a quarter of a million of Germany's most experienced troops prisoner - three times as many as were captured at Stalingrad - while the Germans suffered more casualties and lost more tanks and planes in North Africa than they did at Stalingrad too. This massive loss of men and materiel was crucial to the outcome of the war - every bit as important as Stalingrad.
And while all this was going on, we were also fighting the Japanese in the Far East - so we would still have lost our Empire regardless. Far from being an "unnecessary" war, WW2 was unavoidable for Britain. There were disasters, defeats and humiliations - but we also have much to be proud of too. Not least that - when the rest of the world thought we were defeated - we stood and fought against the evil of fascism.
That we ultimately failed Poland was shameful - but not our fault. Churchill pushed for free elections for Poland and insisted that Britain could not be content with a situation that didn't leave Poland as a free and independent state. It was Roosevelt who sold Poland out - not Churchill or Britain.
Tuesday, June 01, 2010
The Mary Whitehouse experience
Dame Joan Bakewell - back when she was just plain Joan - was in the spearhead of revolutionary fervour that created the permissive society in the sixties and the sexual revolution. Back in those heady days of her youth (when everything seems so clear and simple to immature minds - no matter how well educated) she couldn't see anything wrong with that, but now it seems she's had a conversion.
Her opponent back then wasn't some intellectual giant or senior conservative Lord of the Realm, but an ordinary housewife and mother by the name of Mary Whitehouse who was - and still is - vilified by the liberal left as either a figure of hate or ridicule - or both.
Now it's Joan Bakewell who finds that in her twilight years she is blessed with the experience and understanding which she and many others condemned as "reactionary" back in their youth and leads her to say .....
"I never thought I would hear myself say as much, but I'm with Mrs Whitehouse on this one"
Bakewell goes on to complain ....
"Then everything came to be about money: so now sex is about money, too."
Coming from someone who made themselves a tidy little sum from popularising filth that comment smacks of hypocrisy - especially as Mary Whitehouse never made a bean from her campaign and didn't get so much as a thank you note, let alone a peerage.
I doubt that Bakewell really understands what she and her like created back then. They were young, thought they knew it all - but are starting to realise that they knew nothing. Perhaps worse of all, though, is that even with their advancing years they still know nothing.
They say that "with age comes wisdom". Yes - but not always. The Bakewell's of this world might have the money, the education and the reputation, but they still don't understand the Mary Whitehouse experience.
Her opponent back then wasn't some intellectual giant or senior conservative Lord of the Realm, but an ordinary housewife and mother by the name of Mary Whitehouse who was - and still is - vilified by the liberal left as either a figure of hate or ridicule - or both.
Now it's Joan Bakewell who finds that in her twilight years she is blessed with the experience and understanding which she and many others condemned as "reactionary" back in their youth and leads her to say .....
"I never thought I would hear myself say as much, but I'm with Mrs Whitehouse on this one"
Bakewell goes on to complain ....
"Then everything came to be about money: so now sex is about money, too."
Coming from someone who made themselves a tidy little sum from popularising filth that comment smacks of hypocrisy - especially as Mary Whitehouse never made a bean from her campaign and didn't get so much as a thank you note, let alone a peerage.
I doubt that Bakewell really understands what she and her like created back then. They were young, thought they knew it all - but are starting to realise that they knew nothing. Perhaps worse of all, though, is that even with their advancing years they still know nothing.
They say that "with age comes wisdom". Yes - but not always. The Bakewell's of this world might have the money, the education and the reputation, but they still don't understand the Mary Whitehouse experience.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)