I've never understood why it is that politicians seem to think that airports - and the continued expansion of them are so crucial to our economy. Very little freight comes in through airports and passengers use them because they happen to be where they want to go. A businessman with an appointment in London isn't going to fly into Hamburg.
Heathrow airport, in particular, has been a hell hole of an airport for as long as I can remember, but with today's news that MPs want "urgent action on Heathrow" to relieve the long queues and delays why doesn't someone ask the simple question - what is the cause of the delays?
The long queues at Heathrow could be virtually eliminated tomorrow if the MPs really wanted to. All they have to do is introduce racial profiling instead of searching every single passenger - but being the liberal progressives they are they won't do that as it is "discriminatory" - ignoring the fact that discriminating between those who want to bomb and kill us and those who do not is exactly what they ought to do.
They argue that targeting Muslims as potential bombers would alienate the majority of the moderate Muslims who live in or visit this country - but seeing how 1 in 11 Muslims living here "proactively" support terrorism it's hard to see how that could get worse. Incidentally, proactive in the parlance of my work means taking active steps - not just passively supporting, but actually helping.
Perhaps a bit of discrimination is what they need to wake those "moderate" Muslims up from their self-denial. If they were the ones who were actually suffering inconvenience on a day to day basis, perhaps they might make more effort to root out the 100,000 plus active supporters of terrorism that lurks amongst them.
If you're on the look out for potential terrorists at airports it makes little sense to target the group of white mums, dads and kids on their way home from Majorca, but it makes a lot of sense to target the plane load of Muslims returning from Pakistan.
Showing posts with label United Kingdom. Show all posts
Showing posts with label United Kingdom. Show all posts
Friday, August 03, 2007
Thursday, July 26, 2007
Tories call for Home Guard
It's not strictly true, but it's hard to resist the analogy of the latest Tory call for a homeland security force.
Plans for the establishment of a dedicated homeland defence force to help the civil authorities with major terrorist incidents and national emergencies will be outlined today by a Conservative group on security.
But don't we already have a "homeland defence force" - the Army? What is the purpose of the Army if not to "defend the homeland"? I can't see any benefit of setting up yet another separate force under a different command structure to do a job that we already have a force in place to do. Why not just fund them properly, give them manpower, tools and equipment they need to do the job and let them get on with it?
It's also worth noting that the BNP are already well ahead of the game on this. They propose - and I fully support - the restoration of the county regiment system and this would be the perfect force for what Cameron is suggesting - and being located in the counties they would be well placed to respond to terrorist incidents or national emergencies.
I'd even take it a step further and have a degree of conscription into county regiments. Young criminals who repeatedly re-offend would be offered a choice of 2 years national service or a similar jail term (with no prospect of early release). I believe that a fair number would take the national service option and would benefit substantially from the discipline and challenge it presents.
The county regiments - although part of the Army - would be dedicated home defence forces and not for use in overseas engagements except on exercise. The senior NCO's and officers could be recruited from ex-Army veterans who could instill their experience and knowledge into the younger recruits and conscripts.
Because they are unlikely to face conventional forces, there would be no real need for them to have the heavy equipment of the conventional army, although they would require transport, light armour and helicopter lift capability - all of which could be drawn from older stock being withdrawn from front line use.
I'd make it a requirement for each county to have at least one regiment of 500 troops, but would not prevent them from having more if they wanted. Larger counties - such as Yorkshire should really have 2 or 3 (one for each Riding in Yorkshire's case).
So, all in all, I think the Tory idea is a good one - but I don't like the way they are going about it. The BNP had the idea before them anyway - and their idea is much better.
Plans for the establishment of a dedicated homeland defence force to help the civil authorities with major terrorist incidents and national emergencies will be outlined today by a Conservative group on security.
But don't we already have a "homeland defence force" - the Army? What is the purpose of the Army if not to "defend the homeland"? I can't see any benefit of setting up yet another separate force under a different command structure to do a job that we already have a force in place to do. Why not just fund them properly, give them manpower, tools and equipment they need to do the job and let them get on with it?
It's also worth noting that the BNP are already well ahead of the game on this. They propose - and I fully support - the restoration of the county regiment system and this would be the perfect force for what Cameron is suggesting - and being located in the counties they would be well placed to respond to terrorist incidents or national emergencies.
I'd even take it a step further and have a degree of conscription into county regiments. Young criminals who repeatedly re-offend would be offered a choice of 2 years national service or a similar jail term (with no prospect of early release). I believe that a fair number would take the national service option and would benefit substantially from the discipline and challenge it presents.
The county regiments - although part of the Army - would be dedicated home defence forces and not for use in overseas engagements except on exercise. The senior NCO's and officers could be recruited from ex-Army veterans who could instill their experience and knowledge into the younger recruits and conscripts.
Because they are unlikely to face conventional forces, there would be no real need for them to have the heavy equipment of the conventional army, although they would require transport, light armour and helicopter lift capability - all of which could be drawn from older stock being withdrawn from front line use.
I'd make it a requirement for each county to have at least one regiment of 500 troops, but would not prevent them from having more if they wanted. Larger counties - such as Yorkshire should really have 2 or 3 (one for each Riding in Yorkshire's case).
So, all in all, I think the Tory idea is a good one - but I don't like the way they are going about it. The BNP had the idea before them anyway - and their idea is much better.
Wednesday, July 18, 2007
Giving it all away
Personally, I'm delighted that Sir Tom Hunter has decided to donate a billion quid to charity - though I'd rather he did it without having to announce it in the press.
It conjures up notions of the old Victorian philanthropy and patronage with wealthy gentlemen supporting the favourite charities of their wives and mistresses - the 19th century chattering classes.
Of course, it's entirely up to Sir Tom which charities benefit and where the money is spent - and it seems the bulk of it is going to be spent in Africa. Nothing unusual there either - the Victorians were just as likely to help African charities as any other, but at a time when the gap between the wealthy and the poor in Britain is at it's greatest ever it would have been nice if Sir Tom had considered his home country as beneficiary.
When you travel around Britain, many of it's greatest monuments to our heritage and culture have been built not by government, not by business, but by private individuals who used their wealth for the benefit of this nation. Many of our towns - particularly in the north of England - were built up by wealthy businessmen to provide homes and facilities for their employees.
Often it was done consciously - a deliberate attempt to improve the lives of the less fortunate. Sometimes it was pure coincidence that an effort to improve productivity and boost profits should have a side-effect of making the lives of many poor people considerably better - but either way it worked.
Many of our greatest hospitals were founded by individuals as charitable institutions. The Royal Free Hospital, founded by William Marsden is one obvious example - but there are (or were) hundreds of these hospitals up and down the country, small local hospitals set up by local people, using their own funds for the benefit of their own community. It's one of the crimes of the century that hospitals built by local communities using their own money, raised through their own efforts have been grabbed by the state and then closed down and sold off.
A billion pounds is a goodly sum, but it won't go that far in the modern day and age. If I were Sir Tom, I'd stop trying to save the world and start with something a little closer to home.
It conjures up notions of the old Victorian philanthropy and patronage with wealthy gentlemen supporting the favourite charities of their wives and mistresses - the 19th century chattering classes.
Of course, it's entirely up to Sir Tom which charities benefit and where the money is spent - and it seems the bulk of it is going to be spent in Africa. Nothing unusual there either - the Victorians were just as likely to help African charities as any other, but at a time when the gap between the wealthy and the poor in Britain is at it's greatest ever it would have been nice if Sir Tom had considered his home country as beneficiary.
When you travel around Britain, many of it's greatest monuments to our heritage and culture have been built not by government, not by business, but by private individuals who used their wealth for the benefit of this nation. Many of our towns - particularly in the north of England - were built up by wealthy businessmen to provide homes and facilities for their employees.
Often it was done consciously - a deliberate attempt to improve the lives of the less fortunate. Sometimes it was pure coincidence that an effort to improve productivity and boost profits should have a side-effect of making the lives of many poor people considerably better - but either way it worked.
Many of our greatest hospitals were founded by individuals as charitable institutions. The Royal Free Hospital, founded by William Marsden is one obvious example - but there are (or were) hundreds of these hospitals up and down the country, small local hospitals set up by local people, using their own funds for the benefit of their own community. It's one of the crimes of the century that hospitals built by local communities using their own money, raised through their own efforts have been grabbed by the state and then closed down and sold off.
A billion pounds is a goodly sum, but it won't go that far in the modern day and age. If I were Sir Tom, I'd stop trying to save the world and start with something a little closer to home.
Wednesday, May 16, 2007
Defence of the nation (2): Nationalism versus statism
This is the second part to my post on nationalism.
A second part! Oh no - I hear you cry. Or not. Will it be the last part - you'll have to wait and see.
In the first part, I concentrated on what nationalism and the nation is. This time I’ll explain what makes a nation and how nationalism differs from statism (socialism). By the way, I put socialism in brackets just so that everyone understands what I mean by state and statism in the context of this post. The state can big or small without being socialist, but statism – in my view - is the socialist extension of a state.
A nation is built up from a number of different hierarchies. Many nations developed over centuries, some were created virtually over night, but no nation exists that does not have the fundamental hierarchies that form the building blocks of nationhood. These hierarchies are complex and shifting, but can be summed up in one word - communities.
Community is not society, by the way. A society is a loose collection of people who share a common interest, whereas a community is a more tightly knit group of people who share a common will - and as you will remember from my first post, it is this common will that ultimately makes up a nation.
There are several levels of community which go to make up a nation. At the top of the hierarchy, obviously, is the national community and beneath that are regional communities (counties), urban communities (towns and cities), rural communities (villages and farms), neighbours and, ultimately, family.
The family is the key component of a nation - the first expression of a peoples shared identity. Without that first expression of shared identity there could not be nations which is why, as a nationalist, it is my belief that defence of the family - and family values - is key to creating and maintaining a healthy nation.
Unsurprisingly, the term "family values" and even "family" is contentious in this day and age, but for me, in this context, it simply means the traditional family with traditional gender roles and moral values based on Christian principles. Anything that undermines these values undermines the nation. It is for this reason that I oppose things like marriage between homosexuals - or even the suggestion that co-habiting couples constitute a family. They do not. They constitute a relationship, but not a family.
Equally, it is my view that anything that strengthens the family and those values strengthens the nation - and as someone who believes in nations and nationalism I obviously believe that this should be encouraged as a priority. Preferential treatment must be given to the traditional married family in any way it can above all other forms of relationship - because this is what makes a nation strong. Those familial ties are what binds communities together and strengthen that shared identity - the national identity - and if those ties weaken and break then so does the national identity and with that goes the cohesion that binds societies together.
This brings me to the concept of nationalism as opposed to statism. The state is not the nation. The state is the mechanism of a government of a nation. Nationalism is driven from the bottom up - the will of the people to meet their needs expressed through their communities beginning with the family. Statism is the top down approach - the will of a government expressed through the mechanisms of government as it attempts to meet the needs of the people. Allow me to expand on those two points for a moment.
With nationalism, if the people have a need they take the responsibility to meet that need. At familial level that need might be to eat - so food is bought and cooked. At a rural level, that need might be to educate the local children - so a school is set up and staffed. At town level that need might be for clean streets, so a waste collection service is set up and funded. At city level that need might be for crime prevention - so a police force is set up and funded. At county level that need might be to travel between towns, villages and cities - so a transport system is set up and funded. Finally, at national level that need might be to defend the people from aggressive outsiders, so borders are defined and protected. That is nationalism - local communities taking action to meet their needs. Nationalism is actually driven by local issues which mean that the people are not only more involved in their communities - and therefore their nation - but they are also more responsible and more likely to participate.
Statism takes all that responsibility for action away from the local people. Instead of the people deciding what they want - the state decides for them. Instead of local people working together to meet the need, the state does it for them. However, because the state has to be a broad brush - meeting the greatest need for the greatest number, instead of pinpoint targeting, meeting the localised need for a localised group - it can not meet those needs as well as the bottom up approach of nationalism. Furthermore, instead of people being more involved, more responsible and more likely to participate they become remote, unconcerned and apathetic.
The more that the responsibility is taken away from them, the more apathetic they become.
Nationalism is the expression of the shared will of the people - from the traditional family right the way up to the nation itself. It is the most local of ideologies driven by local solutions to local needs for local people - and the essence of democracy in action. The further away you take the responsibility for those needs being met by local people, the less interested they are in participating in democracy.
A second part! Oh no - I hear you cry. Or not. Will it be the last part - you'll have to wait and see.
In the first part, I concentrated on what nationalism and the nation is. This time I’ll explain what makes a nation and how nationalism differs from statism (socialism). By the way, I put socialism in brackets just so that everyone understands what I mean by state and statism in the context of this post. The state can big or small without being socialist, but statism – in my view - is the socialist extension of a state.
A nation is built up from a number of different hierarchies. Many nations developed over centuries, some were created virtually over night, but no nation exists that does not have the fundamental hierarchies that form the building blocks of nationhood. These hierarchies are complex and shifting, but can be summed up in one word - communities.
Community is not society, by the way. A society is a loose collection of people who share a common interest, whereas a community is a more tightly knit group of people who share a common will - and as you will remember from my first post, it is this common will that ultimately makes up a nation.
There are several levels of community which go to make up a nation. At the top of the hierarchy, obviously, is the national community and beneath that are regional communities (counties), urban communities (towns and cities), rural communities (villages and farms), neighbours and, ultimately, family.
The family is the key component of a nation - the first expression of a peoples shared identity. Without that first expression of shared identity there could not be nations which is why, as a nationalist, it is my belief that defence of the family - and family values - is key to creating and maintaining a healthy nation.
Unsurprisingly, the term "family values" and even "family" is contentious in this day and age, but for me, in this context, it simply means the traditional family with traditional gender roles and moral values based on Christian principles. Anything that undermines these values undermines the nation. It is for this reason that I oppose things like marriage between homosexuals - or even the suggestion that co-habiting couples constitute a family. They do not. They constitute a relationship, but not a family.
Equally, it is my view that anything that strengthens the family and those values strengthens the nation - and as someone who believes in nations and nationalism I obviously believe that this should be encouraged as a priority. Preferential treatment must be given to the traditional married family in any way it can above all other forms of relationship - because this is what makes a nation strong. Those familial ties are what binds communities together and strengthen that shared identity - the national identity - and if those ties weaken and break then so does the national identity and with that goes the cohesion that binds societies together.
This brings me to the concept of nationalism as opposed to statism. The state is not the nation. The state is the mechanism of a government of a nation. Nationalism is driven from the bottom up - the will of the people to meet their needs expressed through their communities beginning with the family. Statism is the top down approach - the will of a government expressed through the mechanisms of government as it attempts to meet the needs of the people. Allow me to expand on those two points for a moment.
With nationalism, if the people have a need they take the responsibility to meet that need. At familial level that need might be to eat - so food is bought and cooked. At a rural level, that need might be to educate the local children - so a school is set up and staffed. At town level that need might be for clean streets, so a waste collection service is set up and funded. At city level that need might be for crime prevention - so a police force is set up and funded. At county level that need might be to travel between towns, villages and cities - so a transport system is set up and funded. Finally, at national level that need might be to defend the people from aggressive outsiders, so borders are defined and protected. That is nationalism - local communities taking action to meet their needs. Nationalism is actually driven by local issues which mean that the people are not only more involved in their communities - and therefore their nation - but they are also more responsible and more likely to participate.
Statism takes all that responsibility for action away from the local people. Instead of the people deciding what they want - the state decides for them. Instead of local people working together to meet the need, the state does it for them. However, because the state has to be a broad brush - meeting the greatest need for the greatest number, instead of pinpoint targeting, meeting the localised need for a localised group - it can not meet those needs as well as the bottom up approach of nationalism. Furthermore, instead of people being more involved, more responsible and more likely to participate they become remote, unconcerned and apathetic.
The more that the responsibility is taken away from them, the more apathetic they become.
Nationalism is the expression of the shared will of the people - from the traditional family right the way up to the nation itself. It is the most local of ideologies driven by local solutions to local needs for local people - and the essence of democracy in action. The further away you take the responsibility for those needs being met by local people, the less interested they are in participating in democracy.
Tuesday, May 15, 2007
Defence of the nation
I am a nationalist. No, I'm not a BNP supporter - at least, not yet - rather I am someone who believes that the nation state is the ultimate expression of common identity for a people.
Nations and nationalism (and nationalists) tend to get something of a bad press in this day and age - which is a little unfair seeing how the nation state has been the foundation of modern western democracy.
It's not particularly easy to pin down nations and nationalism as concepts due to the various different ways they are defined. The post-modern view of a nation is as an "imagined community". Imagined because it is impossible for everyone to know one another - but then that is true of most cities, towns and even many villages. You do not need to know everyone - or have interaction with them - to be part of a real community.
What makes you part of that very real community is not whether you know them or not, but that when you do meet you are able to communicate, recognise the common traits and differences and identify - or not - with them.
As definitions go, I prefer that of Ernest Renan ....
A nation is a soul, a spiritual principle. Two things, which in truth are but one, constitute this soul or spiritual principle. One lies in the past, one in the present. One is the possession in common of a rich legacy of memories; the other is present-day consent, the desire to live together, the will to perpetuate the value of the heritage that one has received in an undivided form. Man, Gentlemen, does not improvise. The nation, like the individual, is the culmination of a long past of endeavours, sacrifice, and devotion.
Before going on, I must point out that I do not agree with everything Renan says about nations or races, but I do find that his definition of a nation is the one most consistent with my own viewpoint. There is much to admire about Renan's definition, but the part that sticks in my mind is that last sentence - that the nation is the CULMINATION of a long past of endeavours, sacrifices and devotion.
The culmination, the end, the high point, the pinnacle.
So, far from being an imagined community or even, as in the modern view, a political construct (a relatively recent definition which is designed to give legitimacy to those most un-nation like states such as the Soviet Union, Yugoslavia or, of course, the EU) - a nation is the ultimate expression of a peoples shared work and sacrifices.
A nation exists because the people want it to exist - not because the state demands it - and can only exist as long as there is a people, a demos, to want it.
Nationalism is also prone to a multitude of definitions, but, for me, Renan's definition encompasses nationalism as well as nation. Nationalism is the "will to perpetuate the value of the heritage that one has received in an undivided form".
That is nationalism. It's nothing to be ashamed of, nothing to fear. It is the ultimate expression of a peoples will and, because I believe that the will of the people is the single most important thing in humanity, then as far as I'm concerned, far from being something to deride, loathe or mistrust, there is no cause more noble in mankind.
Nations and nationalism (and nationalists) tend to get something of a bad press in this day and age - which is a little unfair seeing how the nation state has been the foundation of modern western democracy.
It's not particularly easy to pin down nations and nationalism as concepts due to the various different ways they are defined. The post-modern view of a nation is as an "imagined community". Imagined because it is impossible for everyone to know one another - but then that is true of most cities, towns and even many villages. You do not need to know everyone - or have interaction with them - to be part of a real community.
What makes you part of that very real community is not whether you know them or not, but that when you do meet you are able to communicate, recognise the common traits and differences and identify - or not - with them.
As definitions go, I prefer that of Ernest Renan ....
A nation is a soul, a spiritual principle. Two things, which in truth are but one, constitute this soul or spiritual principle. One lies in the past, one in the present. One is the possession in common of a rich legacy of memories; the other is present-day consent, the desire to live together, the will to perpetuate the value of the heritage that one has received in an undivided form. Man, Gentlemen, does not improvise. The nation, like the individual, is the culmination of a long past of endeavours, sacrifice, and devotion.
Before going on, I must point out that I do not agree with everything Renan says about nations or races, but I do find that his definition of a nation is the one most consistent with my own viewpoint. There is much to admire about Renan's definition, but the part that sticks in my mind is that last sentence - that the nation is the CULMINATION of a long past of endeavours, sacrifices and devotion.
The culmination, the end, the high point, the pinnacle.
So, far from being an imagined community or even, as in the modern view, a political construct (a relatively recent definition which is designed to give legitimacy to those most un-nation like states such as the Soviet Union, Yugoslavia or, of course, the EU) - a nation is the ultimate expression of a peoples shared work and sacrifices.
A nation exists because the people want it to exist - not because the state demands it - and can only exist as long as there is a people, a demos, to want it.
Nationalism is also prone to a multitude of definitions, but, for me, Renan's definition encompasses nationalism as well as nation. Nationalism is the "will to perpetuate the value of the heritage that one has received in an undivided form".
That is nationalism. It's nothing to be ashamed of, nothing to fear. It is the ultimate expression of a peoples will and, because I believe that the will of the people is the single most important thing in humanity, then as far as I'm concerned, far from being something to deride, loathe or mistrust, there is no cause more noble in mankind.
Friday, April 13, 2007
Faux independence
Like a lot of the media, The Telegraph is painting the prospect of a decisive win for SNP in Scotland on May 3rd as a precursor to the the break up of the United Kingdom.
But perhaps most importantly, a decisive victory for the SNP could lead to the break-up of the historic Union. Scotland is witnessing potentially the bloodiest and keenest contest. Every seat on the Holyrood Parliament is up for grabs.
It won't happen. Scotland voting for independence and causing the break-up of the Union, that is. I'm pretty sure the SNP will win and win big in Scotland, but I do not believe that Salmond is serious about taking Scotland out of the United Kingdom. He doesn't need to. Scotland now benefits enormously through the Union and most of the people of Scotland recognise that. An independent Scotland could not sustain it's current level of public sector employment and spending without the assistance of English taxpayers.
Sure, it would continue to receive plenty of funds from England via the EU, but nowhere near the level it currently gets. I also find it incredible that any politician can claim they want "independence" and yet remain committed to the European Union. It's a funny kind of independence that allows another government in another country staffed by foreigners to dictate your laws and regulations.
Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.
Personally, I won't be too sorry if the SNP do break up the Union. Yes, it will be a little bit sad to see the end of Britain, but I'm all for being in a proper independent nation - and that means withdrawal from the EU. I don't really mind if that is as Britain or as England, but I believe that as long as England and Scotland remain tied together withdrawal form the EU will not happen - but if Scotland does leave the Union I believe this will present England with a unique opportunity to get that independence.
I look forward to the day when I can breathe once more as a citizen of a proper independent nation. I look forward to being able to hand on that birthright to my kids. I look forward to the day when we, as a nation, can make our own decisions about everything. Perhaps then we'll regain some pride, spirit and backbone as a people. Perhaps then, the next time some tinpot despot thinks he can mess with our armed forces we can send him away with a bloody nose and humiliation writ large across his forehead.
But perhaps most importantly, a decisive victory for the SNP could lead to the break-up of the historic Union. Scotland is witnessing potentially the bloodiest and keenest contest. Every seat on the Holyrood Parliament is up for grabs.
It won't happen. Scotland voting for independence and causing the break-up of the Union, that is. I'm pretty sure the SNP will win and win big in Scotland, but I do not believe that Salmond is serious about taking Scotland out of the United Kingdom. He doesn't need to. Scotland now benefits enormously through the Union and most of the people of Scotland recognise that. An independent Scotland could not sustain it's current level of public sector employment and spending without the assistance of English taxpayers.
Sure, it would continue to receive plenty of funds from England via the EU, but nowhere near the level it currently gets. I also find it incredible that any politician can claim they want "independence" and yet remain committed to the European Union. It's a funny kind of independence that allows another government in another country staffed by foreigners to dictate your laws and regulations.
Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.
Personally, I won't be too sorry if the SNP do break up the Union. Yes, it will be a little bit sad to see the end of Britain, but I'm all for being in a proper independent nation - and that means withdrawal from the EU. I don't really mind if that is as Britain or as England, but I believe that as long as England and Scotland remain tied together withdrawal form the EU will not happen - but if Scotland does leave the Union I believe this will present England with a unique opportunity to get that independence.
I look forward to the day when I can breathe once more as a citizen of a proper independent nation. I look forward to being able to hand on that birthright to my kids. I look forward to the day when we, as a nation, can make our own decisions about everything. Perhaps then we'll regain some pride, spirit and backbone as a people. Perhaps then, the next time some tinpot despot thinks he can mess with our armed forces we can send him away with a bloody nose and humiliation writ large across his forehead.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)