No other party is as heavily defined by its immigration policy as the British National Party. Its sensationally populist and xenophobic beliefs in this area should not distract from the rest of its policies, which are most certainly left wing. According to its manifesto the party is committed to establishing external trade tariffs, raising taxes, creating nationalised manufacturing industries and workers' councils to run them, increasing funding for the NHS, increasing state pensions, improving worker protection and placing key industries under the ownership of the state. Furthermore, it calls for “the selective exclusion of foreign-made goods from British markets and the reduction of foreign imports,” and promises to “restore our economy and land to British ownership” and “to give workers a stake in the success and prosperity of the enterprises whose profits their labour creates by encouraging worker shareholder and co-operative schemes”.
Branding the BNP as a right wing party is undoubtedly an attempt by the Left to exploit the confusion between libertarian, right wing ideologies and fascism, a national socialist movement. Such a tactic is typical of the Left, which uses its perceived moral superiority to vilify the Right and guilt their own voters into remaining loyal.
Friday, 30 October 2009
Wednesday, 12 August 2009
A Lesson In Free Universal Healthcare
This was posted a few months ago but news of recent times has made it more pertinent.
America beware. Under the stewardship of President Obama, it has been suggested that this may be a route that needs pursuing - free universal healthcare. In Britain, we have the National Health Service (NHS), which was established over 60 years ago in 1948. Before this people were generally forced to pay for their healthcare, although free treatment was available from some teaching and charity hospitals. It was common to pay money into friendly societies that operated insurance schemes and from 1911 onwards, National Insurance contributions paid by employees and employers led covered treatment but not medications, in some ways this is comparable to the NHS now refusing to pay for the most expensive of drugs purely on a cost basis. Furthermore, prescription charges must be paid even if the medicine costs less without a prescription.
Time to crunch some numbers. The NHS employs 1.3 million staff. You probably now have the image of doctors and nurses running around in white coats, but you are sadly mistaken. These are mostly middle managers and administrators. The NHS is the 3rd biggest employer in the entire world. Shockingly, Britain is ranked 55th in the world when it comes to number of people per doctor, with 2.2 per 1000 - even Mongolia has more! It costs the tax payer on average £2000 per year to run the NHS. This is a staggering sum of money. Great, you say, this should comprehensively take care of me. Try getting an NHS dentist; due to the lack of willingness to upgrade equipment and improve working conditions, you have got more chance of witnessing an apology from Gordon Brown for his economic mismanagement than you do of finding an NHS dentist. Since 1997 the current regime has increased NHS spending by 80%. This is massive injection of cash, yet has it honestly gone to the right places? There are now less General Practitioner working hours than before this regime, largely due to the fact they were given a major pay rise (this is not a criticism in any way of GP's, I feel they are underpaid for performing a difficult job) however, due to the large hours they were forced to work they naturally can keep the same money and go part time and have a better lifestyle. This is an inherent problem with socialist principles; simply throwing money at a problem in an uncontrolled manner does not make it go away. If you visit an NHS hospital and compare it to a private hospital the differences are staggering. The private hospital will have private en-suite rooms with three decent (well, maybe not Gordon Ramsay-esque) meals a day. The main difference is the cleanliness. By going into an NHS hospital for a minor procedure you run the risk of catching a super bug, such as MRSA. Even then you have been lucky to have made it that far. The waiting lists for minor procedures are massive. Only if you are seriously ill will NHS treat you quickly. A recent visit to an accident and emergency room showed firsthand how the service is clogged up by dealing with drunkards who are on first name terms with staff that treat everybody with contempt as they are solely concerned with shifting numbers, leading to poor, impersonal service. It was obvious that there was a lack of hygiene at the hospital, and it was surprising to see so many uniformed staff just stood around doing nothing. Strangely the staff was keen for you to choose your ethnicity from a list. Does this really have any bearing on your treatment?
You may think, “Private medical insurance must cost the earth if the service is infinitely better.” You will be pleased and surprised to know that is not the case. For an average person, £1000 a year will get you the top level of cover. This is arguably essential as your health is your most important asset. It is fair to categorise the NHS not as a healthcare system, it never has cared for you when you are in good health, but rather a fairer term would be 'illness care', as that is the time it actually kicks into effect. Even then you may not have access to the latest cutting edge drugs that private cover could get you as they are regarded as too expensive. With the increased funding provided by the Labour regime it is interesting to note that according to a BBC report in March 2008, the average waiting time for treatment on the NHS had risen from 41 days in 1997-1998 to 49 days in 2007, once again proof that a huge injection of cash in the system has not improved matters.
The problems seem to be more deep rooted than simply a lack of funds; it seems there is a complete lack of structure. I believe that the true purpose of the NHS at government level may now be simply to provide even more public sector jobs, which have now swollen to such an incomprehensible size that it would be nearly impossible to streamline in one swoop due to the large increase in unemployment. But is this seriously a good reason to stick with a second rate health system? A better alternative would be to take the control completely out of the incompetent hands of the government and to have compulsory medical insurance either provided by the employer, with a tax break as an incentive, or paid for by the employee, tax free, unlike the present system, whereby you have to pay tax on this cover because you are helping the government by removing a burden – how generous of them! The Institute of Employment Studies in 2001 stated, “The majority of companies are spending between 2% and 16% of their annual budget on sickness absence alone. Private Medical Insurance will probably only cost around 1% of payroll and could save the employer thousands of pounds of down time.” Robertson Cooper Ltd, in conjunction with 87 major companies, in 2001 found, “The full impact of absence costs UK private sector employers about £1,550 per employee per year - or around 9% of their annual payroll.” For those genuinely unable to work as well as the retired the government should pay the cost of the private cover as this would work out more cost effective, while providing much better facilities, equipment and services than are on offer at present. The more people who have the private cover, the cheaper it will become (think of it as bulk buying). It would be necessary to regulate the profit margins allowed by the provider, or maybe better still, to make sure there is genuine competition in order to keep prices low and quality high, which is the inverse of the current system. Who knows, with these savings, maybe the spare money could be used to shorten the 23 years predicted to dig Britain out of its masses of debt or even to provide the workforce with a tax reduction?
America, if you need a lesson in how not to provide universal healthcare, then the NHS is your role model. President Obama is probably aware that free, universal healthcare in America is unlikely to ever be introduced. America is a country where the government is small and thankfully trusts the individual; it is unlikely that the people would trust government to run such an organisation.
America beware. Under the stewardship of President Obama, it has been suggested that this may be a route that needs pursuing - free universal healthcare. In Britain, we have the National Health Service (NHS), which was established over 60 years ago in 1948. Before this people were generally forced to pay for their healthcare, although free treatment was available from some teaching and charity hospitals. It was common to pay money into friendly societies that operated insurance schemes and from 1911 onwards, National Insurance contributions paid by employees and employers led covered treatment but not medications, in some ways this is comparable to the NHS now refusing to pay for the most expensive of drugs purely on a cost basis. Furthermore, prescription charges must be paid even if the medicine costs less without a prescription.
Time to crunch some numbers. The NHS employs 1.3 million staff. You probably now have the image of doctors and nurses running around in white coats, but you are sadly mistaken. These are mostly middle managers and administrators. The NHS is the 3rd biggest employer in the entire world. Shockingly, Britain is ranked 55th in the world when it comes to number of people per doctor, with 2.2 per 1000 - even Mongolia has more! It costs the tax payer on average £2000 per year to run the NHS. This is a staggering sum of money. Great, you say, this should comprehensively take care of me. Try getting an NHS dentist; due to the lack of willingness to upgrade equipment and improve working conditions, you have got more chance of witnessing an apology from Gordon Brown for his economic mismanagement than you do of finding an NHS dentist. Since 1997 the current regime has increased NHS spending by 80%. This is massive injection of cash, yet has it honestly gone to the right places? There are now less General Practitioner working hours than before this regime, largely due to the fact they were given a major pay rise (this is not a criticism in any way of GP's, I feel they are underpaid for performing a difficult job) however, due to the large hours they were forced to work they naturally can keep the same money and go part time and have a better lifestyle. This is an inherent problem with socialist principles; simply throwing money at a problem in an uncontrolled manner does not make it go away. If you visit an NHS hospital and compare it to a private hospital the differences are staggering. The private hospital will have private en-suite rooms with three decent (well, maybe not Gordon Ramsay-esque) meals a day. The main difference is the cleanliness. By going into an NHS hospital for a minor procedure you run the risk of catching a super bug, such as MRSA. Even then you have been lucky to have made it that far. The waiting lists for minor procedures are massive. Only if you are seriously ill will NHS treat you quickly. A recent visit to an accident and emergency room showed firsthand how the service is clogged up by dealing with drunkards who are on first name terms with staff that treat everybody with contempt as they are solely concerned with shifting numbers, leading to poor, impersonal service. It was obvious that there was a lack of hygiene at the hospital, and it was surprising to see so many uniformed staff just stood around doing nothing. Strangely the staff was keen for you to choose your ethnicity from a list. Does this really have any bearing on your treatment?
You may think, “Private medical insurance must cost the earth if the service is infinitely better.” You will be pleased and surprised to know that is not the case. For an average person, £1000 a year will get you the top level of cover. This is arguably essential as your health is your most important asset. It is fair to categorise the NHS not as a healthcare system, it never has cared for you when you are in good health, but rather a fairer term would be 'illness care', as that is the time it actually kicks into effect. Even then you may not have access to the latest cutting edge drugs that private cover could get you as they are regarded as too expensive. With the increased funding provided by the Labour regime it is interesting to note that according to a BBC report in March 2008, the average waiting time for treatment on the NHS had risen from 41 days in 1997-1998 to 49 days in 2007, once again proof that a huge injection of cash in the system has not improved matters.
The problems seem to be more deep rooted than simply a lack of funds; it seems there is a complete lack of structure. I believe that the true purpose of the NHS at government level may now be simply to provide even more public sector jobs, which have now swollen to such an incomprehensible size that it would be nearly impossible to streamline in one swoop due to the large increase in unemployment. But is this seriously a good reason to stick with a second rate health system? A better alternative would be to take the control completely out of the incompetent hands of the government and to have compulsory medical insurance either provided by the employer, with a tax break as an incentive, or paid for by the employee, tax free, unlike the present system, whereby you have to pay tax on this cover because you are helping the government by removing a burden – how generous of them! The Institute of Employment Studies in 2001 stated, “The majority of companies are spending between 2% and 16% of their annual budget on sickness absence alone. Private Medical Insurance will probably only cost around 1% of payroll and could save the employer thousands of pounds of down time.” Robertson Cooper Ltd, in conjunction with 87 major companies, in 2001 found, “The full impact of absence costs UK private sector employers about £1,550 per employee per year - or around 9% of their annual payroll.” For those genuinely unable to work as well as the retired the government should pay the cost of the private cover as this would work out more cost effective, while providing much better facilities, equipment and services than are on offer at present. The more people who have the private cover, the cheaper it will become (think of it as bulk buying). It would be necessary to regulate the profit margins allowed by the provider, or maybe better still, to make sure there is genuine competition in order to keep prices low and quality high, which is the inverse of the current system. Who knows, with these savings, maybe the spare money could be used to shorten the 23 years predicted to dig Britain out of its masses of debt or even to provide the workforce with a tax reduction?
America, if you need a lesson in how not to provide universal healthcare, then the NHS is your role model. President Obama is probably aware that free, universal healthcare in America is unlikely to ever be introduced. America is a country where the government is small and thankfully trusts the individual; it is unlikely that the people would trust government to run such an organisation.
Thursday, 23 July 2009
Conversations between Berlusconi and his Prostitute
What follows are short extracts from recordings taken by Berlusconi's prostitute, Patrizia D'Addario and published by L'espresso.
PDA: A young man would have come in a second. You know, I mean, he would have come... Young men are under a lot of pressure...
SB: But, if you will allow me... I believe the trouble lies with the family
PDA: What trouble?
SB: Having an orgasm
PDA: Do you know how long it's been since I last had sex like I had with you tonight? Many months, not since I left my man... Is that normal?
SB: Can I say something? You should have sex with yourself... You should touch yourself often
The following conversation between Patrizia D'Addario and Gianpaolo Tarantini discusses a forthcoming evening at Berlusconi's Roman residence, Palazzo Grazioli in October 2008.
GT: So...
PDA: Did you want to talk to me?
GT: I didn't want to talk, I wanted to tell you... that at 21:15 I'll send you the driver and we'll go there...
Girl: We'll go there... then if he decides to stay there...
PDA: ...a thousand for the night.
GT: I've already given you a thousand... then if you stay with him... he'll give you a present... ah... so you know, he doesn't use condoms... eh
PDA: But it's not possible that he doesn't use condoms... how can I trust him?
GT: Well... it's Berlusconi...
PDA: And who are you? Look... You know how many people are left...
GT: Do you know how many tests he has done?
PDA: I know, but... you know... for us women it's also nicer... I mean... hearing something like this...
GT: You can decide, but he won't take you as an escort, understand? He'll take you as a friend of mine that I've brought along...
The following took place between Berlusconi and Patrizia on the morning of 5th November 2008 over breakfast in Palazzo Grazioli.
PDA: What pain, at the start you gave me such terrible pain
SB: Oh come on! That's not true!
PDA: I swear, a terrible pain at the start
SB: Will you tell me your surname?
PDA: Yes, it's a famous surname. There's a big advertising agency and a big gynecologist with it
SB: (Reads a card) D'Addario?
PDA: Yes, it's not that common....
SB: D'Addario...
Wednesday, 22 July 2009
Homegrown Imams in Switzerland - An effective obstacle to Wahhabism and Salafism
Swiss Muslims, the authorities, universities and legal experts have agreed that in the future, imams and Islamic religious teachers in Switzerland will have to be educated in a Swiss university. Researchers at the University of Zurich conducted a survey on 100 representatives of the Muslim community and 40 representatives of other religions, political parties and authorities, which asked various questions about the current state of Islam in Switzerland. The results were presented in a report in Bern entitled, "Religious Communities, State and Society", by the Swiss National Fund for Scientific Research, and will form the basis for legislative proposals to the Swiss Federal Council.
In the future imams will be required to have a good knowledge of at least one of the national languages, of the Swiss legal and political system, and the ability to enter into dialogue with other religious leaders. With 350,000 members, or 5% of the Swiss population, Muslims constitute the third largest religious group after Catholics and Protestants. Currently, all imams, who act as moral and spiritual guides for the community and mediators with the authorities and media, are educated abroad. The study confirmed that Swiss Muslims found this to be unsatisfactory. Linguistic problems are believed to prevent the imams from correctly undertaking their work within the community and also impede their religious teaching and contact with the Swiss Muslim youth. The Muslims surveyed also said they wanted imams that better understood the Swiss socio-cultural context in order to bridge the Islamic community with Swiss society. The institutional actors that were consulted expect imams to retransmit Swiss values and norms to their congregation.
Imams will need to acquire an understanding of Swiss history, law, politics and economics. It is also expected that they will need to complete a course in religious science and interreligious dialogue. Both Swiss Muslims and the institutions agreed that the form of Islam to be followed should be one based on the Swiss context, rather than one imported from abroad, whilst Islamic associations believe the state should not try to educate imams according to its own wishes. These measures constitute the most effective opposition to the spread of Saudi Arabian Wahhabism and Salafism, a form of Islam which rejects capitalism, constitutions, economics and political parties, and should be implemented by all Western societies to safeguard democracy.
Monday, 20 July 2009
Ten more questions for Silvio Berlusconi
1. When did you first meet Noemi Letizia? How many times did you meet her and where? Have you frequented other minors and do you still do so?
2. What is the reason that forced you to not tell the truth for two months, instead giving four different versions of your acquaintance with Noemi before making two belated admissions?
3. Do you not find it a serious matter for Italian democracy and for your leadership that you paid the girls that call you "papi" (daddy) with candidatures and promises of political responsibilities?
4. You stayed with a prostitute the night of 4 November 2008, and, according to judicial investigations, dozens of call girls have been taken to your residences. Were you aware that they were prostitutes? If not, are you able to guarantee that those encounters have not made you vulnerable to blackmail?
5. Have any "official government flights" without you on board ever been used to take female party guests to your residences?
6. Can you say without fear of contradiction that the people with whom you keep company have not caused prejudice to the affairs of the Italian State? Can you reassure the country and its allies that no female guests of yours possess arms of blackmail that diminish your political independence?
7. Your conduct contradicts your policies: would you be able today to attend a Family Day demonstration or sign a law punishing the clients of prostitutes?
8. Do you still consider yourself eligible for the office of President of the Republic? If not, do you think that a person that common opinion considers unfit for the Quirinal presidential palace can fulfil his duties as prime minister?
9. You have spoken of a "subversive plan" that threatens you. Can you guarantee not having used and not wanting to use intelligence and the police force against witnesses, magistrates and journalists?
10. In light of what has emerged in the last two months, what is the state of your health?
Thursday, 16 July 2009
Why Tony Blair should never be President of the European Council
If the Lisbon Treaty is ratified by Ireland, the current system of six-month rotating presidencies will be replaced by a president that can be elected for a maximum of two terms of two and a half years. The former French president, Valérie Giscard d'Estaing, believes that the president of the European Council should be chosen from a member state that fully participates in and respects the commitments of the European Union. It is also hoped that the figure will be someone that can strengthen the diplomatic and military independence of Europe. During his ten years as British prime minister, Blair did nothing to abolish the country's various opt-outs, nor did he pursue British membership of the euro or the Schengen Area. It is also widely suspected that Blair would exploit the post to publicise himself, rather than the EU. Furthermore, his servile compliance with America throughout his mandate casts doubt on his capacity to enhance European diplomatic and military independence. The former French prime minister, Édouard Balladur, asks,
"If the presidents of the United States and of Europe were called upon to hold regular meetings to discuss questions of mutual interest, how could an EU president from a country that intends to keep its monetary independence negotiate the co-ordination that is indispensable between the euro and the American dollar? It is difficult to see how Mr Blair could qualify as a spokesman for Europe in these circumstances."
The president will be appointed by the European heads of state or government and the largely undefined nature of the post will allow the first incumbent to determine its future character. Fredrik Reinfeldt, the Swedish prime minister, has already stated his concern over electing Blair, believing that he will cause friction between the smaller and larger member states. José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero, the Spanish prime minister, and Angela Merkel, the German chancellor, are also opposed. With Sweden and Spain holding the rotating presidency of the EU for the next year, these governments could complicate Blair's bid with their agenda-setting powers. Nicolas Sarkozy originally supported Blair, but now it is believed that he favours the former Spanish prime minister, Felipe González. Other potential challengers for the role include Jean-Claude Juncker, Luxembourg's prime minister; Wolfgang Schussel, Austria's former chancellor; Bertie Ahern, former prime minister of Ireland; and Guy Verhofstadt, the former Belgian prime minister.
Glenys Kinnock's announcement that "the UK government is supporting Tony Blair's candidature for President of the Council", made in Strasbourg yesterday, clearly shows that he has the support of his old rival, Gordon Brown. Many in Westminster accept that this support was secured in a deal that Brown and Blair made months ago which ensured that Blair would use Lord Mandelson to quell the growing rebellion in the Parliamentary Labour Party against Brown's leadership.
More important, however, is Blair's obsession with money and how readily he will succumb to its attraction. Blair was recently awarded a $1million prize by the Dan David Foundation of Tel Aviv for "his exceptional leadership and steadfast determination in helping to engineer agreements and forge lasting solutions to areas in conflict." There's also the £2million annual fee from JP Morgan Chase and the $250,000 for a 45-minute speech on the US lecture circuit. These prestigious rewards evidently demonstrate to members of the European political elite the potential financial benefits that they are likely to enjoy if they subserviently act in America's interests. Tony Blair is unmistakably unfit for this position - not to mention that some believe he should be on trial for war crimes.
Wednesday, 15 July 2009
The War in Afghanistan: Obama's policy towards Pakistan
Afghan President Hamid Karzai, US President Barack Obama and Pakistani President Asif Ali Zardari, 6 May 09
The Obama administration's policy towards Pakistan, as outlined in this white paper, focuses on the need to improve cooperation between Afghanistan and Pakistan, the ability of Pakistan to fight extremists and how to strengthen the Pakistani government through increased American support. Whilst the administration's objectives for Afghanistan appear more detailed, achieving its goals for Pakistan will be far more arduous. Before the 2008 US presidential elections, Obama's staff asserted that it would be necessary to stabilise Pakistan before its neighbour could be stabilised. This however, would have required the assistance of India in diplomatically reassuring Pakistan, which remains concerned at New Delhi's encroachment into what it regards as its sphere of influence, namely over countries such as Iran, Afghanistan and the central Asian republics. As can be expected, Pakistani security concerns are linked to its poor relationship with India and its neighbour's potential to disaggregate the state, as it did following the conflict fought in 1971 as a result of the genocide in East Pakistan that ultimately led to the territory declaring independence.
President Obama appointed Richard Holbrooke as special envoy to the region which was to include India. However, following the pressure from influential Indian lobby groups, his mandate covered only Afghanistan and Pakistan. India was keen to avoid any presumption that its policy towards Kashmir and Pakistan could have anything to do with Islamabad's behaviour in the region. Nevertheless, the Indian government assured the US that it would not tolerate the involvement of Pakistan in the security issues of Afghanistan. Therefore, as India's status as a regional power continually grows, Pakistan has felt compelled to address the balance of power through the only instrument at its disposal; the military. The US has so far been incapable of dissuading Pakistan from considering its military as a tool for foreign policy. Pakistan has been reluctant to adopt adequately restrictive measures against its military option and cannot fight effectively against militants that have decidedly sided against the state. Pakistan is now also convinced that its nuclear arsenal would allow it to engage in unconventional warfare.
The US' options for Pakistan are limited. Congress has sought to introduce various legislative modifications to enhance American assistance to Islamabad in the area of security or attempt to increase funds to strengthen the debilitated civil and political institutions of the country. Current laws are deemed restrictive as they bind American security assistance to the Pakistani president's guarantee that Pakistan does not support terrorism and that it does not harbour anyone that has dealt with the nuclear black market. The Obama administration fears that these conditions could push Pakistan to seek new allies and thereby deny Washington the strategic opportunity to monitor and determine Pakistan's behaviour and political choices. The US is still in great need of Pakistan's logistical support in Afghanistan, because, even though they admit that the Northern Route into the country can no longer be used and that Iran's border provides the best entry routes into Afghanistan, any formal involvement of Iran in the conflict remains impossible.
In summary, Washington and the international community do not know what course of action to take with Pakistan. Until a real solution is found, Pakistan will continue to represent one of the greatest threats to the region and the wider international community.
Tuesday, 7 July 2009
Xinjiang: The Muslim Tibet
Although China was taken by surprise this week by the sudden outbreak of civil unrest in the vast region of Xinjiang, which is inhabited by the Turkic Uyghurs, the government reacted more quickly than it did following the March 2008 protests in Tibet. Images of the violence in Urumqi, Xinjiang's capital, transmitted by the state's broadcaster are careful to show only the Han Chinese that have been injured during the ethnic clashes. Evidently therefore, Beijing hopes to accelerate the nationalist movement of the Han against the Uyghurs. Xinjiang, like Tibet, has been subject to massive waves of Han immigration that have drastically altered the ethnic composition of the territory.
The Uyghur issue has never enjoyed the same visibility in the West as Tibet. The inhabitants of Xinjiang have failed to gain the same sympathies in Europe and the US as the Tibetan Buddhists because of their Islamic faith. Yet this Turkic population suffers from the Han domination as a form of colonial occupation. Pro-independence organisations refer to the region as 'East Turkestan', and are strongly supported by neighbouring populations in the former Soviet republics of central Asia. For Hu Jintao, the Uyghur issue will present obstacles to forming relations with the Islamic world, where China is hoping to expand its economic and strategic influence. Such ethnic issues also highlight China's imbalance between its economic development and the rigidity of its authoritarian system.
An Uyghur girl in Turpan, Xinjiang
Friday, 19 June 2009
A Letter of Complaint to Sir Richard Branson
image 1
image 2The following is a real letter currently circulating the web, it was sent to Sir Richard Branson after a flight from Mumbai/Bombay to London.
REF: Mumbai to Heathrow 7th December 2008
I love the Virgin brand, I really do which is why I continue to use it despite a series of unfortunate incidents over the last few years. This latest incident takes the biscuit.
Ironically, by the end of the flight I would have gladly paid over a thousand rupees for a single biscuit following the culinary journey of hell I was subjected to at thehands of your corporation.
Look at this Richard. Just look at it: [see image 1, above].
I imagine the same questions are racing through your brilliant mind as were racing through mine on that fateful day. What is this? Why have I been given it? What have I done to deserve this? And, which one is the starter, which one is the desert?
You don’t get to a position like yours Richard with anything less than a generous sprinkling of observational power so I KNOW you will have spotted the tomato next to the two yellow shafts of sponge on the left. Yes, it’s next to the sponge shaft without the green paste. That’s got to be the clue hasn’t it. No sane person would serve a desert with a tomato would they. Well answer me this Richard, what sort of animal would serve a desert with peas in: [see image 2, above].
I know it looks like a baaji but it’s in custard Richard, custard. It must be the pudding. Well you’ll be fascinated to hear that it wasn't custard. It was a sour gel with a clear oil on top. It’s only redeeming feature was that it managed to be so alien to my palette that it took away the taste of the curry emanating from our miscellaneous central cuboid of beige matter. Perhaps the meal on the left might be the desert after all.
Anyway, this is all irrelevant at the moment. I was raised strictly but neatly by my parents and if they knew I had started desert before the main course, a sponge shaft would be the least of my worries. So lets peel back the tin-foil on the main dish and see what’s on offer.
I’ll try and explain how this felt. Imagine being a twelve year old boy Richard. Now imagine it’s Christmas morning and you’re sat their with your final present to open. It’s a big one, and you know what it is. It’s that Goodmans stereo you picked out the catalogue and wrote to Santa about.
Only you open the present and it’s not in there. It’s your hamster Richard. It’s your hamster in the box and it’s not breathing. That’s how I felt when I peeled back the foil and saw this: [see image 3, below].
Now I know what you’re thinking. You’re thinking it’s more of that Baaji custard. I admit I thought the same too, but no. It’s mustard Richard. MUSTARD. More mustard than any man could consume in a month. On the left we have a piece of broccoli and some peppers in a brown glue-like oil and on the right the chef had prepared some mashed potato. The potato masher had obviously broken and so it was decided the next best thing would be to pass the potatoes through the digestive tract of a bird.
Once it was regurgitated it was clearly then blended and mixed with a bit of mustard. Everybody likes a bit of mustard Richard.
By now I was actually starting to feel a little hypoglycaemic. I needed a sugar hit. Luckily there was a small cookie provided. It had caught my eye earlier due to it’s baffling presentation: [see image 4, below].
It appears to be in an evidence bag from the scene of a crime. A CRIME AGAINST BLOODY COOKING. Either that or some sort of back-street underground cookie, purchased off a gun-toting maniac high on his own supply of yeast. You certainly wouldn’t want to be caught carrying one of these through customs. Imagine biting into a piece of brass Richard. That would be softer on the teeth than the specimen above.
I was exhausted. All I wanted to do was relax but obviously I had to sit with that mess in front of me for half an hour. I swear the sponge shafts moved at one point.
Once cleared, I decided to relax with a bit of your world-famous onboard entertainment. I switched it on: [see image 5, below].
I apologise for the quality of the photo, it’s just it was incredibly hard to capture Boris Johnson’s face through the flickering white lines running up and down the screen. Perhaps it would be better on another channel: [see image 6, below].
Is that Ray Liotta? A question I found myself asking over and over again throughout the gruelling half-hour I attempted to watch the film like this. After that I switched off. I’d had enough. I was the hungriest I’d been in my adult life and I had a splitting headache from squinting at a crackling screen.
My only option was to simply stare at the seat in front and wait for either food, or sleep. Neither came for an incredibly long time. But when it did it surpassed my wildest expectations: [see image 7, below].
Yes! It’s another crime-scene cookie. Only this time you dunk it in the white stuff.
Richard…. What is that white stuff? It looked like it was going to be yoghurt. It finally dawned on me what it was after staring at it. It was a mixture between the Baaji custard and the Mustard sauce. It reminded me of my first week at university. I had overheard that you could make a drink by mixing vodka and refreshers. I lied to my new friends and told them I’d done it loads of times. When I attempted to make the drink in a big bowl it formed a cheese Richard, a cheese. That cheese looked a lot like your baaji-mustard.
So that was that Richard. I didn’t eat a bloody thing. My only question is: How can you live like this? I can’t imagine what dinner round your house is like, it must be like something out of a nature documentary.
As I said at the start I love your brand, I really do. It’s just a shame such a simple thing could bring it crashing to it’s knees and begging for sustenance.
Yours Sincererly
XXXX
image 3
image 4
image 5
image 6
image 7Thursday, 18 June 2009
Gordon Brown IS to Blame
By KEITH MARSDEN From today's Wall Street Journal Europe.
Shocked by the parliamentary expenses scandal and suffering from the recession, British voters have shown their displeasure with Gordon Brown's government. Labour was trounced in local and European elections earlier this month.
Despite this electoral drubbing, Labour lawmakers expressed their confidence in the prime minister on June 8. Given his supposedly successful management of the economy while chancellor of the exchequer, the majority felt that he was best qualified to lead Britain out of the recession, which, they claim, was caused by external forces, not by Mr. Brown's policies.
The facts show otherwise. Britain's economic downturn began when its house price and household debt bubbles inevitably burst, beginning with the run on Northern Rock in September 2007. These bubbles had swollen to higher levels, relative to average price and income levels respectively, than in the U.S. and other major economies.
In relation to their long-term average, British house prices soared by 88.5% between 1997 and 2007, according to the OECD. In the U.S. the rise was 64.5%. Britain's household debt rose to 176.9% of disposable income in 2007 from 104.8% in 1997. During the same period, U.S. household debt rose only to 105.8% of disposable income from 64.3% in 1997. The increases in Germany and France were considerably lower.
Gordon Brown tolerated and even encouraged the formation of these bubbles for several reasons. The traditional sources of Britain's economic strength, the mining and manufacturing industries, shrank during his term as chancellor. Total mining sector output, including oil and natural gas, dropped by 31% between 2000 and 2007. Total manufacturing production was stagnant during this period.
The gross value, in inflation-adjusted prices, of output from all production industries combined fell by 3% between 2000 and 2007. Their employment level dropped by nearly 1.1 million over the same period. These trends were not an inevitable result of shifts in comparative advantages that are said to occur in advanced economies. Real manufacturing output rose at an average annual rate of 2.2% in the U.S., 1.2% in Germany and 1.1% in France between 2000 and 2006, according to the World Bank.
Eager to achieve the illusion of steady progress in the overall economy, Mr. Brown needed the rapid expansion of financial services, and the real estate and business services industries. Their output soared by 48% and 33% respectively from 2000 to 2007, compared with 19% for the overall economy. Their combined employment level reached nearly 6.7 million in 2007, an increase of more than one million.
Rapid expansion of consumer credit in turn boosted demand for wholesale and retail products and services. The booming financial and real estate sectors, with their inflated salaries, bonuses, and profits generated by unsustainably rapid credit growth, also filled Mr. Brown's tax coffers.
Thus, despite the decline in corporate and personal income and national insurance tax revenues from the production industries, he was able to fulfill Labour's 1997 election promise of expanding public services. The output of health and social services increased by 26.3% from 2000 to 2007. Employment in the category "other service activities," which includes public administration and government services, grew by 1.3 million between 2000 and 2007, reaching almost 10 million -- nearly a third of all British jobs.
So the boom in the financial and real estate sectors served Mr. Brown's political interests well. And he was by no means a passive bystander to their growth. He urged them along in several policy speeches. Introducing on April 1, 2005, a policy document entitled "Homebuy: Expanding the Opportunity to Own," he insisted that "this Britain of ambition and aspiration is a Britain where more and more people must and will have the chance to own their own homes."
Ignoring the inability of many house buyers to pay their mortgages, he touted this message to City bankers in successive annual speeches at the Mansion House in London, promising them "light-touch regulation." Already in 1997 he transferred the responsibility for bank regulation from the Bank of England to the inexperienced Financial Services Authority. He also curbed the central bank's ability to keep asset inflation in check by removing housing costs from the price index.
Mr. Brown also repeatedly praised the City's "innovative skills," bragging in 2006 that it was responsible for 40% of the world's over-the-counter derivatives trade -- which includes the now infamous repackaged subprime mortgages. He gave financial institutions a false sense of security by telling them on June 16, 2004, that "I am determined to ensure that we can lock in greater stability not just for a year, or for an economic cycle, but in this generation."
With this assurance from the chancellor, how could anyone expect bankers to forego juicy profits and bonuses by avoiding innovative but unduly risky practices? Because of the large size and global reach of Britain's financial sector, and the many newfangled financial instruments it created and marketed, Mr. Brown cannot honestly deny all responsibility for Britain's recession.
Given these historic facts, Britain's Labour legislators should think again about sticking with the prime minister. Choosing a new leader with integrity and managerial competence is the party's best chance to win greater respect from voters.
Mr. Marsden, a member of the Council of the Centre for Policy Studies, was formerly an operations adviser at the World Bank and senior economist at the International Labour Organization.
Shocked by the parliamentary expenses scandal and suffering from the recession, British voters have shown their displeasure with Gordon Brown's government. Labour was trounced in local and European elections earlier this month.
Despite this electoral drubbing, Labour lawmakers expressed their confidence in the prime minister on June 8. Given his supposedly successful management of the economy while chancellor of the exchequer, the majority felt that he was best qualified to lead Britain out of the recession, which, they claim, was caused by external forces, not by Mr. Brown's policies.
The facts show otherwise. Britain's economic downturn began when its house price and household debt bubbles inevitably burst, beginning with the run on Northern Rock in September 2007. These bubbles had swollen to higher levels, relative to average price and income levels respectively, than in the U.S. and other major economies.
In relation to their long-term average, British house prices soared by 88.5% between 1997 and 2007, according to the OECD. In the U.S. the rise was 64.5%. Britain's household debt rose to 176.9% of disposable income in 2007 from 104.8% in 1997. During the same period, U.S. household debt rose only to 105.8% of disposable income from 64.3% in 1997. The increases in Germany and France were considerably lower.
Gordon Brown tolerated and even encouraged the formation of these bubbles for several reasons. The traditional sources of Britain's economic strength, the mining and manufacturing industries, shrank during his term as chancellor. Total mining sector output, including oil and natural gas, dropped by 31% between 2000 and 2007. Total manufacturing production was stagnant during this period.
The gross value, in inflation-adjusted prices, of output from all production industries combined fell by 3% between 2000 and 2007. Their employment level dropped by nearly 1.1 million over the same period. These trends were not an inevitable result of shifts in comparative advantages that are said to occur in advanced economies. Real manufacturing output rose at an average annual rate of 2.2% in the U.S., 1.2% in Germany and 1.1% in France between 2000 and 2006, according to the World Bank.
Eager to achieve the illusion of steady progress in the overall economy, Mr. Brown needed the rapid expansion of financial services, and the real estate and business services industries. Their output soared by 48% and 33% respectively from 2000 to 2007, compared with 19% for the overall economy. Their combined employment level reached nearly 6.7 million in 2007, an increase of more than one million.
Rapid expansion of consumer credit in turn boosted demand for wholesale and retail products and services. The booming financial and real estate sectors, with their inflated salaries, bonuses, and profits generated by unsustainably rapid credit growth, also filled Mr. Brown's tax coffers.
Thus, despite the decline in corporate and personal income and national insurance tax revenues from the production industries, he was able to fulfill Labour's 1997 election promise of expanding public services. The output of health and social services increased by 26.3% from 2000 to 2007. Employment in the category "other service activities," which includes public administration and government services, grew by 1.3 million between 2000 and 2007, reaching almost 10 million -- nearly a third of all British jobs.
So the boom in the financial and real estate sectors served Mr. Brown's political interests well. And he was by no means a passive bystander to their growth. He urged them along in several policy speeches. Introducing on April 1, 2005, a policy document entitled "Homebuy: Expanding the Opportunity to Own," he insisted that "this Britain of ambition and aspiration is a Britain where more and more people must and will have the chance to own their own homes."
Ignoring the inability of many house buyers to pay their mortgages, he touted this message to City bankers in successive annual speeches at the Mansion House in London, promising them "light-touch regulation." Already in 1997 he transferred the responsibility for bank regulation from the Bank of England to the inexperienced Financial Services Authority. He also curbed the central bank's ability to keep asset inflation in check by removing housing costs from the price index.
Mr. Brown also repeatedly praised the City's "innovative skills," bragging in 2006 that it was responsible for 40% of the world's over-the-counter derivatives trade -- which includes the now infamous repackaged subprime mortgages. He gave financial institutions a false sense of security by telling them on June 16, 2004, that "I am determined to ensure that we can lock in greater stability not just for a year, or for an economic cycle, but in this generation."
With this assurance from the chancellor, how could anyone expect bankers to forego juicy profits and bonuses by avoiding innovative but unduly risky practices? Because of the large size and global reach of Britain's financial sector, and the many newfangled financial instruments it created and marketed, Mr. Brown cannot honestly deny all responsibility for Britain's recession.
Given these historic facts, Britain's Labour legislators should think again about sticking with the prime minister. Choosing a new leader with integrity and managerial competence is the party's best chance to win greater respect from voters.
Mr. Marsden, a member of the Council of the Centre for Policy Studies, was formerly an operations adviser at the World Bank and senior economist at the International Labour Organization.
Para los hispanohablantes...
Hoy, encontré este en Youtube, es una llamada a una mujer en España, ella piensa que ha ganado un mono.
Pienso que necesitan una traducción en inglés.
Muy gracioso!!
Pienso que necesitan una traducción en inglés.
Muy gracioso!!
Gordon Brown's Private, Non-Legal Inquiry into the Iraq War
Gordon Brown's reluctance to involve lawyers in an inquiry into the Iraq War is absurd and reveals that we cannot expect a sound testimony or meaningful results. The efficacy of the inquiry is already questionable since it has been made clear that it will be held in private, thereby denying the public the opportunity to evaluate the process. The inquiry will also lack the power to subpoena witnesses and the ability to inquisitively cross-examine them according to the established methods of the legal system. Furthermore, any conclusions will undoubtedly be made unreliable by the fact that witnesses will not be questioned under oath. This merely constitutes the latest example of the Prime Minister's adherence to serving his own interests.
Wednesday, 17 June 2009
Chinese Growing Pains - Problems for the US and the World
As attempts to elevate the US-Chinese bilateral relationship get underway through the creation of a G-2 to address global problems such as the international financial crisis, the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and climate change, it is important to remember that such a strong relationship between the two countries does not already exist because their values, capabilities and interests have always been mismatched. Instead, the US should seek the assistance of the international community to deal with the problems created by China's rise.
Much of China's incompatibility with the West stems from its need for export markets and resources and its determination to not use its economic leverage for political gains. These values often bring China into opposition with the West's efforts to prevent human rights abuses in the developing world in the following ways:
• China's ongoing arms trade in Sudan and Zimbabwe has contributed to instability there, despite being urged by the rest of the world to restrain weapons sales.
• The Chinese concept of sovereignty has prevented it from supporting humanitarian intervention into countries where its state-owned businesses have vast resource holdings and development interests, such as Angola, the Democratic Republic of the Congo and Myanmar. In September 2007, China and Russia blocked a UN Security Council resolution that condemned Myanmar for using force against Buddhist monks that were leading antigovernment protests. Instead, China insisted that these actions were merely an internal affair.
• China opposes sanctions against Iran due to its growing dependence on imported oil and gas.
• A lack of transparency and accountability in China's authoritarian system inevitably makes cooperation on issues such as product safety difficult. The economic incentives felt by local actors to maintain the status quo undermine efforts to comply with international obligations.
• A lack of transparency with regards to military capabilities may allow China, as the weaker power, to use uncertainty as a deterrent. The US believes that transparency would allow China's neighbours to gauge its intentions and avoid mishaps.
• The US wants China to reform its currency and to enact effective intellectual property rights, whereas China aims to conduct business in the way it sees fit.
• The Chinese government's strategy of aggressively promoting growth through investments by state-owned entities, and accompanying this with regulatory measures to ensure the state's continued dominance of the economy, not only reverses previous market-based reforms and privatisation but also stifles foreign and domestic competitors within China. However, this largely reflects the current global trend of state capitalism, whereby states have rejected the free-market doctrine through excessive intervention to secure the survival of key industries. In China it is doubtful that these interventions will be temporary, and the fear is that politicians will over-regulate the economy, making it inefficient, corrupt and stripping it of its ability to innovate.
The primary goal for the US must therefore remain true market-oriented reform in China through greater liberalisation and a commitment that Beijing will open state-owned companies to foreign investors. Resolutions of other issues must be pursued with the help of the countries over which China believes it wields considerable influence; the developing world. The US must therefore engage with these new allies to fulfil its objectives.
Much of China's incompatibility with the West stems from its need for export markets and resources and its determination to not use its economic leverage for political gains. These values often bring China into opposition with the West's efforts to prevent human rights abuses in the developing world in the following ways:
• China's ongoing arms trade in Sudan and Zimbabwe has contributed to instability there, despite being urged by the rest of the world to restrain weapons sales.
• The Chinese concept of sovereignty has prevented it from supporting humanitarian intervention into countries where its state-owned businesses have vast resource holdings and development interests, such as Angola, the Democratic Republic of the Congo and Myanmar. In September 2007, China and Russia blocked a UN Security Council resolution that condemned Myanmar for using force against Buddhist monks that were leading antigovernment protests. Instead, China insisted that these actions were merely an internal affair.
• China opposes sanctions against Iran due to its growing dependence on imported oil and gas.
• A lack of transparency and accountability in China's authoritarian system inevitably makes cooperation on issues such as product safety difficult. The economic incentives felt by local actors to maintain the status quo undermine efforts to comply with international obligations.
• A lack of transparency with regards to military capabilities may allow China, as the weaker power, to use uncertainty as a deterrent. The US believes that transparency would allow China's neighbours to gauge its intentions and avoid mishaps.
• The US wants China to reform its currency and to enact effective intellectual property rights, whereas China aims to conduct business in the way it sees fit.
• The Chinese government's strategy of aggressively promoting growth through investments by state-owned entities, and accompanying this with regulatory measures to ensure the state's continued dominance of the economy, not only reverses previous market-based reforms and privatisation but also stifles foreign and domestic competitors within China. However, this largely reflects the current global trend of state capitalism, whereby states have rejected the free-market doctrine through excessive intervention to secure the survival of key industries. In China it is doubtful that these interventions will be temporary, and the fear is that politicians will over-regulate the economy, making it inefficient, corrupt and stripping it of its ability to innovate.
The primary goal for the US must therefore remain true market-oriented reform in China through greater liberalisation and a commitment that Beijing will open state-owned companies to foreign investors. Resolutions of other issues must be pursued with the help of the countries over which China believes it wields considerable influence; the developing world. The US must therefore engage with these new allies to fulfil its objectives.
Tuesday, 16 June 2009
A Very Iranian Democracy
"The elections are a matter for the Iranian people, but if there are serious questions that are now being asked about the conduct of the elections, they have got to be answered" Gordon Brown - Unelected Prime Minister of Britain
Gordon Brown can have no criticisms of the Iranian elections. After the victory of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in the recent elections, it is rich for a man who was;
-Not elected by his own party to be leader.
-Not elected by the people to be leader.
-Only elected in a safe Labour seat in Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath, which quite frankly a sack of potatoes could win with a Labour rosette pinned on it. (I would also like to add that this sack of potatoes could probably do a finer job managing a G8 country)
-Has filled the cabinet with the likes of the unelected, disgraced Lord Mandleson, "The Prince of Darkness" who is now as good as number 2, aswell as Lords Adonis.
Brown should spend more time thinking about an election domestically rather than commenting on those of other nations.
Gordon Brown can have no criticisms of the Iranian elections. After the victory of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in the recent elections, it is rich for a man who was;
-Not elected by his own party to be leader.
-Not elected by the people to be leader.
-Only elected in a safe Labour seat in Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath, which quite frankly a sack of potatoes could win with a Labour rosette pinned on it. (I would also like to add that this sack of potatoes could probably do a finer job managing a G8 country)
-Has filled the cabinet with the likes of the unelected, disgraced Lord Mandleson, "The Prince of Darkness" who is now as good as number 2, aswell as Lords Adonis.
Brown should spend more time thinking about an election domestically rather than commenting on those of other nations.
Wednesday, 10 June 2009
Gordon Brown Cannot Count
Today in Prime Minister's Questions, Brown was out by over a factor of 1000 in his quotes on public spending. He refers to pubic spending in terms of 'millions' rather than 'billions'. If only this were the case, his manic spending binge would not have crippled the country as much.
He criticises the Conservatives for wanting to cut public spending by 10%. The only criticism I will make here is that this is not enough! Let me put it simply for you Gordon in terms of small scale economics.
"Mr and Mrs Jones and Family live comfortably, they take out credit cards and loans and begin to spend more than they can afford. Mrs Jones loses her job (political correctness in action here!) and their income is reduced. They DON'T keep on spending, they cut back and spend within their means."
Brown and lets not forget Tony Blair should have put money to one side when times were good. Brown is a liar, he promised prudence and could not have broken this promise any more than he has done.
He criticises the Conservatives for wanting to cut public spending by 10%. The only criticism I will make here is that this is not enough! Let me put it simply for you Gordon in terms of small scale economics.
"Mr and Mrs Jones and Family live comfortably, they take out credit cards and loans and begin to spend more than they can afford. Mrs Jones loses her job (political correctness in action here!) and their income is reduced. They DON'T keep on spending, they cut back and spend within their means."
Brown and lets not forget Tony Blair should have put money to one side when times were good. Brown is a liar, he promised prudence and could not have broken this promise any more than he has done.
Tuesday, 9 June 2009
Khalistan and Terrorism in Punjab
Last week the funeral of the Sikh guru killed in Vienna on 24th May, Sant Ramanand Dass, was held in Jalandhar, Punjab, India. His murder in a temple sparked such violent protests in Punjab between opposing Sikh factions that the government intervened to impose a curfew for two days. Yet reports of the violence in the international media have subsided, largely due to it claiming 'only' three lives. However this latest case of religious conflict should not be dismissed so readily.
Responsibility for the murder of the religious leader has been claimed in a letter sent to several Sikh broadcasters in India and to the London based radio station, Radio Akash, by a Sikh named Ranjit Singh Neeta, a name already well-known to the Indian government, secret service and police. Neeta is the leader of the Khalistan Zindabad Force (KZF), a group which also appears on the US terrorist watch list. The KZF is composed of Sikhs mainly from Jammu and is responsible for committing several high-profile acts of terrorism in India over recent years with the aim of achieving the creation and independence of a sovereign Sikh state, Khalistan.
According to the Indian police, in recent years Sikh extremism has been reorganising itself through the Pakistani Inter-Services Intelligence, an organisation based in Lahore which is currently hosting Neeta and is believed to have close links with Islamist guerrilla groups in Kashmir, such as Lashkar-e-Taiba and Jaish-I-Mohammed. Wadhawa Singh Babbar is also currently residing in Pakistan, where he leads his organisation, Babbar Khalsa. In 2005 the EU included this group in its list of terrorist organisations, thereby ordering all member states to freeze its bank accounts. The Indian government has also warned its European counterparts to be vigilant for cells of Babbar Khalsa, especially during celebrations for Sikh new year, when European followers are believed to recruit new members and hold rallies.
Responsibility for the murder of the religious leader has been claimed in a letter sent to several Sikh broadcasters in India and to the London based radio station, Radio Akash, by a Sikh named Ranjit Singh Neeta, a name already well-known to the Indian government, secret service and police. Neeta is the leader of the Khalistan Zindabad Force (KZF), a group which also appears on the US terrorist watch list. The KZF is composed of Sikhs mainly from Jammu and is responsible for committing several high-profile acts of terrorism in India over recent years with the aim of achieving the creation and independence of a sovereign Sikh state, Khalistan.
According to the Indian police, in recent years Sikh extremism has been reorganising itself through the Pakistani Inter-Services Intelligence, an organisation based in Lahore which is currently hosting Neeta and is believed to have close links with Islamist guerrilla groups in Kashmir, such as Lashkar-e-Taiba and Jaish-I-Mohammed. Wadhawa Singh Babbar is also currently residing in Pakistan, where he leads his organisation, Babbar Khalsa. In 2005 the EU included this group in its list of terrorist organisations, thereby ordering all member states to freeze its bank accounts. The Indian government has also warned its European counterparts to be vigilant for cells of Babbar Khalsa, especially during celebrations for Sikh new year, when European followers are believed to recruit new members and hold rallies.
Monday, 8 June 2009
Where do I stand politically?
This has been bugging me somewhat recently, so I have conducted a survey to see where I lie. I would class myself as I centre-right libertarian, and this quiz shows this self-assessment to be somewhat true.
My Political Views
I am a right moderate social libertarian
Right: 6.23, Libertarian: 2.64
Political Spectrum Quiz
My Political Views
I am a right moderate social libertarian
Right: 6.23, Libertarian: 2.64
Political Spectrum Quiz
The UK's Problematic Separation of Powers and Lack of Meaningful Legislative Scrutiny
Constitutionalists have lamented the British constitutional order since Bagehot commented in 1867 that the legislative and executive powers of the State are fused together. Ministers exercise a dual role as members of both Parliament and the executive and this is scarcely of concern. The Commons ultimately controls the executive through its capacity to oust a government which has lost the ability to command a majority on an issue of confidence, as was seen with Callaghan's minority government in March 1979. Of more concern is the effect that a clear majority in the Commons can have on legislation as well as the role of Parliament in holding the government to account for its policies.
Paragraph 17 of the Ministerial Code established in 2001 states:
The continuation of the elitist doctrine of collective responsibility in the Cabinet is likely to be criticised in light of recent scandals and calls for greater transparency. Its greatest criticism however is that it effectively eliminates any opposition within the Cabinet to the policies of the Prime Minister. Former Lord Chancellor, Lord Falconer, has said that dissenting ministers are unable to debate important issues, citing the example of Robin Cook being forced to resign before policy had been concluded on the war in Iraq. The Butler Report of 2004 stated that two Cabinet ministers “expressed their concern about the informal nature of much of the Government’s decision-making process, and the relative lack of use of established Cabinet committee machinery." It also stated, "we are concerned that the informality… of the Government’s procedures… risks reducing the scope for informed collective political judgement." Certainly collective responsibility should be maintained to uphold party unity once a policy has been established, but it should not stifle debate at the earlier stages, at least not in a deliberative democracy.
When the government enjoys a majority in Parliament therefore, the power of the Prime Minister is subject to fewer checks than it would be under the constitutions of other democracies. This is merely one reason why the British Prime Minister is often said to be an 'elected dictator'. The presence of the Lord Chancellor in the Cabinet further reduces the separation of powers, because, as head of the judiciary, he is entitled to preside over the Lords, the final court of appeal from the courts of the UK. Nevertheless, judicial review has been increasing over recent years, despite the temptation to abolish the House of Lords or bypass it using the Parliament Acts.
Parliamentary select committees remain the only bodies to hold the executive to account and even they are appointed by the whips of the various parties. Inevitably this gives the committees a composition which mirrors the Commons and thereby neutralises their efficacy, as the government's MPs, forming the majority, are unlikely to back reports that criticise their policies. It is estimated that over 3,000 statutory instruments are authorised every year and only a very small proportion of these are actually reviewed by the select committees or in any other way. In practice, the reports of the committees are rarely given proper consideration as the Commons and the government are not obliged to debate their findings. Therefore, the committees must be given full powers to subpoena ministers and to approve major public appointments and its members should be chosen by a vote of the whole House of Commons rather than being appointed by the whips. Moreover, their powers should be extended to allow them to scrutinise proposed legislation before it reaches the Commons for its first reading in order to identify contentious areas and improve its drafting.
Paragraph 17 of the Ministerial Code established in 2001 states:
Collective responsibility requires that Ministers should be able to express their views frankly and in the expectation that they can argue freely in private while maintaining a united front when decisions have been reached. This in turn requires that the privacy of opinions expressed in Cabinet and Ministerial Committees should be maintained.
The continuation of the elitist doctrine of collective responsibility in the Cabinet is likely to be criticised in light of recent scandals and calls for greater transparency. Its greatest criticism however is that it effectively eliminates any opposition within the Cabinet to the policies of the Prime Minister. Former Lord Chancellor, Lord Falconer, has said that dissenting ministers are unable to debate important issues, citing the example of Robin Cook being forced to resign before policy had been concluded on the war in Iraq. The Butler Report of 2004 stated that two Cabinet ministers “expressed their concern about the informal nature of much of the Government’s decision-making process, and the relative lack of use of established Cabinet committee machinery." It also stated, "we are concerned that the informality… of the Government’s procedures… risks reducing the scope for informed collective political judgement." Certainly collective responsibility should be maintained to uphold party unity once a policy has been established, but it should not stifle debate at the earlier stages, at least not in a deliberative democracy.
When the government enjoys a majority in Parliament therefore, the power of the Prime Minister is subject to fewer checks than it would be under the constitutions of other democracies. This is merely one reason why the British Prime Minister is often said to be an 'elected dictator'. The presence of the Lord Chancellor in the Cabinet further reduces the separation of powers, because, as head of the judiciary, he is entitled to preside over the Lords, the final court of appeal from the courts of the UK. Nevertheless, judicial review has been increasing over recent years, despite the temptation to abolish the House of Lords or bypass it using the Parliament Acts.
Parliamentary select committees remain the only bodies to hold the executive to account and even they are appointed by the whips of the various parties. Inevitably this gives the committees a composition which mirrors the Commons and thereby neutralises their efficacy, as the government's MPs, forming the majority, are unlikely to back reports that criticise their policies. It is estimated that over 3,000 statutory instruments are authorised every year and only a very small proportion of these are actually reviewed by the select committees or in any other way. In practice, the reports of the committees are rarely given proper consideration as the Commons and the government are not obliged to debate their findings. Therefore, the committees must be given full powers to subpoena ministers and to approve major public appointments and its members should be chosen by a vote of the whole House of Commons rather than being appointed by the whips. Moreover, their powers should be extended to allow them to scrutinise proposed legislation before it reaches the Commons for its first reading in order to identify contentious areas and improve its drafting.
Sunday, 7 June 2009
Newsflash: Daniel Hannan Re-elected
Daniel Hannan has been re-elected as an MEP for the South-East of England. With the clearout of corrupt MP's, would it not make sense to bring in arguably Britain's most gifted politician to stand as a national MP and into the future cabinet following a Conservative victory?
Of All Places to be Jeered!
Gordon Brown must be disliked by every level of society. Can anybody name another world leader who gets jeered at a remembrance ceremony?
The Beast is Down... Time to Destroy It for Good
As we speak the EU election results are coming out with Labour expected to fail horrendously. This comes on the back of a massive failing in the Local Elections last Thursday. Brown is handing the Tories not just power after the next election but for years and years to come. He has shattered Labour into pieces. For every week he is in power in the weeks to come, this will probably give the Tories an extra year in power. At this rate it will be better for Britain if he stays in power until the next election in order to give the country time to recover from the last 12 years of failed socialism, social engineering and totalitarian control of the population.
The current situation was inevitable. There was no need for the Conservatives to try and model the 'New' Labour victory of 1997 by shifting to the centre. The Labour party would have eventually destroyed itself without the need for help, the Tories did not need to go soft. Every Labour government; Callaghan's, Wilson's and Attlee's has gone a similar way, but NEVER this bad. None of these men were as insane as Brown. At least they knew when their time is up, Brown is going through a breakdown and dragging us along for the ride.
Saturday, 6 June 2009
A Second Unelected Prime Minister? - Labour hijacking democracy to serve Party needs
Many commentators expect that Gordon Brown will resign as prime minister in the forthcoming days or weeks and will be succeeded most likely by Alan Johnson. Whilst this is constitutionally acceptable, as the prime minister is merely regarded as the representative of the party that wins an election, the effect of having a second unelected prime minister, even if only for a few weeks, undermines our democracy and the legitimacy of the Labour Government. At a time when constitutional reform and modernisation is on the agenda and when arguments that the current spending rules permit excessive expense claims from MPs are rejected, it would be equally as inappropriate to take advantage of the antiquated rules regarding the succession of a party leader/prime minister, especially when such an expedient move can only benefit the Labour Party.
It has been said by numerous constitutionalists that the high concentration of power in the figure of the prime minister effectively means that voters elect a democratic dictator. This level of power therefore should not be passed on in a hereditary, nonchalant manner and without popular consensus and democratic legitimacy. I wish to reiterate that I understand that our votes elect a party to occupy the position of government. However, contemporary politics in all western democracies is inalienable from the party leader or candidate for the premiership. It is this figure which receives the democratic mandate to govern as leader, whilst the governing party occupies the majority of parliamentary seats to facilitate the promulgation of legislation. I was pleased to read that the Queen has been advised to intervene and warn a newly unelected prime minister to establish a time table for an early election. This precaution evidently supports the premise of my argument; hereditary prime ministers undermine our democracy and the constitutional rules which permit them should be made redundant.
As such, the more favourable outcome to the current situation would be for Gordon Brown to ask the Queen to dissolve Parliament as soon as he accepts he can no longer continue as prime minister. This would save the country the time and the embarrassment of pointlessly having to endure the undemocratic process leading to the coronation of Alan Johnson, or any other equally worthy figure, especially when it is likely that he will be forced to call an election in any case. So why change leader when many of Brown's most ardent supporters have condemned these fractures and disputes for occurring during the economic and financial crisis? I believe that the Party's true concern lies more with hanging on to power than responding to the recession. Undoubtedly a new leader will renew confidence amongst Labour MPs and buy them enough time to futilely attempt to limit the extensive damage believed to be dealt through a general election. Has our democracy become something for the Labour Party to abuse and undermine to their advantage? Tony Blair's third election victory was not meant to consign British democracy to the servile subjugation of Labour. The outcome will prove where Labour's true interests lie; with itself or with the country.
It has been said by numerous constitutionalists that the high concentration of power in the figure of the prime minister effectively means that voters elect a democratic dictator. This level of power therefore should not be passed on in a hereditary, nonchalant manner and without popular consensus and democratic legitimacy. I wish to reiterate that I understand that our votes elect a party to occupy the position of government. However, contemporary politics in all western democracies is inalienable from the party leader or candidate for the premiership. It is this figure which receives the democratic mandate to govern as leader, whilst the governing party occupies the majority of parliamentary seats to facilitate the promulgation of legislation. I was pleased to read that the Queen has been advised to intervene and warn a newly unelected prime minister to establish a time table for an early election. This precaution evidently supports the premise of my argument; hereditary prime ministers undermine our democracy and the constitutional rules which permit them should be made redundant.
As such, the more favourable outcome to the current situation would be for Gordon Brown to ask the Queen to dissolve Parliament as soon as he accepts he can no longer continue as prime minister. This would save the country the time and the embarrassment of pointlessly having to endure the undemocratic process leading to the coronation of Alan Johnson, or any other equally worthy figure, especially when it is likely that he will be forced to call an election in any case. So why change leader when many of Brown's most ardent supporters have condemned these fractures and disputes for occurring during the economic and financial crisis? I believe that the Party's true concern lies more with hanging on to power than responding to the recession. Undoubtedly a new leader will renew confidence amongst Labour MPs and buy them enough time to futilely attempt to limit the extensive damage believed to be dealt through a general election. Has our democracy become something for the Labour Party to abuse and undermine to their advantage? Tony Blair's third election victory was not meant to consign British democracy to the servile subjugation of Labour. The outcome will prove where Labour's true interests lie; with itself or with the country.
Thursday, 4 June 2009
US Secret Nuclear Sites Revealed
A White House dossier listing every American nuclear plant and their addresses has unintentionally been made public. Rather than being formally classified as secret information, it was considered highly confidential and sensitive. This led to the 267 page document, intended only for the International Atomic Energy Agency's inspectors, entering the public domain and possibly terrorist hands. The document can be viewed here.
Monday, 25 May 2009
The Chancellor Needs Tax Advice
taken from http://cloudedyellow.wordpress.com
It has come to light that the Chancellor, Alistair Darling has taken tax payers money to pay for personal accountancy advice. He is not the only one, you may recognise some of the other offenders; Jacqui Smith, Hazel Blears, David Miliband, James Purnell, Douglas Alexander, Geoff Hoon and Hilary Benn. It is strange how the same names appear to crop up again and again. The money is not the worrying fact from this, it is a terrifying thought that the man who is responsible (along with Brown) for living in an orgy of government debt which costs more than state education per annum on servicing the interest alone, cannot even submit a simple tax return! We really have no hope if this is the case. Could the accountants not advise him on how to run the economy at the same time?
The only solution is an election to clear all of this rot.
Tuesday, 19 May 2009
The Privy Council: Antiquated and anti-democratic
A privy council is a judicial and governmental body that dates back to feudal times and usually advises a monarch on how to exercise the royal prerogatives before carrying them out on their behalf. The Judicial Committee of HM’s Most Honourable Privy Council is one of the highest British courts and remains the highest court of appeal for all UK overseas territories, Crown dependencies and several independent Commonwealth countries, including Antigua and Barbuda, Bahamas, Belize, Grenada, Jamaica, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines and Tuvalu, as well as the New Zealand states of Niue and Cook Islands. This may seem like a harmless relic that has survived the dissolution of the British Empire, yet its continued existence provides the government with an opportunity to bypass the mechanisms of democracy in a highly obscure manner.
There are currently 546 privy counsellors, all of whom are appointed for life and have usually been, or still are, ministers or senior members of Parliament, and can be recognised by their form of address (right honourable). The counsellors can make orders that circumvent Parliamentary scrutiny and still have the same force as democratically passed legislation. Evidently therefore, this is a vehicle for executive decisions that is open to abuse by any government that wishes to formally issue decisions in the name of the monarch. Commonly cited examples of its most high profile decisions include the eviction of Chagos islanders from their land during the late 1960s and the Blair government’s decision to allow its advisers to issue instructions directly to civil servants. Furthermore, privy counsellors are prioritised over democratically elected MPs to speak in the chambers of Parliament, and they are permitted to speak for longer if they wish.
Justice, the law reform body, has stated that very few members of the public understand the Council’s processes due to its lack of transparency and accessibility. The Council has the potential to take on the form of a constitutional court but this is unlikely due to its dysfunctional nature, which is charaterised by monarchic, judicial, governmental and ceremonial powers. A written constitution would clarify its role and greatly enhance transparency by eliminating the possibility of it being abused by governments wishing to undermine the Parliamentary processes of democracy.
There are currently 546 privy counsellors, all of whom are appointed for life and have usually been, or still are, ministers or senior members of Parliament, and can be recognised by their form of address (right honourable). The counsellors can make orders that circumvent Parliamentary scrutiny and still have the same force as democratically passed legislation. Evidently therefore, this is a vehicle for executive decisions that is open to abuse by any government that wishes to formally issue decisions in the name of the monarch. Commonly cited examples of its most high profile decisions include the eviction of Chagos islanders from their land during the late 1960s and the Blair government’s decision to allow its advisers to issue instructions directly to civil servants. Furthermore, privy counsellors are prioritised over democratically elected MPs to speak in the chambers of Parliament, and they are permitted to speak for longer if they wish.
Justice, the law reform body, has stated that very few members of the public understand the Council’s processes due to its lack of transparency and accessibility. The Council has the potential to take on the form of a constitutional court but this is unlikely due to its dysfunctional nature, which is charaterised by monarchic, judicial, governmental and ceremonial powers. A written constitution would clarify its role and greatly enhance transparency by eliminating the possibility of it being abused by governments wishing to undermine the Parliamentary processes of democracy.
Monday, 18 May 2009
Ten Questions for Silvio Berlusconi
1. Mr Prime Minister, how and when did you first meet Noemi Letizia's father?
2. During the course of this friendship how many times, and where, have you met?
3. How would you describe the reasons for your friendship with Benedetto Letizia?
4. Why did you discuss candidates with Mr. Letizia, who is not even a member of your party, the PDL?
5. When did you get to know Noemi Letizia?
6. How many times have you met Noemi Letizia, and where?
7. Do you take an interest in Noemi and her future, or support her family economically in any way?
8. Is it true that you promised Noemi you would help her career in show business or in politics?
9. Veronica Lario said that you “frequent under-age girls”. Do you meet with any others?
10. Your wife says that you are not well and that you “need help”. What is the state of your health?
Wednesday, 13 May 2009
African Aid - Economic reform is the real solution
The G8, the UK’s Commission on Africa and the UN’s Millennium Development Goals have collectively pledged to double the amount of aid sent to the poorest countries. The OECD has calculated international spending on aid before 2010 at $100 billion per year. Whilst many of these initiatives are attempting to tackle poverty and improve living conditions in developing countries, the knowledge and experience of aid-giving accumulated over the course of the last 50 years is not being used to improve the quality of aid, the methods employed to use it or to prevent the mismanagement of public resources.
Most research conducted on the links between economic growth and development aid actually reveals a negative correlation between the two, thereby suggesting that aid does not have a stimulatory effect on growth. Africa has received over $1 trillion since 1950, with the average value of aid as a share of government spending being over 50% between 1975 and 1995. Per capita growth also decreased during this period, with many countries currently being poorer than when they achieved independence. Nevertheless, aid continues to be wrongly considered vital for attracting investments that are needed to sustain growth because the poorest countries lack the financial means to invest in their own development. Yet if this were the case, investment levels would have continually risen and, according to the World Bank, per capita GDP in most African states would be comparable with that of Portugal or Spain.
Development aid policies must therefore begin to consider which schemes work effectively and efficiently and which others should be abandoned. Much African aid during the past has been channelled into public consumption and current spending, rather than focusing on attracting foreign investment. Furthermore, this type of spending has had a negative impact on domestic savings and has therefore further debilitated poor countries. Many governments have also chosen to use aid for investment purposes in healthcare or education whilst reducing their own investment spending in the same areas. They then redirected the funds they saved by doing this onto public consumption and thereby eliminated any increase in net investment.
Aid donors must actively exert pressure on African governments to encourage them to reform their economic policies and abandon regulations that are hindering growth. Asian countries have become successful not through aid, but through their open economic policies that encouraged trade and foreign investment.
Most research conducted on the links between economic growth and development aid actually reveals a negative correlation between the two, thereby suggesting that aid does not have a stimulatory effect on growth. Africa has received over $1 trillion since 1950, with the average value of aid as a share of government spending being over 50% between 1975 and 1995. Per capita growth also decreased during this period, with many countries currently being poorer than when they achieved independence. Nevertheless, aid continues to be wrongly considered vital for attracting investments that are needed to sustain growth because the poorest countries lack the financial means to invest in their own development. Yet if this were the case, investment levels would have continually risen and, according to the World Bank, per capita GDP in most African states would be comparable with that of Portugal or Spain.
Development aid policies must therefore begin to consider which schemes work effectively and efficiently and which others should be abandoned. Much African aid during the past has been channelled into public consumption and current spending, rather than focusing on attracting foreign investment. Furthermore, this type of spending has had a negative impact on domestic savings and has therefore further debilitated poor countries. Many governments have also chosen to use aid for investment purposes in healthcare or education whilst reducing their own investment spending in the same areas. They then redirected the funds they saved by doing this onto public consumption and thereby eliminated any increase in net investment.
Aid donors must actively exert pressure on African governments to encourage them to reform their economic policies and abandon regulations that are hindering growth. Asian countries have become successful not through aid, but through their open economic policies that encouraged trade and foreign investment.
Monday, 11 May 2009
Michael Martin - He wants the police involved, but not to investigate the real criminals
Michael Martin, the man who is so proud of his 'working class background', is already on record in February 2008 for having spent his Air Miles accrued on government business in flying his children and family in business class to London. Guidelines issued by the Members Estimate Committee, which Martin chairs, states that "such air miles should be used by him to offset his own official travel costs."
£4000 was also spent in 2008 by his wife Mary Martin on taxis to 'buy food for receptions'.
Also in March 2008 it was reported by the Daily Telegraph that Martin spent £1.7 million of taxpayers money on refurbishing his house.
The same man allowed the parliamentary office of Damian Green to be raided by the police in November 2008. He was arrested and later freed and no charges were pressed. Martin was angry because it was believed information that was in the public interest had been leaked by the Tory. Damian Green claimed that arresting officers had searched his computer documents and emails for the key words "Shami Chakrabarti", indicating that his arrest was no doubt politically motivated. This is a tactic reminiscent of the East German Stasi, and Martin gave permission.
This man clearly has no morals, he is the epitome of a 'champagne socialist', and then he has the guile to say, "I have been a trade unionist all my life. I did not come into politics not to take what is owed to me." He is completely out of touch with reality and the public, and I for one believe that he himself believes that he is doing right. This video of his performance today is proof, look at the way he belittles Kate Hoey....The police should be invited to investigate, but not on the source of the leak to the Daily Telegraph, but to investigate this carpet bagging crook.
The Expenses Scandal: Some of the worst offenders
Gerry Adams, Martin McGuinness, Michelle Gildernew, Pat Doherty and Conor Murphy - each claimed £21,000 in the last financial year and a total of £437,405 in second home expenses. They also paid £3,600 a month in rent for a flat which a local estate agent estimated should cost just £1,400, even though they never attended any sessions in Parliament.
Margaret Moran - spent £22,500 of taxpayers' money on treating the dry rot at her husband's seaside home.
Barbara Follett – claimed £25,000 for security patrols outside her home in Soho, London.
Francis Maude - claimed almost £35,000 over two years for a mortgage on a London flat located just a few minutes’ walk from a house he already owned and rented out.
Hazel Blears – avoided paying any capital gains tax on £45,000 profit made from the sale of property that was not classified as a “main residence”, thereby avoiding a bill of £18,000.
Gordon Brown - paid his brother Andrew, an executive at EDF Energy, £6,577 for cleaning at his flat over 26 months on the understanding that they shared a cleaner. The total claimed in four years by Brown was £73,056.
Alan Duncan – received £4,000 for gardening costs, including overhauling a ride-on lawnmower. He also spent £1400 a month on the mortgage interest on his home in Rutland.
Peter Mandelson – billed taxpayers almost £3,000 for renovations at his constituency home in Hartlepool, less than a week after announcing he would stand down as an MP. It was later sold, making a profit of £136,000.
Oliver Letwin - claimed more than £80,000 of expenses for a cottage in Somerset close to his Dorset constituency, since 2004. He also charged the taxpayer over £2000 to repair a pipe under his tennis court.
Michael Martin – spent £1.7million of taxpayers’ money on refurbishing his house. A further £4000 was spent by his wife on taxis to “buy food for receptions.”
Margaret Moran - spent £22,500 of taxpayers' money on treating the dry rot at her husband's seaside home.
Barbara Follett – claimed £25,000 for security patrols outside her home in Soho, London.
Francis Maude - claimed almost £35,000 over two years for a mortgage on a London flat located just a few minutes’ walk from a house he already owned and rented out.
Hazel Blears – avoided paying any capital gains tax on £45,000 profit made from the sale of property that was not classified as a “main residence”, thereby avoiding a bill of £18,000.
Gordon Brown - paid his brother Andrew, an executive at EDF Energy, £6,577 for cleaning at his flat over 26 months on the understanding that they shared a cleaner. The total claimed in four years by Brown was £73,056.
Alan Duncan – received £4,000 for gardening costs, including overhauling a ride-on lawnmower. He also spent £1400 a month on the mortgage interest on his home in Rutland.
Peter Mandelson – billed taxpayers almost £3,000 for renovations at his constituency home in Hartlepool, less than a week after announcing he would stand down as an MP. It was later sold, making a profit of £136,000.
Oliver Letwin - claimed more than £80,000 of expenses for a cottage in Somerset close to his Dorset constituency, since 2004. He also charged the taxpayer over £2000 to repair a pipe under his tennis court.
Michael Martin – spent £1.7million of taxpayers’ money on refurbishing his house. A further £4000 was spent by his wife on taxis to “buy food for receptions.”
Sunday, 10 May 2009
Daniel Hannan on the American Constitution
It is amazing that Britain and the British people see themselves as a beacon of democracy, when there is no constitution, Lords are unelected, seats and lobbying can be purchased, there is no guarantee of free speech (the Home Secretary has now decided to ban more outspoken people) and our civil liberties are being further eroded on a daily basis.
A Response from an MEP about the Freedom of Speech Letter
In response to the letter (http://francisjcrystals.blogspot.com/2009/04/freedom-of-expression-in-uk-letter-to.html) sent to various MP's, MEP's and Lords, I am delighted to have a response from a local Labour MEP. This was the second letter as I asked for their views after an extremely non-committal first response.......
"I would like to make clear that I agree with the Home Secretary’s action. Ultimately, though, as I indicated in my earlier reply, this is a national matter.
If any of the injured parties feel that any EU law has been breached, they should refer the case to the European Court of Justice for a ruling. However, I must point out that European law permits member states to take action to prevent activities which may be detrimental to the interests of that country.
I hope this clarifies my position on these matters."
This is not as expressive as the letter from a particular Lord! (http://francisjcrystals.blogspot.com/2009/04/freedom-of-expression-in-uk-reply-from.html)
It seems that most politicians are scared to not tow the party line. This is surely the biggest problem with the modern parties, you cannot reach a position of power by going against the common policy. Critical thought and speech should be encouraged more.
"I would like to make clear that I agree with the Home Secretary’s action. Ultimately, though, as I indicated in my earlier reply, this is a national matter.
If any of the injured parties feel that any EU law has been breached, they should refer the case to the European Court of Justice for a ruling. However, I must point out that European law permits member states to take action to prevent activities which may be detrimental to the interests of that country.
I hope this clarifies my position on these matters."
This is not as expressive as the letter from a particular Lord! (http://francisjcrystals.blogspot.com/2009/04/freedom-of-expression-in-uk-reply-from.html)
It seems that most politicians are scared to not tow the party line. This is surely the biggest problem with the modern parties, you cannot reach a position of power by going against the common policy. Critical thought and speech should be encouraged more.
How Banks Work
This interview featured in an edition of Punch Magazine over 50 years ago:
Q: What are banks for?
A: To make money.
Q: For the customers?
A: For the banks.
Q: Why doesn’t bank advertising mention this?
A: It would not be in good taste. But it is mentioned by implication in references to reserves of £249,000,000,000 or thereabouts. That is the money they have made.
Q: Out of the customers?
A: I suppose so.
Q: They also mention Assets of £500,000,000,000 or thereabouts. Have they made that too?
A: Not exactly. That is the money they use to make money.
Q: I see. And they keep it in a safe somewhere?
A: Not at all. They lend it to customers.
Q: Then they haven’t got it?
A: No.
Q: Then how is it Assets?
A: They maintain that it would be if they got it back.
Q: But they must have some money in a safe somewhere?
A: Yes, usually £500,000,000,000 or thereabouts. This is called Liabilities.
Q: But if they’ve got it, how can they be liable for it?
A: Because it isn’t theirs.
Q: Then why do they have it?
A: It has been lent to them by customers.
Q: You mean customers lend banks money?
A: In effect. They put money into their accounts, so it is really lent to the banks.
Q: And what do the banks do with it?
A: Lend it to other customers.
Q: But you said that money they lent to other people was Assets?
A: Yes.
Q: Then Assets and Liabilities must be the same thing?
A: You can’t really say that.
Q: But you’ve just said it! If I put £100 into my account the bank is liable to have to pay it back, so it’s Liabilities. But they go and lend it to someone else and he is liable to have to pay it back, so it’s Assets. It’s the same £100 isn’t it?
A: Yes, but….
Q: Then it cancels out. It means, doesn’t it, that banks haven’t really any money at all?
A: Theoretically……
Q: Never mind theoretically! And if they haven’t any money, where do they get their Reserves of £249,000,000,000 or thereabouts??
A: I told you. That is the money they have made.
Q: How?
A: Well, when they lend your £100 to someone they charge him interest.
Q: How much?
A: It depends on the Bank Rate. Say five and a-half percent. That’s their profit.
Q: Why isn’t it my profit? Isn’t it my money?
A: It’s the theory of banking practice that………
Q: When I lend them my £100 why don’t I charge them interest?
A: You do.
Q: You don’t say. How much?
A: It depends on the Bank Rate. Say a half percent.
Q: Grasping of me, rather?
A: But that’s only if you’re not going to draw the money out again.
Q: But of course I’m going to draw the money out again! If I hadn’t wanted to draw it out again I could have buried it in the garden!
A: They wouldn’t like you to draw it out again.
Q: Why not? If I keep it there you say it’s a Liability. Wouldn’t they be glad if I reduced their Liabilities by removing it?
A: No. Because if you remove it they can’t lend it to anyone else.
Q: But if I wanted to remove it they’d have to let me?
A: Certainly.
Q: But suppose they’ve already lent it to another customer?
A: Then they’ll let you have some other customers money.
Q: But suppose he wants his too….and they’ve already let me have it?
A: You’re being purposely obtuse.
Q: I think I’m being acute. What if everyone wanted their money all at once?
A: It’s the theory of banking practice that they never would.
Q: So what banks bank on, is not having to meet their commitments?
A. YOU GOT IT!
Q: What are banks for?
A: To make money.
Q: For the customers?
A: For the banks.
Q: Why doesn’t bank advertising mention this?
A: It would not be in good taste. But it is mentioned by implication in references to reserves of £249,000,000,000 or thereabouts. That is the money they have made.
Q: Out of the customers?
A: I suppose so.
Q: They also mention Assets of £500,000,000,000 or thereabouts. Have they made that too?
A: Not exactly. That is the money they use to make money.
Q: I see. And they keep it in a safe somewhere?
A: Not at all. They lend it to customers.
Q: Then they haven’t got it?
A: No.
Q: Then how is it Assets?
A: They maintain that it would be if they got it back.
Q: But they must have some money in a safe somewhere?
A: Yes, usually £500,000,000,000 or thereabouts. This is called Liabilities.
Q: But if they’ve got it, how can they be liable for it?
A: Because it isn’t theirs.
Q: Then why do they have it?
A: It has been lent to them by customers.
Q: You mean customers lend banks money?
A: In effect. They put money into their accounts, so it is really lent to the banks.
Q: And what do the banks do with it?
A: Lend it to other customers.
Q: But you said that money they lent to other people was Assets?
A: Yes.
Q: Then Assets and Liabilities must be the same thing?
A: You can’t really say that.
Q: But you’ve just said it! If I put £100 into my account the bank is liable to have to pay it back, so it’s Liabilities. But they go and lend it to someone else and he is liable to have to pay it back, so it’s Assets. It’s the same £100 isn’t it?
A: Yes, but….
Q: Then it cancels out. It means, doesn’t it, that banks haven’t really any money at all?
A: Theoretically……
Q: Never mind theoretically! And if they haven’t any money, where do they get their Reserves of £249,000,000,000 or thereabouts??
A: I told you. That is the money they have made.
Q: How?
A: Well, when they lend your £100 to someone they charge him interest.
Q: How much?
A: It depends on the Bank Rate. Say five and a-half percent. That’s their profit.
Q: Why isn’t it my profit? Isn’t it my money?
A: It’s the theory of banking practice that………
Q: When I lend them my £100 why don’t I charge them interest?
A: You do.
Q: You don’t say. How much?
A: It depends on the Bank Rate. Say a half percent.
Q: Grasping of me, rather?
A: But that’s only if you’re not going to draw the money out again.
Q: But of course I’m going to draw the money out again! If I hadn’t wanted to draw it out again I could have buried it in the garden!
A: They wouldn’t like you to draw it out again.
Q: Why not? If I keep it there you say it’s a Liability. Wouldn’t they be glad if I reduced their Liabilities by removing it?
A: No. Because if you remove it they can’t lend it to anyone else.
Q: But if I wanted to remove it they’d have to let me?
A: Certainly.
Q: But suppose they’ve already lent it to another customer?
A: Then they’ll let you have some other customers money.
Q: But suppose he wants his too….and they’ve already let me have it?
A: You’re being purposely obtuse.
Q: I think I’m being acute. What if everyone wanted their money all at once?
A: It’s the theory of banking practice that they never would.
Q: So what banks bank on, is not having to meet their commitments?
A. YOU GOT IT!
Friday, 8 May 2009
Russia and the EU - A partnership for the future
In order for Russia to recuperate its geopolitical influence and its standing amongst the American and Chinese powers it will have to forge new relationships with the most willing European countries, namely France, Italy, Spain and especially Germany. Russian ties with Germany have strengthened considerably over the past year, particularly in the area of business. Siemens recently ended a cooperation agreement with the French nuclear power group Areva to create a rival venture with Russian group Rosatom, thereby bringing to an untimely end a successful Franco-German company that had become the world leader in the design and construction of nuclear power plants. Meanwhile, it is widely believed that President Medvedev aims to gain from this relationship by eventually proposing a pan-European security treaty that will destabilise NATO or render it ineffectual and by attempting to reformulate the Euro-Atlantic partnership along the Moscow-Berlin/Paris-Washington axis.
America’s current perception of Europe is that it is neither a problem nor a resource and that it is sufficiently stable and powerless so as not to merit any particularly special attention. Russia, on the other hand, is considered by the Obama administration as worthy of re-establishing a working partnership that acknowledges “the importance of Russian cooperation in achieving essential American goals: from preventing Iran acquiring nuclear weapons, dismantling al Qaeda and stabilizing Afghanistan, to guaranteeing security and prosperity in Europe”, as included in the ‘Report from the Commission on U.S. Policy Toward Russia’ (see full report here). It also states, on page 7, that “Without deep Russian cooperation, no strategy is likely to succeed in preventing the proliferation of nuclear weapons, nuclear terrorism, and nuclear war.” Furthermore, it recognises on page 9 that “Washington should not expect that it can attempt to create its own sphere of influence on Russia’s borders while simultaneously seeking a constructive relationship with Russia.”
Russia’s influence is already being felt strongly across Europe in the energy sector. The continent’s energy security was severely threatened in January 2009 as a result of the Russian-Ukrainian gas crisis and the untrustworthy and secretive system of gas trade. This event damaged its reputation as a reliable supplier of energy to Europe that could have helped it forge a new relationship with the European Union. Despite this, energy interdependence with Russia is an inescapable fact for much of the continent. However, Russia should be aware that it still has a lot to lose in alienating the EU member states. The EU and Russia will inevitably need to cooperate in the future to compete with the emerging economies of China and India, and Russia also needs access to the European markets, investment and technologies to allow it to modernise. Russia’s foreign policy must therefore abandon its hostile, conservative stance towards Europe, and the EU must also regularly welcome and encourage all forms of cooperation from Russia, whilst restoring cohesion of its policies among the member states.
America’s current perception of Europe is that it is neither a problem nor a resource and that it is sufficiently stable and powerless so as not to merit any particularly special attention. Russia, on the other hand, is considered by the Obama administration as worthy of re-establishing a working partnership that acknowledges “the importance of Russian cooperation in achieving essential American goals: from preventing Iran acquiring nuclear weapons, dismantling al Qaeda and stabilizing Afghanistan, to guaranteeing security and prosperity in Europe”, as included in the ‘Report from the Commission on U.S. Policy Toward Russia’ (see full report here). It also states, on page 7, that “Without deep Russian cooperation, no strategy is likely to succeed in preventing the proliferation of nuclear weapons, nuclear terrorism, and nuclear war.” Furthermore, it recognises on page 9 that “Washington should not expect that it can attempt to create its own sphere of influence on Russia’s borders while simultaneously seeking a constructive relationship with Russia.”
Russia’s influence is already being felt strongly across Europe in the energy sector. The continent’s energy security was severely threatened in January 2009 as a result of the Russian-Ukrainian gas crisis and the untrustworthy and secretive system of gas trade. This event damaged its reputation as a reliable supplier of energy to Europe that could have helped it forge a new relationship with the European Union. Despite this, energy interdependence with Russia is an inescapable fact for much of the continent. However, Russia should be aware that it still has a lot to lose in alienating the EU member states. The EU and Russia will inevitably need to cooperate in the future to compete with the emerging economies of China and India, and Russia also needs access to the European markets, investment and technologies to allow it to modernise. Russia’s foreign policy must therefore abandon its hostile, conservative stance towards Europe, and the EU must also regularly welcome and encourage all forms of cooperation from Russia, whilst restoring cohesion of its policies among the member states.
Thursday, 7 May 2009
Clandestine Immigration to Europe: Resolute action at last
For the first time, clandestine immigrants trying to reach the Italian island of Lampedusa have been stopped and returned to Tripoli by the Italian police forces. A total of 227 migrants were denied access to the island following negotiations between the Libyan and Italian authorities. This action is believed by Italian Interior Minister, Roberto Maroni, to mark a turning-point and a historic result in the fight against illegal immigration. Such a solution, which foresees the repatriation of illegal immigrants to their point of departure, regardless of whose waters they are found in, will also resolve the diplomatic row between Italy and Malta that started over this matter.
However, Médecins Sans Frontières has stated that forced repatriations constitute an illegal act that has never been sanctioned by Italian or international legislation. A spokesman from MSF Italia has said that in May 2005 the European Court of Human Rights condemned repatriations carried out by the Italian government as they were deemed detrimental to immigrants’ rights to seek asylum, “Sending people away from Italy without identifying them or granting them access, for those having the right, is illegal behaviour that contravenes asylum procedures as well as national and international legislation.”
According to the Interior Ministry, 37,000 clandestine migrants arrived on Italian shores in 2008; a 75% increase from 2007. Whilst forced repatriations may break asylum laws, they represent the only effective and proportional method to protect Europe from illegal immigration and uphold Italian and Maltese national security.
However, Médecins Sans Frontières has stated that forced repatriations constitute an illegal act that has never been sanctioned by Italian or international legislation. A spokesman from MSF Italia has said that in May 2005 the European Court of Human Rights condemned repatriations carried out by the Italian government as they were deemed detrimental to immigrants’ rights to seek asylum, “Sending people away from Italy without identifying them or granting them access, for those having the right, is illegal behaviour that contravenes asylum procedures as well as national and international legislation.”
According to the Interior Ministry, 37,000 clandestine migrants arrived on Italian shores in 2008; a 75% increase from 2007. Whilst forced repatriations may break asylum laws, they represent the only effective and proportional method to protect Europe from illegal immigration and uphold Italian and Maltese national security.
Tuesday, 5 May 2009
E-Petition for First Amendment Style Freedom of Speech
After recently discussing the virtues of the US First Amendment and the need to enact similar legislation in the UK, I wish to publicise the following petition:
http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/free-speech-act/
Spanish photographer, Emilio Morenatti, is currently exhibiting photos at the first International Festival for the Freedom of Expression in Cadiz that show the horrifying realities lived by women in Pakistan, all of whom were sprayed in the face with acid; one by her husband, another by a group of men in order to settle a dispute, another by her cousin four days after she married someone else and another whose attackers were aided by her teacher:
http://www.elmundo.es/elmundo/2009/04/30/lafotodelasemana/1241071105.html
Such photographs must serve to remind Europe that its freedom of expression must not be eroded by political correctness or the lobbying of religious minorities. Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Somali-born Dutch politician, observes that the history of women's liberation in Europe, which has included the legalisation of abortion and the penalisation of rape in marriage, is at risk of being reversed by an increasing number of European elites that believe it is better to respect the cultures and religions of minorities rather than uphold the values of our legal system for all inhabitants. This belief has led to women's shelters employing mediators from the Islamic community that effectively return women to obeying their husbands and to all the other circumstances of abuse from which they were trying to escape, rather than teaching them to become self-reliant.
Democracy and theocracy cannot coexist, and for this reason there must never be a dual legal system whereby religious minorities can claim exemption from the mainstream laws governing the majority that defend and uphold civil liberties.
http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/free-speech-act/
Spanish photographer, Emilio Morenatti, is currently exhibiting photos at the first International Festival for the Freedom of Expression in Cadiz that show the horrifying realities lived by women in Pakistan, all of whom were sprayed in the face with acid; one by her husband, another by a group of men in order to settle a dispute, another by her cousin four days after she married someone else and another whose attackers were aided by her teacher:
http://www.elmundo.es/elmundo/2009/04/30/lafotodelasemana/1241071105.html
Such photographs must serve to remind Europe that its freedom of expression must not be eroded by political correctness or the lobbying of religious minorities. Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Somali-born Dutch politician, observes that the history of women's liberation in Europe, which has included the legalisation of abortion and the penalisation of rape in marriage, is at risk of being reversed by an increasing number of European elites that believe it is better to respect the cultures and religions of minorities rather than uphold the values of our legal system for all inhabitants. This belief has led to women's shelters employing mediators from the Islamic community that effectively return women to obeying their husbands and to all the other circumstances of abuse from which they were trying to escape, rather than teaching them to become self-reliant.
Democracy and theocracy cannot coexist, and for this reason there must never be a dual legal system whereby religious minorities can claim exemption from the mainstream laws governing the majority that defend and uphold civil liberties.
Monday, 4 May 2009
A Tribute to Thatcher
In honour of the 30th anniversary of Margaret Thatcher becoming Prime Minister, under similar circumstances to those we experience now under the Labour monster, the following is as pertinent as ever:
Featured Today on Iain Dale's Diary
We are very pleased to have featured on Iain Dale's Diary today!
http://iaindale.blogspot.com/2009/05/ten-new-blogs-part-46.html#links
http://iaindale.blogspot.com/2009/05/ten-new-blogs-part-46.html#links
Saturday, 2 May 2009
Waste of Time, Waste of Money – ID cards
At the minimum cost of £5.8 billion by current government estimates, which on their track record will no doubt over run massively, one would think that they must have a good reason for this scheme. It is claimed that identity cards will stop terrorists, catch criminals and prevent fraud. This is a problem where the costs involved are not the most salient issue. Once again, a serious infringement on civil liberties is worth preventing. We should not fight against this on the basis of the money that can be saved, as true freedom cannot be valued in financial terms.
We are entering a ghastly period where ever more power is being shifted towards the control of the state. Every day we are drawing more and more parallels with George Orwell's 1984. Many European states have national ID cards; however none has the National Identity Register (NIR) that is desired by the British Government. The NIR will eventually have us all finger printed and eye scanned and it also envisages recording our DNA on file. Can this sensitive data really be entrusted to a government that has a track record of leaving confidential files, carrying thousands of people’s personal information, on trains and in taxis?
Such a scheme will inevitably treat us all like criminals that are guilty until proven innocent, thereby fundamentally altering the premise upon which our justice system has always operated. How long would it be until this data was sold or until it falls into private hands? Imagine what could be done if pharmaceutical companies obtained an entire nation’s DNA records and used the information to profile and scaremonger citizens into buying pre-emptive treatments. How is an ID card supposed to prevent terrorism? Terrorists do not operate in the confines of the legal system and there will be plenty of ways to circumvent the bureaucratic rules.
Having one document containing all of our details will make it easier for criminals to steal our identities! The ID card will increase police powers, as there will be more reason for us to be stopped and searched when they become compulsory to carry. Furthermore, an ever increasing number of public and private services will require our identity to be checked before use and as such, the government will be able to monitor our activities even more. It is not widely published, but the automatic plate recognition cameras installed throughout the motorway network and in most UK town centres are already watching us use our cars. There are 50 million number plate scans made every day and each is stored on the Police National Computer for five years.
Evidently, the government wishes to know everything about us. The NIR will hold fifty categories of information and, to add insult to injury, it will be private companies that set up these systems, with the first ID contract being awarded to Thales SA, a French defence contractor. For innocent citizens, is this really a matter of having nothing to hide or do we in fact have even more to fear?
We are entering a ghastly period where ever more power is being shifted towards the control of the state. Every day we are drawing more and more parallels with George Orwell's 1984. Many European states have national ID cards; however none has the National Identity Register (NIR) that is desired by the British Government. The NIR will eventually have us all finger printed and eye scanned and it also envisages recording our DNA on file. Can this sensitive data really be entrusted to a government that has a track record of leaving confidential files, carrying thousands of people’s personal information, on trains and in taxis?
Such a scheme will inevitably treat us all like criminals that are guilty until proven innocent, thereby fundamentally altering the premise upon which our justice system has always operated. How long would it be until this data was sold or until it falls into private hands? Imagine what could be done if pharmaceutical companies obtained an entire nation’s DNA records and used the information to profile and scaremonger citizens into buying pre-emptive treatments. How is an ID card supposed to prevent terrorism? Terrorists do not operate in the confines of the legal system and there will be plenty of ways to circumvent the bureaucratic rules.
Having one document containing all of our details will make it easier for criminals to steal our identities! The ID card will increase police powers, as there will be more reason for us to be stopped and searched when they become compulsory to carry. Furthermore, an ever increasing number of public and private services will require our identity to be checked before use and as such, the government will be able to monitor our activities even more. It is not widely published, but the automatic plate recognition cameras installed throughout the motorway network and in most UK town centres are already watching us use our cars. There are 50 million number plate scans made every day and each is stored on the Police National Computer for five years.
Evidently, the government wishes to know everything about us. The NIR will hold fifty categories of information and, to add insult to injury, it will be private companies that set up these systems, with the first ID contract being awarded to Thales SA, a French defence contractor. For innocent citizens, is this really a matter of having nothing to hide or do we in fact have even more to fear?
Thursday, 30 April 2009
The First Amendment to the US Constitution - A model of free speech for Europe
Many states have introduced legislation to prohibit racist hate speech, but such laws are unconstitutional in the US. In response to the Additional Protocol to the Convention on Cybercrime, the US Government stated that it would be unable to provide prosecutorial or investigative assistance to member states where issues arose concerning Internet content as these would implicate fundamental rights, such as the freedom of expression which is protected by the First Amendment, and could therefore not sign the Protocol. Consequently, US authorities can override this constitutional protection only when race-hate material poses an imminent threat to a specific individual. Whilst this ‘fighting words’ doctrine exists in the US, whereby only the words which incite imminent unlawful action and are likely to produce such action are denied First Amendment protection, the potential for incitement is greatly distorted as there is no captive audience in the case of the Internet and its users can easily avoid websites that publish racist materials.
Regulating hate speech will inevitably remain ineffective as the American policy on free speech currently determines much of what happens in other jurisdictions. Evidence of this can be found in the Zündel case. The Canadian Human Rights Tribunal ordered the closure of the Ernst Zündel’s Holocaust revisionist website, which was hosted on a US server, considering the site to pose a serious threat to society. Despite this judgment however, the site is still hosted on a US server. The blocking of a site is therefore easily circumvented by copying content and establishing a mirror site on one or more servers in different jurisdictions where the content has yet to be blocked. Therefore, as nation-states attempt to enforce domestic legislation prohibiting racist expression in cyberspace, it is evident that the First Amendment presents the greatest obstacle to an effective regime of eradicating or minimising such racist hate. Consequently, racists around the world are taking advantage of the US’ status as a safe haven by using US providers as a relay for xenophobic and racist expression. Furthermore, foreign governments cannot obtain information from US providers regarding the identity of publishers of racist content as such content is not illegal in the US.
It can be argued that any international efforts to harmonise legislation among a group of nations will always be rendered futile by the effects of the US constitution until the US Supreme Court expands the categories of expression which cannot be accorded the protection of the First Amendment. The US has traditionally not regarded racist expression as a crime and therefore the act of upholding its constitutional values cannot readily be construed as tolerance or facilitation of illegal conduct. However, the contemporary problems concerning freedom of expression are not the same as those when the First Amendment was written in the late eighteenth century, when the concept of having a ‘false idea’ was not tolerated. Advocates of legislation argue that prohibiting racist expression is required to ensure that all citizens may enjoy equal participation in society, and therefore that racist speech should be considered of low value as it does not contribute to public discourse in a meaningful manner. It may be seen that the lack of legislation targeting extremist racists has not only failed to prevent the dissemination of racist materials in the US, but has led to a substantial growth in the number of racist groups. Furthermore, by allowing racist speech to continue, the First Amendment is failing to ensure that more speech occurs, as expressions of violent hatred are proven to silence ethnic minorities, thereby preventing them from participating fully in civil society and public discourse.
Nevertheless, the American model can be altered to restrict the freedom of the most extreme beneficiaries of the First Amendment. The government is however rightly reluctant to do so, as this amendment forms the cornerstone of the country’s liberties. In contrast to American situation, the UK constitutes a diametrically opposed example, whereby political correctness has stifled public discourse itself in instances where it addresses themes that may cause offence to certain religious minorities. What emerges is not only an inability to discuss matters of cultural significance, such as the future course of the national identity, but also a paradigm of deliberative democracy which prevails in many African states, whereby the state bases its authority on the placating of minority groups instead of the rule of law. The First Amendment enshrines freedom of expression as an absolute right with far greater scope for application than is offered by the European Convention on Human Rights. Europe as a whole, and especially the UK, must move towards the American appreciation of freedom of expression in order to secure our existences as pluralist, deliberative democracies.
Regulating hate speech will inevitably remain ineffective as the American policy on free speech currently determines much of what happens in other jurisdictions. Evidence of this can be found in the Zündel case. The Canadian Human Rights Tribunal ordered the closure of the Ernst Zündel’s Holocaust revisionist website, which was hosted on a US server, considering the site to pose a serious threat to society. Despite this judgment however, the site is still hosted on a US server. The blocking of a site is therefore easily circumvented by copying content and establishing a mirror site on one or more servers in different jurisdictions where the content has yet to be blocked. Therefore, as nation-states attempt to enforce domestic legislation prohibiting racist expression in cyberspace, it is evident that the First Amendment presents the greatest obstacle to an effective regime of eradicating or minimising such racist hate. Consequently, racists around the world are taking advantage of the US’ status as a safe haven by using US providers as a relay for xenophobic and racist expression. Furthermore, foreign governments cannot obtain information from US providers regarding the identity of publishers of racist content as such content is not illegal in the US.
It can be argued that any international efforts to harmonise legislation among a group of nations will always be rendered futile by the effects of the US constitution until the US Supreme Court expands the categories of expression which cannot be accorded the protection of the First Amendment. The US has traditionally not regarded racist expression as a crime and therefore the act of upholding its constitutional values cannot readily be construed as tolerance or facilitation of illegal conduct. However, the contemporary problems concerning freedom of expression are not the same as those when the First Amendment was written in the late eighteenth century, when the concept of having a ‘false idea’ was not tolerated. Advocates of legislation argue that prohibiting racist expression is required to ensure that all citizens may enjoy equal participation in society, and therefore that racist speech should be considered of low value as it does not contribute to public discourse in a meaningful manner. It may be seen that the lack of legislation targeting extremist racists has not only failed to prevent the dissemination of racist materials in the US, but has led to a substantial growth in the number of racist groups. Furthermore, by allowing racist speech to continue, the First Amendment is failing to ensure that more speech occurs, as expressions of violent hatred are proven to silence ethnic minorities, thereby preventing them from participating fully in civil society and public discourse.
Nevertheless, the American model can be altered to restrict the freedom of the most extreme beneficiaries of the First Amendment. The government is however rightly reluctant to do so, as this amendment forms the cornerstone of the country’s liberties. In contrast to American situation, the UK constitutes a diametrically opposed example, whereby political correctness has stifled public discourse itself in instances where it addresses themes that may cause offence to certain religious minorities. What emerges is not only an inability to discuss matters of cultural significance, such as the future course of the national identity, but also a paradigm of deliberative democracy which prevails in many African states, whereby the state bases its authority on the placating of minority groups instead of the rule of law. The First Amendment enshrines freedom of expression as an absolute right with far greater scope for application than is offered by the European Convention on Human Rights. Europe as a whole, and especially the UK, must move towards the American appreciation of freedom of expression in order to secure our existences as pluralist, deliberative democracies.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
