Jacqui Smith's Super Database and War on Democracy

It is imperative that the public be aware of Jacqui Smith's most dangerous plot against democracy. Whilst the government decided to drop plans to include the 'Interception Modernisation Programme' (IMP) from the Communications Data Bill late last year, it has been revealed that officials will still proceed with the project that plans to retain details of phone calls, text messages, emails and websites visited by Internet users for six years, thereby granting law enforcement agencies unprecedented and highly intrusive power.

Despite such a database being completely ineffective and easily circumvented by genuine organisers of major crimes, particularly through the use of encryption and even simpler methods, several billion pounds are to be spent on a system that will amass such a vast quantity of sensitive data that, with the current budget and timescale, any attempt to secure the database from outside interference will fail. Furthermore, recent examples of officials carelessly losing public data on trains should inform us that we cannot trust the current government, or any future government, with such information. The police have over-relied on and misused anti-terror legislation in the past. In 2005, 266 people were arrested under the 2000 Terrorism Act, but only 27 people were charged with offences under anti-terrorist laws. Their constant need for more and more powers will eventually lead to the government granting them the use of the IMP database for investigations concerning less serious crimes. Moreover, the system will be fraught with inaccuracies that will cause hundreds, if not thousands, of innocent people to be wrongly presumed guilty through association.

Evidently, Jacqui Smith is the most oppressive and thoroughly anti-democratic Home Secretary of the modern era. Her subservience to certain minority groups has undermined our freedom of expression and the IMP plans not only attack our human right to privacy, but its evasion of all parliamentary scrutiny and potential opposition is a grave and authoritarian attack on Britain's commitment to deliberative democracy.

Swine Flu - The end is nigh!

“The UK is one of the best prepared countries to deal with swine flu and all action necessary will be taken to stop its spread”, Gordon Brown has said.

These very much unreassuring words were said this morning by PM Gordon Brown. This sounds remarkably similar to Brown's mutterings that Britain is the best prepared country heading into a global downturn. On this matter he speaks as a deluded man, no financial analyst on the planet would agree with his comments, he is completely out of touch with reality.

Going on his previous record, we are all doomed!

A Lesson in Free Universal Healthcare

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.

Anti-Zionism - Protecting the Jewish People

According to anti-Zionist proponents, the Jews in ancient times were sent into exile from the Holy Land because they had failed to fulfil their obligations to God, a fact which is acknowledged in Jewish prayers (umipnei chatoeinu golinu meartzeinu). They were also expressly told not to bring about their redemption without God’s assistance and not to rebel against their host nations. Instead, Jews are commanded to pray for the wellbeing of their governments. The Torah Devorim (30:1) states that the Jewish people will be gathered by God from around the world and returned to the Holy Land. Further prophetical examples can be found in Zachariah (8:7-8) and Yirmiyah (31:7), amongst others. The Zionist movement therefore contravenes these beliefs and assigns Jews a nationalistic character which had never before existed. The nationalist ideology of the Zionist Jewish immigrants to the British Mandate of Palestine was always rejected by the Orthodox community living in the Holy Land. When the Zionists rose to power in the newly formed State of Israel, the Orthodox community feared an escalating conflict with local Muslims and that Jewish identity would cease to base itself solely upon adherence to the Torah. As such, they were unfortunately confronted with the choice of accepting the Zionist State or fleeing the land on which their ancestors had settled.

With this in mind, I do not contest the legitimacy of the Israeli State but I do question its appropriateness. Firstly, and historically, assigning nationhood to the Jewish people of the world wrongly supposes that these people regulate their collective existence in much the same way as all other nations. Yet the transnational composure of the Jewish population as well as the religious commandment to support their host nations’ governments inevitably refutes the possibility of conventional nationhood existing amongst the various Jewish communities of the world. If nationhood is to be based solely upon religious, cultural or linguistic identities then the international Roma gypsy community would therefore most certainly qualify as a nation and perhaps be entitled to self-determination and the right to a homeland. Secondly, as already stated, the concept of the current Israeli State is inappropriate as Zionism disregards the heavenly redemption mentioned in the Torah. Furthermore, in order to exist and continue flourishing, Israel has relied on a continuous influx of Jewish immigrants from around the globe. Anti-Zionists have recognised that Zionism has aided anti-Semitism in the removal of entire Jewish communities from certain countries to Israel. Theodor Herzl, the founder of Zionism, wrote on page 19 of his diaries, "Anti-Semites will become our surest friends, anti-Semitic countries our allies."

More importantly, however, compelling the Jewish people to seek refuge in Israel must come to an end as it is their international presence which has protected them from complete annihilation throughout history. Amassing this people in the region which is the most hostile and intolerant of religious freedom and human rights in the world is a misguided objective that lacks good judgment, particularly at a time when Israel’s neighbours are becoming increasingly radical. Jewish proposals to reconstruct the Holy Temple in Jerusalem on its original site on Temple Mount will always be impeded by the Muslim community and the presence of two of Islam’s holiest sites, the al-Aqsa Mosque and the Dome of the Rock. Evidently therefore, the Jewish people do not have complete freedom in their homeland. I agree with the anti-Zionists that a Jewish state is largely unnecessary, as the Jewish people have enriched the West in many ways and their presence is something we should actively strive to retain. If a Jewish territory is deemed necessary however, I propose that a new one be found in the Americas, far from uncivilised states that frequently threaten Jewry. The Jewish Autonomous Oblast in Russia is an example of such a territory, albeit one of very limited success. Allocating uninhabited territory to the Jewish cause in the Americas would yield far greater results due to the continents' respect for human rights and the great distance from any menacing cultures and regimes.

You wanted equality! Well done, you've got it!

With the ongoing recession and the Labour policy of continued MASSIVE borrowing in order to cushion the debt rather than simply limit the spending, a brief review of history is needed which shows that under the Labour this would eventually happen. It was only a matter of time for this economic oblivion to occur due to Labour's luck, the economic legacy of the Conservative Party, the endless credit limit and the favourable global economic conditions running out.

Daniel Hannan in the Daily Telegraph recently stated “Poverty is not simply an absence of money. Rather, it is bound up with a whole set of other circumstances: lack of qualifications, demoralisation, family break-up, substance abuse, fatherlessness.” If you look at the history of the Labour Party, particularly in the 60's and 70's, it has been based on high taxes to the middle classes, high benefits to the lower classes, business decline due to over-regulation, high corporation taxes and stringent employment regulation, which is a result of the spine of union support running through the Labour Party. These areas could be regarded as the true sources of wealth. The old saying of not 'biting the hand that feeds' has never been learnt by the Labour Party. The givers of wealth are not tied to these shores; they can and WILL leave; they are not going to sit back and let Robin Hood, aka Alistair Darling, take another 10% of their income. There are plenty of other nations that wish to accept these talented individuals. The net gain for the government will be small in the long term. It is another scapegoat for the recession from a government that is only interested in winning votes through their decision making (in this instance by trying to start a class war). I have not seen one economic expert who has complemented the latest budget in any way, shape or form.

Every government since the Second World War that has attempted to throw money at the lower classes on the basis of improving “equality” has failed. They do not deal with the root causes, as highlighted by Daniel Hannan. Again and again, the words of 'a fairer society' and 'narrowing the gap between rich and poor' have been mooted around by Blair, Brown and other members of this regime. For most Labour voters this is arguably their primary reason for voting. At this point I feel I need to congratulate Labour on making this policy come to fruition (which can rarely be said). The gap between rich and poor, middle and lower class has become smaller, however the lower classes are still at the same point that they have always been at. The middle classes have been forced down the ladder and are now worse off than they have been for 30 years and they are the ones who will have to pay heavily over the next 23 years (as predicted) for the mismanagement of this regime. Life is not going to get any better for anybody except the 30,000 public service workers whose jobs were created in March (100,000 were lost in this time). Do we really need any more NHS middle managers, council consultants, community support officers? Over the next 4 years £4 billion is to be spent on extra consultants for the public sector. This is a staggering amount of extra money to spend when every other developed country is cutting back. Worryingly there is another year to go until the financial crimes inflicted by the current regime can start to be undone; however this is going to take decades in order to repair.

Freedom of Expression in the UK - A reply from a Lord

Thank you for your letter of 8th April sent to the House of Lords via writetothem.com.

The views contained in your letter (many with which I agree) should be made known to Labour MPs and peers who have slavishly voted for the authoritarian legislation brought in by this so called Labour Government over the past ten years or so.

If you care to consult my voting and speaking record you will find that I have opposed most, if not all, the oppressive measures forced through by the present government. I believe in individual freedom and freedom of speech which, as you say, have been considerably eroded.

With regard to the banning of Mr. Wilders from entering the United Kingdom to show his DVD to Members of the House of Lords, that decision was both anti-democratic and completely stupid. If Mr. Wilders had been allowed to enter he would have spoken to between thirty and fifty people. Due to the publicity surrounding his exclusion from the UK his DVD was watched by a huge number of people throughout the world. Yet another blunder from a Home Secretary completely unfit for the office she holds or, for that maffer, any other post in Her Majesty's Government.

Freedom of Expression in the UK - A letter to members of Parliament

I am writing to you to express my deep concern regarding the alarming erosion of our country’s commitment to a model of deliberative democracy, of which the freedom of speech is an inalienable part of fundamental importance. The deliberative model of democracy requires all members of society to be considered as equal and to be granted equal rights of participation in the political processes of the state. International treaties, such as the European Convention of Human Rights, to which, as you are aware, the UK is signatory, defend the plurality of political participation which is both essential for the respect of democratic principles and for the representation of the various interests of a society at the governmental level, as a polity may only be considered democratic if it embodies the twin principles of political equality and popular sovereignty. Therefore, the Home Secretary’s decision to deny a democratically elected legislator from another European Union member state, which is signatory to the same human rights instruments as the UK, the right to enter our country would seem excessive and disproportionate for several reasons.

The Dutch MP, Geert Wilders, was invited by the House of Lords to show his short film, Fitna, which juxtaposes video clips of terrorist sympathisers, atrocities and hatred for the West with verses from the Koran, and compares Islam to Nazism. The Home Office refused him entry on the grounds that he would hypothetically threaten community harmony and public security. However several commentators, both from the UK and overseas, have noted that profoundly anti-Christian Islamists have been granted access to our country to preach their unsavoury opinions. On 11th February 2009, Mr. Wilders was deported from the UK. It is true that Mr Wilders’ opinions may have caused offence to many members of the public, regardless of their religion, however denying his right to free speech has disproportionately silenced public debate. Minority groups, including Muslims, should not be permitted to achieve this effect, even when they are the subject and even when the message being conveyed is offensive. This same principle should also apply equally to other religious groups and their leaders. Furthermore, I believe that the Home Secretary’s refusal has inadvertently been detrimental to the public image of the British Muslim community, as it confirms that she believed Mr Wilders’ presence in the UK would have sparked irrational violence and upheaval or even the siege of the Palace of Westminster by a mob of 10,000 angry Muslims, as warned by Baron Ahmed of Rotherham, who himself has hosted a book launch in the House of Lords for the controversial anti-Semitic writer, Israel Shamir.

According to Mr Philip Rumney, lecturer at Bristol Law School, legislation criminalising the incitement of racial and religious hatred in Britain has greatly restricted the dissemination of racist materials in the public, without having a detrimental effect on the freedom of speech, and may also be responsible for an apparent decrease in the support for organised racist groups, as evidenced by the limited number of British prosecutions. However, the Channel 4 documentary ‘Dispatches’, first broadcast on Monday 15th January 2007 and entitled ‘Undercover Mosque’, reported on preachers in mosques nationwide that actively condemn any degree of integration into British society as well as western values of human rights and tolerance. This Saudi Arabian form of Islam, Wahhabism, disseminates a message of hatred, segregation and the will to dismantle British democracy. Evidently therefore, the legislation enacted to prohibit racial and religious hatred inadequately takes into account the issue of the radicalisation of British mosques.

My concerns are further amplified by the overwhelming sense that the current government is insistent on upholding and enshrining political correctness as a core value to the extent that it has become the status quo and allows the minority to dictate what is acceptable for the majority. Respecting diversity and political correctness is therefore deemed to be more essential than asserting national values of tolerance, the rule of law and human rights. It would therefore seem that minority groups are able to exploit the environment created by the secular and politically correct orientation of our society in order to nurture their radical ideologies. Moreover, it is apparent that there is a lack of political will to address the imbalances of free speech rights and positive discrimination brought about by the reluctance to offend cultural, ethnic or religious minorities. An example of this imbalance occurred on 3rd February 2006 outside of the Danish Embassy in London. It is well documented that the Islamist demonstrators staged a protest inciting murder, hatred and intolerance, yet in spite of this, the police failed to immediately put an end to the protests. The failure to arrest anyone also outraged moderate British Muslims who do not wish to be represented by such illegitimate and uncivilised actions.

Although I do not consider myself to be Islamophobic in any xenophobic sense, I do fear the restrictions effectively being imposed by this particular minority community on the right to free speech. For this reason, I wish to clarify that the intention of this letter is to address the conflict been democracy and theocracy which is raging at present, with particular focus on the harm being caused to free speech. The British people should have been allowed to make their own assessment of Mr. Wilders’ opinions. His speech also could have allowed extreme views to be vented and subsequently diffused. On 19th February 2009, Mr Wilders was allowed into Italy to deliver a speech in Rome. The Italian government, also a signatory to the same international human rights instruments as the UK, chose not to suppress his civil rights. It is therefore necessary to conclude that the British political system has bestowed grievance-bearing minority groups with unacceptable leverage over itself. The European paradigm of states bases its authority over citizens on the rule of law rather than on the placating of minority groups. In a diverse society the only true common denominator shared by all groups is civil rights. Sacrificing the majority’s right to free speech by invoking justifications for a right’s restriction based on hypothetical public order concerns renders our concept of rights utilitarian rather than liberal.

With these issues in mind, how will your Party counter such erosions in our civil liberties and human rights? Can you ensure that your Party will defend rights in a more balanced and proportionate manner than the current government? Does your Party aim to address the radicalisation of mosques when it comes to power? I would very much appreciate hearing your opinion on the matters discussed above.