House of Lords, its time to go

Never has a thing been so undemocratic and uneconomical like the House of Lords, a place where the people who make the laws are appointed through nepotism and class rather than elected by democratic mandate. Britain prides itself as a beacon of democracy and freedom, yet it is one of two or so states in the world without a written constitution and also without a fully elected legislature.

Prince Andrew, and his fantasy about the Iraq War

According to various media outlets, Prince Andrew has criticized President Bush and his administration for not heeding advice of the British, over the look of post-war Iraq. Much was made in the British media, of the prince’s ‘unprecedented’ attack on Bush; the attack seen not only as unconventional but also an apparent ‘split within the alliance’.

This is complete fantasy; Prince Andrew is actually not insulting the U.S political establishment, but insulting the public. How? This comment is arrogance of royal proportions. Iraq has been in chaos since the very day ‘the alliance’ rolled on Babylonia, and to be even more precise, the U.K and the U.S knew of the very issues that Prince Andrew claims to be concerned about, before the invasion happened. So why now, why five years after does the prince ‘exclusively’ need to tell us, and the American political establishment that Iraq is in a mess? It is all about image. The prince is not upset about the hundreds of thousands of Iraqis who have died, the thousands of American and the alliance soldiers killed, the suicide bombings, or the death squads that rule parts of Iraq. He is upset about the damage to the pompous image of the British establishment from the latest mid-east fall out.

If I were an American, I would be thinking that the prince’s comments are pretty rich; It is the very same industry-the military/weapons manufacturers-that the prince is so intertwined with, that have profited so well from this war, and now the prince complains slyly about the damage to the image of the Brit establishment. Give me a fucking break. (Don’t bite the hand that feeds you Andy.)

And what can be said of the particular media outlets that not only just carried the prince story but also added in their tuppence? Well, they are just like the prince; they don’t not care about the war dead but damage to their image. Damage, which they helped to bring about.

 

 

 

 

The U.K needs to step up the pressure on Russia

Another anti-Putin Russian dies in the U.K, in circumstances that are far from normal; this time a ‘heart attack’ was the killer, happening to the billionaire in his Surrey home. And once more the specter of an apparent Russian assassination appears on U.K soil.

To its credit, the U.K political establishment, specifically, the Foreign Office has been taking steps to show its dislike of what happened to Litvinenko; but these steps-the expulsion of some junior diplomats and the closing of the British Council subsidiaries in Russia is wholly in adequate. Russia needs to be hit where it hurts, its wallet-meaning economic measures than the British should take diplomatic measures. And let us remind ourselves why such action is necessary. A British man (of Russian descent), Alexander Litvinenko was assassinated in London the year before last ,by being given a radioactive substance, polonium-210. Traces of this where found in several parts of London where the unfortunate Litvinenko had been, exposing millions of Londoners to poisoning-If this wasn’t terrorism, then I don’t what was.

How many more people need to be assassinated by radioactive substances or die of a ‘heart attack’ for the British government to take appropriate measures, to not only protect its citizens and visitors from this terrorism but assert Biritain’s territorial integrity?. For if the Russians feel it appropriate for them to bring down those who they dislike by such evil methods, let it be done elsewhere, no right minded person, and hopefully includes British officials think that the south east, Surrey, central London or any other part of these islands should be a political playground ground for the Kremlin.

The idealist-realist

“Students go to uni wanting to change the world, they then come out of uni and realize they have to be a part of it”. Or something like that. For the student is the ultimate idealist, seeking to make a society into uptoia, believing the best in people, hoping that tomorrow can always be better than today. And the realism apparently occurs at some point soon after leaving uni.

Prince Charles and Steven Spielberg have in one way or another snubbed the Beijing Olympics; Darfur and human rights issues have apparently been the basis of their reasoning. And what can be certain is, before the torch is finally lit in the Olympic stadium, even more prominent individuals will step away from China’s hosting of the Games.

So what has idealism got to do with it? Well, the idealist, a stereotypical student for example, would hope and believe the international community would have an epiphany and refuse to send athletes to participate in an Olympic games which is being hosted by a country not thought of to be a bastion of democracy, and seems pretty chuffed about what’s happening in Darfur. Now, the realist on other hand believes that money, not principle is behind the hosting of the Games and that no country will refuse to send athletes to Beijing. Yes, it would be ideal for the games to be boycotted and it would be real to assume it wouldn’t. But what can be said however is that idealism and realism need not be seen as being poles apart, diametrically opposed and from different galaxies, but that in fact, they can be two sides of the same coin, complimentary, and inseparable, ying and yang if you will.

 

Old Labour reappears to nationalise Northern Rock

There will be no ‘Virgin Rocks’; Richard Branson’s offer to take over Northern Rock was apparently not the best deal for the taxpayer. Gordon Brown and Alistair Darling will become the managing directors of the bank, hoping to give it strength before putting the bank back on the market.

What a fiasco. It has taken the government this long to come to a decision of nationalisation; you would think that after taking so long that they would have at least worked out when best to release this news. They couldn’t even do that. The news broke late on Sunday-their thinking probably being, that releasing the news on the Friday would thwart the Sunday papers. The problem with that is it is so blatantly opportunistic it will give Fleets Streets editor’s drive to pull out related embarrassing stories next Sunday, a time I am sure the government would have thought that the Sunday papers would be filled with everything but Northern Rock. Now they have released it on the Sunday evening, the papers will have it tomorrow and the story will run and run and run. But obviously this article is not about what the media tactics of Downing Streets spin-doctors were, but it does emphasise one of the problems of the government nationalising the bank-indecision. They obviously couldn’t decide when to release the news, nor could they decide on what to do with the bank. I am totally opposed to nationalising the bank, the free market should have been allowed to deal with Northern Rock. However, if the government is going to do something, then they should do it properly and decisively. They have done neither.

At the last election, Labour had a campaign slogan, which said ‘Forward not back’, the argument being Labour was the party going forward and the Conservatives were going backwards. The Northern Rock debacle has actually shown it is Labour going back, from New Labour to Old.

Brown’s brash socialism

‘Long term plan’, ‘Long term vision’ are a couple of buzz words (or terms) that the Prime Minster Gordon Brown throws around a lot, which is why the accepted view that his Chancellor’s forwarding of the reformed capital gains tax, was ‘not thought through’, is, when viewed along side Brown’s way of doing things, not totally accurate. For this is a man who would seem to have planned what colour socks he would wear to the opening ceremony of the 2012 Olympics, because ‘long term vision is what matters to the British people’ (I am sure though the color of socks don’t and if they do to some, that’s just weird). The presentation, and its manner may have been belatedly opportunistic (announced after the killing of an election that-never-was), but it was thought through. Remember, this was a pre-budget report, no doubt, many months in the planning. The disappearance of the capital tax gains relief was not a mistake, it was deliberate, it was socialism.

As the prime minister switches temporarily from using his ‘moral compass’ to the socialist one, we see that this tax issue is and will be one of many actions of Brown’s brash socialism. Taxes regarding climate ‘change’, air travel, are one of many areas Gordon Brown has targeted to get more ‘revenue’ so that he can ‘invest’ more in public services. Some sectors of the public sectors have a planned increased investment, of over four per cent above inflation, and guess who will be paying for that.

So Brown appears not to be forwarding ‘hurried’ and ‘ill-prepared’ policies as first thought, but ones which indicate his leftist agenda and which say he is not afraid to upset the business men and women of the country. His predecessor, Tony Blair, made it a habit to take on his party and leave the business sector alone, Gordon Brown seems to not be afraid of taking on the business sector and letting his party alone. Brown may regret that when the very same people who will have turned against him, eventually come to vote at the next general election; making him one the shortest-serving prime ministers of the last one hundred years. The Prime Minister may do well to keep his brash, socialist tendencies in check. If he doesn’t, the electorate will.

Northern Rock

 

‘More money has been given to Northern Rock than primary schools are given in a year, or what the government spends on defence’ said, rightly, Vince Cable the Liberal democrat MP. And it is the ink of the tax payer (once again) that the government uses when signing the cheques to Northern Rock.

Northern Rock, a relatively small and previously successful mortgage lender, based in the north of England, came to the point of collapse in September. Its growth model, heavily dependant on U.S debt, came into problems when payers in ’sub-prime’(not the nicest of terms) mortgage markets became defaulters, choking up credit in their respective creditors, which in turn financially locked-out sister lenders, in this case, Northern Rock. Other banks and financial institutions have been affected by the so-called ‘credit squeeze’; almost weekly, major financial institutions, have issued statements to its shareholders, then to the stock market, then to the public-via the media, of the billions of dollars that have to be ‘written off’ because of the ‘credit squeeze’.

Northern Rock has been hit severely, why? Because the people who created and ran their profit making model exposed the firm recklessly and to a high level. As a result, the taxpayer has given Northern Rock, twenty four billion pounds; yes, for those who run Northern Rock, Christmas really has come early for them.

Why should the public purse pay for the clear and avoidable mistakes of a private firm? While there is a case for securing the deposits of the customers at the firm, ‘there should be a sting in the tail’ for the shareholders as one economist put it (they shouldn’t be helped as the depositors are). One economist at a London university on this issue says the risks to the financial markets and the economy are too great and therefore money has to be spent on this firm. The line chimes well with the government view on this, the Prime Minister in the House of Commons a fortnight ago, said that expenditure on Northern Rock is done with ‘economic stability’ in mind. Now you have to buy the argument that, economic stability is at risk because of the financial melt down of a small mortgage lender. The economist at the university pointed to the market crash of 1929, and said it was because government did not act, that the crash happened. Well the reasons for the crash is perhaps debatable, what needn’t be though, is the fact that the circumstances of the 30’s is different from the those of the 00’s. Northern Rock, poorly run, inflated by greed and debt, should not be given public money frivolously.

The market is well able to sort it self out, and if that means in sorting out this mess, that the expulsion of some firms is a result, well then, so be it.

‘Donor-gate’ and the “state-funding of parties” propaganda

Channelling over half a million pounds through several people, businessman David Abrahams funded the Labour party this way, because he didn’t want to draw attention to one of the many ‘charitable deeds’ he was doing. This method of funding is illegal, different apparatchiks within the Labour Party were aware of Abrahams actions but at the same time claimed, they didn’t know it was against the law. Incidentally it was the Labour party who brought in these very laws whose senior figures now claim a lack of knowledge. The Prime minister strongly assured the public of his ignorance-regarding the whole proxy donations hoo-hah, but he didn’t stop there. In his opinion the public, namely the taxpayer, should bankroll the political parties in order for donation issues like these, to not come up again. Many beg to differ with the Prime Minister concerning this.

As a point of order, Mr Brown need not suggest the overhaul of the party funding system because of the Abraham’s saga, this issue came about not because of a lack of laws, but the people involved apparently breaking the existing ones. So the prime minister sought to muddy the waters of the issue with a patently false suggestion that the latest donation issue was a result alack of laws and the only way for it is the whole system be turned over. Politics. Now, the state funding of political parties is wrong for the key reason that it is diametrically opposed to the centrality of democracy, that being freedom. There is neither freedom nor democracy in mandating the public to fund any political party. No matter how the loud the obvious followers of the Rousseau ‘forced to be free’ type democracy within the Labour Party shout, truth and opinion is louder, people must chose who they will support, they should not be ‘forced to be funders’.

And therein lies the economic issue underpinning all of this; the added burden of more taxation on the public. ‘The government has no money’ so the adage goes, and so, in their plans, the public will be used yet again to fund the party-political-propaganda and squabbles over numerous points of ‘policy’ before and around an election period. The public must not be chased for a ‘contribution’ to this power play. If a party wants to run a country, it itself has to seek the funds to do so; issues like the recent proxy donors should indeed be looked at, but more so in terms of stronger penalties for the offenders rather than an overhauling of a system.

Making the public pay for party politicking would not be democratic or economically sound.