Political Bias rears its head again at the Beeb...

I shall be brief, as I have to go be all bartendery shortly.

The BBC repeatedly refers to the BNP as Right Wing. It equates fascism with the political Right. This is a fallacy. The Nazis, similarly are confused with the Right. This is incorrect. The Nazis were (wait for it) The National Socialist party. Socialist. Anyone get that last word there?

Yeah?

Okay.

So. The BNP have very similar economic, political, and dare I say it, social policies to those of the now defunct National Socialist Party of Germany circa 1933-1945. The Nazis were actually not that far from the Communists in economic terms - really, Stalin and Hitler would have agreed on quite a lot were it not for their racial loathing of each other - particularly from old Adolf's point of view.

Both were left wing. The BNP, who espouse the same nationalist, protectionist and exclusionist policies of the fascist Nazi party (as well as other loathesome policies formed around a general dislike for anything other than Caucasian Heterosexual Men and their doting stay-at-home Women) are also left-wing. They are Left-Wing Authoritarians.

Will someone in the BBCs political editorial department PLEASE take note of this?

That is all.

Whew...

Gosh... you can almost hear the tumbleweed rolling across the face of this blog. A desolate strip of packed earth and sand with not a single green shoot poking its head tentatively above the soil. No fresh loam, but coarse and barren land.

I have, for various reasons, been otherwise occupied. Ironically I've had all the time in the world, however for a rationale best understood only by myself, I have neglected my little corner of the world.

Given the past few weeks there is no shortage of ammunition for me to base a few posts on, but if I'm brutally honest, the current affairs of the UK have been somewhat depressing of late. The election of the new speaker, for example, has been a bit of a let-down. A red tory (forgiveable) whose expenses track record hardly screams reformist (unforgiveable) has replaced a grumpy old lefty whose expenses track record was 'take what you can, give nothing back'. Wow. Well, that is a breath of fresh air.

Terribly disappointed that Richard Shepherd didn't get the job - his speech was curt and damning, but then again, perhaps given that it is little wonder.

So, anyway, just a quick one (hello, yes, still alive thanks).

Some post-match analysis

Overall impression of PMQs was one of disbelief. Cameron had plenty ammunition but seemed on first viewing to lack the stomach to use it. Nick Clegg fired off some good shots, but got laughed down by Labour's backbenchers. I smell some Hubris coming their way. I think Cameron is playing a tactical game here, and from an electoral perspective I can understand why.

Spectator has a pretty good breakdown, which I think makes good sense. What I think they're missing is that Cameron doesn't want a mortally wounded Brown, just a grazed one. I suspect we just saw a calculated salvo aimed not to kill. If Brown has confidence he'll stay in No. 10, and that means a much surer chance of victory for the Conservatives at the next General Election. A new leader means facing Labour in a honeymoon period of sorts, and that might be enough to rescue a few seats.

The fact Brown won't be called on an election shows he still thinks he can turn things around and improve on the polls. He'll hold out as long as he can in the hope his political currency can rise. Cameron wants an election now because that would mean facing Brown, not a new Labour leader. For him, the longer Brown holds out, the greater risk someone in Labour will grow the cojones to challenge him.

Belshazzar was SLAIN!

You'll have to excuse the Biblical reference, but it is the Son of the Manse, that great scion of Presbyterian conscience and moral authority, to whom I refer.

Gordon Brown's refusal to confirm whether or not Darling or Blears have a future in the Cabinet was telling. It was the closest he had yet come to announcing that a cabinet reshuffle was indeed on the cards, and while you might perhaps forgive him for letting Blears drift, Darling has been a loyal chancellor - so loyal that he has gained the unenviable caricature of being his sock-puppet. Yet even Darling has on occasion 'overstepped' his master's authority with comments that diverged from the Prime Minister's chosen tune. Perhaps it is not so surprising that past loyalty is no protection when your master is backed into a corner fearing for his political life.

Ultimately, though, the suspense was broken by Jacqui Smith when she announced she would be standing down at the next reshuffle. Admittedly, she failed to fall on her sword as thoroughly as we would have liked by resigning as an MP entirely. With her slender majority of just over two-thousand, however, my suspicion is that she hopes to save her seat by showing some penitence. Smith's resignation could not come too soon, in my eyes. In her two years in the job as Home Secretary she has seen the Government's plans for increased terrorist detention defeated and has presided over massively unpopular plans for authoritarian DNA databases and ID cards. The Liberal Democrat's Chris Huhne branded her a failure even on her own terms. Throw in her expenses, her attempts to make prostitution even more open to abuse (a total lack of appreciation for the law of unintended consequences) and husband's predilection for charging his porn films to the taxpayer, and her position really was untenable.

Her attempt at damage limitation is, as ever, too little too late. What it has served to do is put the writing on the wall for Gordon Brown. If more nails were required for the proverbial coffin, Tom Watson added another with his resignation, and now the SNP are teaming up with Plaid Cymru to use their time next week to force a debate on the dissolution of Parliament . Nick Clegg has thrown his support to the debate, and William Hague has called the SNP's bluff by announcing on Sky News that if dissolution were debated, the Conservatives would be in favour. Should it come to this, Dan Hannan and Iain Martin have both postulated that the Queen might need to exercise her unwritten constitutional right to dissolve parliament. This may yet come to pass.

For all Parties involved, this could be a case of 'be careful what you wish for'. The expenses debacle has battered Parliament, and the European Elections will be a litmus test for voter's intentions. While I doubt strongly that fringe parties would stand to gain much in a General Election, I have found it difficult to divine whether anger is directed equally at all MPs, or if the ire is concentrated on the Government. My suspcion is the latter, if only because the Conservative's reaction to the 'revelations' has been far more decisive, and with the greatest of respect, no one really cares too much about the Liberal Democrats anyway. They are, if anything, Labour-Lite.

From what I have gathered from those I have spoken to, people distrust Cameron simply for being a Tory. They fear he is just another Blair, but blue. Yet if you ask people to take Iraq out of the equation, you'll find a grudging admission that they really liked Tony, at least to begin with. Blair had energy, authority, and anger. He wanted to change things. Watching Cameron, you can see that same passion, and you can sense the barely contained fury as he watches a Labour majority do untold damage to Parliamentary democracy and worse, to the population of Great Britain. In that, at least, he captures the spirit of the nation.

My Labour-minded friends tend to be blinkered in their devotion, it is that classic tribalism which leads them to hold fast to their course even as their ship sails off the edge of the world. Slavish devotion to their party can only be tolerated so long as the party has the best interests of the nation, and of the individual, at heart. As soon as it begins to believe it knows better than its electorate, it deserves no longer to form a Government. That is a lesson Cameron would do well to remember. He speaks now of returning power to the people, a truly libertarian sentiment (ironically, Socialists often claim the same, however what they mean is power to the establishment, because they're smarter than you), and I sincerely hope he means it.

The European Elections will be the opinion polls to end all opinion polls for this Government. Even taking the anti-political contingent out of the equation, I suspect strongly that Labour are going to be pummelled.

As with Belshazzar, Gordon's days are numbered. The writing on the wall is the same now as then, and come election time, this unelected Prime Minister will be told as much: "Thou art weighed in the balance and art found wanting."

Le quote du jour

"Your ministers have failed you, Ma'am: send for better ones."

- Dan Hannan MEP, The Telegraph

Dan Hannan has suggested, respectfully, in his blog that it is time for the Queen to step in and exercise her constitutional role on behalf of the people of Great Britain by dissolving Parliament and calling for an election. He is right, to my knowledge, that this is one of the few constitutional powers she still has. In a case whereby the population have lost faith in their government and recent economic events have rendered the manifestos on which they were elected obsolete, this would seem to be the appropriate opportunity.

Some perspective

Maybe I'm just a little numb to the whole MPs expenses furore, but this little interviewette with Stephen Fry is the most sense I've heard all week.

Don't let it stop you voting. In fact, your vote matters more than ever.

Timmy, you just made my day

A big thanks to Tim Worstall for saying it so very well:

"You see, because if companies don’t pay their taxes then the money just disappears. There’s no such thing as an opportunity cost in lefty world.

Now then, out in the real world what does happen when the capitalist bastards manage to dodge taxes? One of two things.

1) The company has a higher retained profit which it then uses to reinvest in the business. More jobs, higher wages, economic growth, Hurrah!

2) The company pays it out to their fat cat shareholders who simply engorge themselves on the lucre extracted from the sweat and blood of the poor. And investments in companies working in poor countries are seen to be paying higher returns. Which leads to more capital being invested in companies working in poor countries so more jobs, higher wages and economic growth, Hurrah!

It is of course possible to argue that direct spending by governments will do more for the chances of the poor than more foreign direct investment. But to argue that if the money is not paid in taxes then it simply disappears as far as the poor are concerned is simply nonsense."

The reason capitalism works is because it is about generating wealth, and to generate wealth one invests the wealth one has made into making more, which means more jobs, profits, better pay, economic growth and happiness all around for those who endeavour to sieze the opportunity. Hand up, not a hand out - but then we can't even deal with that culture at home, can we?

Moar signatures pl0x

At present counting there are now 23,276 signatures on the Number 10 petition for Gordon Brown to resign.

That's just over a signature for every £1 of debt we owe as our share of the national debt.

Add your paw prints here.

Think he'll take the hint?

Funniest thing I've read all day...

Oh oh oh... but this did make me giggle. This one is going on my blogroll...

I want to emmigrate.

I just caught the Wall Street Journal's interview with New Zealand's PM, John Key.

New Zealand has great wine, good skiing, amazing scenery, temperate weather, and apparently a free-market focused leader who favours small government. And they have Hobbits. What's not to like?

At least ONE Prime Minister in the world seems to know the right way to deal with the recession...

A stone in a glass house

Sir Fred Goodwin is under pressure from Alistair Darling to ‘voluntarily’ reduce some of his pension, from a pot apparently worth in the region of £16m, which he will draw annually to a sum of £650,000.

I’d love some of that, thanks.

Now, aside from the usual socialist idea that they who have more should give to they who have less (laudable while voluntary, illiberal and despicable when enforced), I wonder what the law of unintended consequences would result in should Sir Fred agree to this.

If Fred forgoes a part of his pension, where will that money instead go? Will those funds make a significant impact on the day-to-day operation of RBS? What would Fred do with the money if he received it? Would he spend it or invest it, thus ‘stimulating’ the economy? Would he bury it under his bed? Would he save it in a bank (thus providing them with deposited capital)?

I am reminded of Frédéric Bastiat, the French economist, and his essay ‘What Is Seen and What Is Not Seen’. What is seen is that Sir Fred Goodwin takes a reduced pension; public anger is doused (maybe), and RBS has a few million Sterling more in its pension pot. This will reduce the deficit the pension fund faces, but I suspect not by a significant amount.

What is not seen is that Fred no longer buys that yacht from the manufacturing company down south, that entertainment suite from a specialist retailer, that brand new Jaguar or Aston Martin. He no longer chooses to invest in that promising start-up company, or donate to that charitable organisation. Those parts of the economy which might have seen growth from his spending may not now benefit from his money.

RBS is the broken window; is this not simply paying the glazier?

EDIT: Corrected typo. £16m, not £61m!

Ideological differences

Here’s a question: Can romantic relationships work when the two people are of different politics?

I recall a certain ex-boyfriend who was a dyed-in-the-wool, son on a Union leader, very much a total Labourite. Towards the collapse of that particular relationship, I remember remarking that Boris Johnson would be a welcome change to Red Ken in the upcoming mayoral elections down in London. The force of rebuttal to that suggestion was so fierce that it threw us into a raging argument, with my integrity and judgement being called into question.

Up to that point, we’d got along just fine on the basis that I quite liked Tony because for all his faults, he wasn’t Old Labour, and played enough to the centre ground that it was hard to disagree too much with policy. The Conservatives were in a shambles anyway, and William Hague – the only promising leader they came up with – had ascended the shadow throne far too soon and made a bit of a hash of it.

I suspect in this case it was just another excuse for a fight – we’d been at it from day one, and I should have called time on it before it had got that far, but that’s another story for another day. What was missing in this case was the capability of at least one of us to hold a rational debate and accept the other party’s point of view as valid – whether or not it was agreed with. To me, this seems ridiculous, as I disagree with a number of my friends on a good many things, but that stimulates healthy debate, banter, and general conversational tomfoolery.

The difference is that those conversations are with friends, not lovers. What I want to know is whether it is possible to sustain a relationship when you both disagree on something as fundamental as your political ideals.

Back on my paws

A slight bout of fever and an acute case of man-flu left the Basement Cat holed up in bed for most of last week. While still feeling rubbish, boredom prevailed and has dragged me in to the office where I can infect everyone else and share the love. Or spread the misery.

An article in the current (19 February) issue of Supply Management investigates a trend of procurement professionals and buyers moving from the private to the public sector; bucking the trend of job cuts, recruitment in public sector procurement is strong. While in part the purpose of the article seems to be to point out that aside from some legislative and procedural hurdles, the pressure and expectations are not all that different, it is endemic of a larger problem in the UK.

It’s no secret that the UK public sector, and the NHS in particular, is rife with non-jobs and ‘management’ roles that serve little purpose other than to consume resources and prop up job figures; mere sink-holes for the taxpayer’s money. Then there’s that delightful little paradox (and administrative expense) of taxing people whose income comes from the taxes they – and everyone else – are paying.

In fact, Procurement/Supply Chain is an aberration, the exception that proves the rule. As a function its primary purpose is to drive down costs, improve efficiency and thereby save time and money for the organisation in question. It is the one arena in which job cuts only make sense if the organisation has contracted to a point that they are superfluous to requirements. For that to happen in the public sector, a brave government is going to have to make some significant cuts.

Pour la France, les emplois

As a comedian and acquaintance of mine once flourished: “...the people who hate the French government most, are the French!”

Given the emotional story he had been telling about his voyage across the English Channel in a Thomas Crapper bathtub, rowing, no less, this punchline was the end to a running theme of obstructions he had faced from the French Coastguard and government, who had even changed the law in order to prevent his brave/insane/ridiculous/British venture.

If anyone doubted the veracity of this statement, I could point you to the French propensity for striking. Rightly or wrongly, they are not afraid of creating merry havoc if they don’t like what is happening. Even if their actions are misinformed or counterproductive. In Tim’s case, the locals had broken in to a French coastal installation to cheer him on as he rowed those painful last strokes to arrive on French soil. Authority? Ça ne fait rien! Hurrah.

Personally, I rather like France. It is a beautiful country, produces some marvellous wines (and Brandy, Cognac, Calvados, Armagnac...), and like anywhere, has some fantastic people. Some less fantastic people too, but you will find that anywhere in the world.

On the other hand, they have a worrying propensity for protectionism, and Nicolas Sarkozy, who should know better, is not helping. As outgoing President of the EU, he should be conversant with the single market, and ought to at least pretend to represent it. In deciding to prop up Renault and Peugeot-Citroen with a €6bn loan, he’s jumping aboard a bandwagon whose engine should never have been started, but in that there’s nothing particularly unique. What is very disappointing is that he has brazenly instructed the companies that they must make no redundancies at their French plants – instead calling for them to close their Czech and Slovenian plants.

Bald, blatant, naked protectionism doesn’t even begin to cut it. The bailout packages for the automotive industry are bad enough, with governments terrified of allowing a proud national institution to fail, but history or not, no industry should become subsidised, and propping these companies up does not solve the underlying problem; demand for cars has fallen, and these companies were trading on a false economic boom.

Mind you, given how the French benefit from the deplorable CAP, should we be surprised?

That kind of growth is not going to come back before the bailouts run dry, and jobs will still be lost. Rather than bail these businesses out with taxpayer money, why not give that money back in the form of lower taxes? That’s the kind of stimulus we need.

Sarkozy, like Brown, is proposing a vote winner, cheating at the expense of the taxpayer. While I was amused by the way the French President savaged Brown over his handling of the economy, I think he was way off the mark. The VAT cut was a ridiculous waste of time and money, but cutting taxes is the answer, not spending more as Sarkozy intends. It is time for lean government and smart thinking. On that count, neither Brown nor Sarkozy show any proclivity for either.

Standing up for free markets, deregulation, choice and liberty

Just a quick link to an excellent Q&A session from the Independent with Ken Clarke.

Very much worth a read, but one quote stood out for me that sums up why he is one of the more trustworthy and respected figures within Parliament. When asked about his affiliation with British American Tobacco and whether that left him in a moral bind, or that he was ashamed of his involvement, he replied:

"I am a strong believer in personal responsibility and freedom of choice. British American Tobacco is a responsible company, and I enjoyed working with them.

We only sold cigarettes to adults who were properly informed of the dangers and smoked cigarettes as part of their chosen lifestyle. I find it difficult to believe that there is any cigarette smoker who is not aware of the risks and has not decided that he is prepared to add those risks to the others that are associated with his chosen way of life."

Simply put, whether you agree with someone or not, you must act in a responsible manner, and above all, respect choice and freedom. Well said.

Picture this...

If there was any doubt remaining that our civil liberties are under threat from Jacqui/Jacqboot Smith, the BJP has this report:

"Set to become law on 16 February, the Counter-Terrorism Act 2008 amends the
Terrorism Act 2000 regarding offences relating to information about members of
armed forces, a member of the intelligence services, or a police officer.

The new set of rules, under section 76 of the 2008 Act and section 58A of the 2000 Act, will target anyone who 'elicits or attempts to elicit information about (members
of armed forces) ... which is of a kind likely to be useful to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism'.

A person found guilty of this offence could be liable to imprisonment for up to 10 years, and to a fine.

The law is expected to increase the anti-terrorism powers used today by police
officers to stop photographers, including press photographers, from taking
pictures in public places."

Now, I can sort of understand taking pictures of military installations, but of a policeman, or a civil servant? It's patently ridiculous, and is potentially far reaching law that will be wide open to abuse. Give an inch, and they'll take a mile. I thnk you'll agree that "...a kind likely to be useful to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism..." is pretty woolly language and leaves a lot of room for interpretation.

I bet HMtQ (Her Majesty the Queen, in case you've not seen that one before) will be very pleased that all those louts taking photographs of the guards at Buckingham can now all be arrested and kept at her pleasure for the next ten years. Sound crazy? Not really, she's a pretty good terrorist target. Could be a potential suicide bomber planning his attack and taking photos to figure out a way past the guards. Who knows?

This is the kind of authoritarian law you expect in a banana republic or dictatorship, not in the 'free' world, in the oldest democracy in the world. We should be free to take pictures - and journalists especially - of the police, in action or not, if for no other reason than we must be able to hold them to account.

What is lacking here is any sign of principles. It's like the fuckwits who say: "Oh, I don't mind all the extra checks at the airport, because it's for my own safety." No it fucking isn't; it primes you for further abuses of your liberty. What makes an aircraft so special? You could carry a liquid bomb onto a commuter train to far greater effect, and I don't see security checks at the train station in the morning. What happened to trust? Innocent until proven guilty? This is guilty until proven innocent, and that is incongruous with the spirit of liberty, law and democracy.

We need our leaders to stand up for the principles of liberty and say: "Yes, there is a risk that a photo could be used in a terrorist act, but we cannot and must not erode the freedoms of the people, lest we become what that against which we fight." Okay, so I'm being a bit verbose there, but I think you get the idea. The price of freedom is that sometimes people will abuse that freedom. The law is there to ensure that when people do, they are punished. This law is wrong because it assumes guilt until proven otherwise.

Calling them ZanuLab has never been more appropriate.

Hat tip to DK and Bearwatch.

Canuckleheads?

The Conservatives certainly have no shortage of ammunition to fire at New Labour - they've manifestly failed to deliver on education (a key pledge way back in 1997), stuck a broken bottle up the backside of the national economy by spending like an old dame in a casino, given even more of our sovereignty away to the EUSSR than I care to think about, increased Government spending beyond sustainable levels and inflated the public sector into a gargantuan mess. To name but a few.

Still, their latest billboard does raise a question - have they got something against Canadians, or do they have a rep for bad maths that I just don't know about?

Propellorheads feat. Dame Shirley Bassey

Snow.

Strikes.

Labour Government.

Recession.

It’s all just a little bit of history repeating... *cue Shirley Bassey*

Protecting your own

Barely did his feet settle under the table of the Oval Office than Barack Obama has had the EU hounding at his door. As much as I may despair at the bureaucracy in Brussels, when it comes to making statements about free markets and trade, the EU is usually on the money.

The ‘Buy American’ policy the USA is proposing in their massive recovery package seems to be attracting a lot of fire, and echoes with our current ‘British Jobs for British Workers’ palaver. It’s not just the EU - the Canadians are antsy about it too, along with the best part of the participants at Davos. America In the World have suggested that 70% of Britons will be less favourable to Obama if he implements a protectionist policy; we Brits have good reason for feeling that way. America is a world leader, promoter of capitalism and up ‘til now, a shining example of the free market (at least on the surface). If anything, America needs to be defending those principles and seeking to restore our faith.

The critics are dead right. A protectionist policy would do more to harm the US and slow the global recovery than it would protect American jobs. Sure, in the short term it might sound like a great idea, but free trade works on the principle of swings and roundabouts – you may lose on one thing but you gain on the other. It forces companies and entrepreneurs to be better than their competitors if they want to succeed. Protectionist leads to ‘jobs for the boys’ and suffocates competition, which in turn stifles innovation, so on and so forth.

It’s a crowd pleasing idea that makes it sound like you’re standing up for the masses, when the reality is that in the long-run, you’re going to make things worse for them.

Sourcing from local suppliers isn’t necessarily a bad thing, and you may have ample justification for doing so, but it needs to be on sound economic terms and you need to encourage competition for that business.

I’m pretty sure I heard rumblings about this even before the ballot boxes in the US had closed. Obama is playing a populist card with his stimulus package, and I wonder if he’s getting a bit too caught up in playing to his electorate rather than doing what is best for them in the long run. The global effect is likely to be marked as well, and it sets an awful example for other nations. Tit will inevitably follow tat, and governments would end up subsidising local businesses and products produced nationally. This would be an utter disaster for the global economy.

The US has a massive budget deficit inherited from the previous administration and it has to deal with this. Any incoming government in the UK is going to have the same problem, but the US has an advantage we lack – it is a major exporter. Protectionism isn’t the answer – John Redwood nails it when he says that borrowing less and exporting more is.

Of course, given that about the only thing we export these days is Whisky, I’m not sure how we’re going to solve that particular problem any time soon.

Maybe we can just get the rest of the world drunk?

Political Spectrometer Analysis. Sounds like something out of Star Trek...

Saw this little quiz over on Tory Bear, and decided to give it a pop. Looks like I'm a right social libertarian... I can live with that.

My Political Views
I am a right social libertarian
Right: 4.85, Libertarian: 6.46


My Foreign Policy Views
Score: 3.46


My Culture War Stance
Score: -5.16


Didn't expect to be quite such a neo-con, but hey, there you go!

Have a go here if you're a bit bored.