The newspapers are reporting that the Winter Olympics in Sochi have been something of a disaster. Apparently the building work was not completed in time for the opening, and lots of people have been inconvenienced as a result.
On the home front, the flooding misery continues, with the Somerset levels still among the worst hit areas. A lot of people are saying that the Environment Agency could and should have done more to minimise the impact of the floods. According to Wikipedia:
The Environment Agency is the principal flood risk management operating authority. It has the power (but not the legal obligation) to manage flood risk from designated main rivers and the sea.
One Tory MP has even gone so far as to make nasty remarks about the chairman of the Environment Agency, who as it happens is a former Labour MP and government minister who was installed as chairman in 2008 when Gordon Brown was Prime Minister.
It is fair to point out however that this country has had a Conservative Prime Minister for nearly four years now, and that the successes and failures of the Environment Agency are ultimately the responsibility of the Secretary of State for the Environment - who happens to be a Conservative politician by the name of Owen Paterson.
I don't suppose many of the people who are victims of the flooding in Somerset care that much about the Winter Olympics. It is easy to take an interest in sporting events when you are not trying desperately to keep foul water from seeping under your front door, but not everyone enjoys that luxury.
The people of Somerset will of course enjoy the luxury of being able to vote for the Conservative Party at the general election next year, but they might want to forego that particular pleasure.
Related previous post:
The politics of flooding
Saturday, 8 February 2014
Friday, 7 February 2014
Fat cats in Cambridgeshire
The case of Paul Kingsman has prompted me to write once more about fat cats. Before I look into the details of his recent criminal prosecution, let me explain where I am coming from. This country has a minimum wage law. If someone is paid significantly more than the minimum wage, then I feel entitled to ask why.
If I interpret the facts of the Kingsman case correctly, then the story began with a young woman called Sophie Kingsman living in social housing with a young child. One day she reported her neighbour, Charlene Vernall, to the RSPCA for mistreating her pet dog. Miss Vernall retaliated by subjecting Miss Kingsman to a campaign of intimidation which lasted for five months. Miss Kingsman contacted both the police and the housing association, but neither of them took action against Miss Vernall. Eventually the stress became to severe that Miss Kingsman's father drove a Cherokee Jeep into the wall of Miss Vernall's home. He has recently been handed down a suspended prison sentence. He has also been ordered to reimburse the housing associaton for the cost of rebuilding the damaged house.
The persecution of Miss Kingsman could have been resolved by the intervention of either the police or the housing association, and yet neither was prepared to take appropriate action. Some might argue that the police and the housing association both have limited resources, but I suspect that the chief constable of Cambridgeshire Police earns rather more than the minimum wage, and I suspect also that the chief executive of the housing association might also earn rather more than the minimum wage.
If I am correct in assuming that the chief constable and the chief executive earn significantly more than the minimum wage, then what exactly do their salaries achieve? It should be obvious to anyone that money spent on salaries above the minimum wage is money that cannot be spent on anything else. If the chief constable of Cambridgeshire earned less money, then maybe the police would have had sufficient resources to allow them to confront Miss Vernall about her behaviour.
I strongly suspect that Mr Kingsman is a victim of fat cat Britain. Maybe one day he will have the option of voting in a general election for a political party which has realistic policies for tackling the fat cat mentality. But would he vote for such a party? Would you?
Related previous posts include:
Bedroom tax fiasco
We get monkeys anyway
Fat cats and commies
The cats stay fat
If I interpret the facts of the Kingsman case correctly, then the story began with a young woman called Sophie Kingsman living in social housing with a young child. One day she reported her neighbour, Charlene Vernall, to the RSPCA for mistreating her pet dog. Miss Vernall retaliated by subjecting Miss Kingsman to a campaign of intimidation which lasted for five months. Miss Kingsman contacted both the police and the housing association, but neither of them took action against Miss Vernall. Eventually the stress became to severe that Miss Kingsman's father drove a Cherokee Jeep into the wall of Miss Vernall's home. He has recently been handed down a suspended prison sentence. He has also been ordered to reimburse the housing associaton for the cost of rebuilding the damaged house.
The persecution of Miss Kingsman could have been resolved by the intervention of either the police or the housing association, and yet neither was prepared to take appropriate action. Some might argue that the police and the housing association both have limited resources, but I suspect that the chief constable of Cambridgeshire Police earns rather more than the minimum wage, and I suspect also that the chief executive of the housing association might also earn rather more than the minimum wage.
If I am correct in assuming that the chief constable and the chief executive earn significantly more than the minimum wage, then what exactly do their salaries achieve? It should be obvious to anyone that money spent on salaries above the minimum wage is money that cannot be spent on anything else. If the chief constable of Cambridgeshire earned less money, then maybe the police would have had sufficient resources to allow them to confront Miss Vernall about her behaviour.
I strongly suspect that Mr Kingsman is a victim of fat cat Britain. Maybe one day he will have the option of voting in a general election for a political party which has realistic policies for tackling the fat cat mentality. But would he vote for such a party? Would you?
Related previous posts include:
Bedroom tax fiasco
We get monkeys anyway
Fat cats and commies
The cats stay fat
Tuesday, 4 February 2014
What is libertarianism?
Loosely
speaking, libertarianism is the belief that the government should not interfere
with how we choose to live our lives.
Very few people identify themselves as libertarians, but almost anyone
will adopt a libertarian stance on occasions.
It has been
argued that there is not one libertarian society anywhere in the world,
although that is a subjective statement.
For example some people might regard Taiwan or Singapore as libertarian
societies. It is also fair to say that
every country in the world – with the possible exception of North Korea – is libertarian
to some extent. I am free to make a lot
of choices about how I spend my time and my money.
Libertarian
economics tends to hold that governments should not regulate employers, that
there should be no nationalised industries, that taxes and government spending should
be minimal, and that there should be no government debt. One of the champions of libertarian economics
was John Cowperthwaite, who was the Financial Secretary of Hong Kong from 1961
to 1971. Cowperthwaite
was unwilling to agree to any increase in government spending or government
intervention, and the economy of Hong Kong expanded rapidly during his time in
office.
Many libertarians
also oppose state intervention in other areas.
For example, many libertarians hold that there should be no illegal substances. While many of us would find that point of
view offensive, the libertarians do not find it hard to argue their case.
We live in a
country where anyone can buy satsumas legally, and many people do. Suppose that the government outlaws satsumas.
People still want to eat satsumas, and
so a black market develops. Some people
smuggle satsumas into the country, while other people grow satsumas in
greenhouses deep in the countryside. Nevertheless
the people who engage in this black market risk prosecution and imprisonment,
and so the supply of satsumas is not as abundant as it was when satsumas were
legally available.
The prices
charged for satsumas has to reflect their scarcity as well as the danger
inherent in producing or importing them.
Potentially there is a lot of profit to be made, and yet there is a
downside which is that people who are involved in the supply of satsumas effectively
put themselves outside the protection of the law. If you are selling satsumas illegally, and
someone steals your money, then it would be unwise to report the theft to the
police.
The logical
next development is that violent criminal gangs arise and take control of the
supply of satsumas. Gangs control
certain areas through violence and intimidation so that they alone can enjoy
the illegal revenues of the satsuma industry.
When people find out about the violent crime, some of them may choose
not to buy satsumas so as not to contribute to the crime situation, but not
everyone will be so public-spirited.
An obvious
solution to the problem would be to legalise satsumas once more. We need only replace the word satsumas with
the word alcohol in the above three paragraphs, and we could be describing the
prohibition era in the USA which lasted from 1920 to 1933. Replace the word satsumas with the word
cannabis (or heroin or cocaine or MDMA) and we could be talking about the United
Kingdom in the present day.
A critical
difference between satsumas and illegal drugs however is that illegal drugs are
dangerous in themselves – that is they would be dangerous even if they were
legal. Let me rephrase that. They are dangerous when they are legal, as
evidenced by recent events in Colorado.
The libertarian
point of view has much to recommend it, but they are wrong about the
legalisation of drugs.
Whenever
someone adopts a libertarian point of view – regardless of whether or not they
regard themselves as libertarian – they will often urge you to accept that you
should not impose your belief system on other people. It is important to be aware however that libertarianism
is as much a belief system as communism or vegetarianism or national socialism. Therefore the libertarian who urges you not
to impose your belief system on other people is seeking to impose his (or her) belief
system on you.
Anyone who
is interested in politics should have an awareness of libertarianism, but that
is not the same as to say that everyone should adopt a libertarian stance on
every conceivable issue.
A related previous post: The story of King Ed
Update: since writing this, it has emerged that a famous actor who recently died after abusing drugs was not, despite earlier rumours, in possession of a particularly deadly form of drug. This surely is another reason to be suspicious of the libertarian argument.
A related previous post: The story of King Ed
Update: since writing this, it has emerged that a famous actor who recently died after abusing drugs was not, despite earlier rumours, in possession of a particularly deadly form of drug. This surely is another reason to be suspicious of the libertarian argument.
Monday, 3 February 2014
Dyson wants immigrants
The inventor Sir James Dyson has spoken out against Britain's strict immigration rules. Some readers might want to point out that our immigration rules have been as watertight as a sieve for more than fifty years, but apparently not so. The Daily Express reports that:
Sir James Dyson, the brains behind the iconic vacuum cleaner brand, believes excessive paperwork and strict visa rules are encouraging foreign engineers who have been trained in the UK to take their skills abroad.
It seems perverse that it is very easy for people to come to the United Kingdom from Romania and Bulgaria, regardless of whether or not they are convicted criminals, and yet it can be hard for a law-abiding graduate to stay here.
But then I have to wonder why Sir James Dyson should want to recruit foreigners when he could recruit British people. Maybe the answer is that the number of home-grown engineering graduates is insufficient, but whose fault is that?
Britain is a country which encourages large numbers of people, mainly school leavers, to go to university and study for degrees. It does not however offer much encouragement for people to study what might be described as core vocational subjects. Obviously graduates in core vocational subjects tend to earn more than graduates in other disciplines, and yet far too many young people seem to opt for the path of least resistance when choosing what to study.
Maybe the British government should take more steps to encourage our school leavers to study core vocational subjects such as engineering instead of subjects which are of little relevance to employers. I can dream.
Sir James Dyson, the brains behind the iconic vacuum cleaner brand, believes excessive paperwork and strict visa rules are encouraging foreign engineers who have been trained in the UK to take their skills abroad.
It seems perverse that it is very easy for people to come to the United Kingdom from Romania and Bulgaria, regardless of whether or not they are convicted criminals, and yet it can be hard for a law-abiding graduate to stay here.
But then I have to wonder why Sir James Dyson should want to recruit foreigners when he could recruit British people. Maybe the answer is that the number of home-grown engineering graduates is insufficient, but whose fault is that?
Britain is a country which encourages large numbers of people, mainly school leavers, to go to university and study for degrees. It does not however offer much encouragement for people to study what might be described as core vocational subjects. Obviously graduates in core vocational subjects tend to earn more than graduates in other disciplines, and yet far too many young people seem to opt for the path of least resistance when choosing what to study.
Maybe the British government should take more steps to encourage our school leavers to study core vocational subjects such as engineering instead of subjects which are of little relevance to employers. I can dream.
Friday, 31 January 2014
The road to Wythenshawe
This post is somewhat in the nature of a mission statement. It has always been my intention in writing this blog to offer constructive comment on issues that matter (or ought to matter) to the British people. As a general rule, I have tried to avoid using emotive or abusive language.
Another important aspect of this blog has been that I have often urged readers to join a political party, although I am careful never to specify which party that should be. Maybe the party you join should be a party which does not yet exist, or perhaps a recently formed party which I do not yet know about.
Anyway, as I write we are less than two weeks away from the next important test of political credibility in this country, the Wythenshawe and Sale East by-election. There are seven candidates in the running - Labour (who are defending the seat), Conservative, Liberal Democrat, UKIP, BNP, Green, and Monster Raving Loony. The latter two parties did not contest the seat at the last general election, and I do not expect either party to poll remotely well. No one expects Labour not to hold the seat, and so the only interest lies in the vote shares.
The Conservatives need to show that their support is rising in the run-up to an inevitable general election next year, as do the Liberal Democrats, although I expect nothing in the way of good news for them. UKIP have a serious chance of outpolling the Conservatives and taking second place, which I am sure they would regard as a good result. I do not currently expect the BNP to poll well, but their website is certainly talking a good game.
A Conservative bill to require a referendum on Britain's membership of the EU in 2017 has just been defeated in the House of Lords by Labour and LibDem peers. Whether or not this comes back to haunt them on polling day remains to be seen, but it is fair to point out that with very few exceptions if any, Labour and LibDem politicians care little for democracy.
I should perhaps point out as an aside that the defeat of the bill does not rule out a referendum from taking place in 2017. If the government of the day wants a referendum, then presumably one will be held. Likewise, had the bill been passed into law then it would not have guaranteed a referendum in 2017, because legislation can be repealed.
The Tories are presumably hoping that this episode will boost their vote share at the expense of Labour and the LibDems, whereas UKIP leader Nigel Farage is pointing out that the recent surge in their support has prompted the government to hold a debate on immigration. However he notes that:
... the Ukip solution is clear: we just leave the EU - and therefore the ECHR - and take back control of these legal issues.
The European Convention on Human Rights has nothing to do with the European Union.
Another important aspect of this blog has been that I have often urged readers to join a political party, although I am careful never to specify which party that should be. Maybe the party you join should be a party which does not yet exist, or perhaps a recently formed party which I do not yet know about.
Anyway, as I write we are less than two weeks away from the next important test of political credibility in this country, the Wythenshawe and Sale East by-election. There are seven candidates in the running - Labour (who are defending the seat), Conservative, Liberal Democrat, UKIP, BNP, Green, and Monster Raving Loony. The latter two parties did not contest the seat at the last general election, and I do not expect either party to poll remotely well. No one expects Labour not to hold the seat, and so the only interest lies in the vote shares.
The Conservatives need to show that their support is rising in the run-up to an inevitable general election next year, as do the Liberal Democrats, although I expect nothing in the way of good news for them. UKIP have a serious chance of outpolling the Conservatives and taking second place, which I am sure they would regard as a good result. I do not currently expect the BNP to poll well, but their website is certainly talking a good game.
A Conservative bill to require a referendum on Britain's membership of the EU in 2017 has just been defeated in the House of Lords by Labour and LibDem peers. Whether or not this comes back to haunt them on polling day remains to be seen, but it is fair to point out that with very few exceptions if any, Labour and LibDem politicians care little for democracy.
I should perhaps point out as an aside that the defeat of the bill does not rule out a referendum from taking place in 2017. If the government of the day wants a referendum, then presumably one will be held. Likewise, had the bill been passed into law then it would not have guaranteed a referendum in 2017, because legislation can be repealed.
The Tories are presumably hoping that this episode will boost their vote share at the expense of Labour and the LibDems, whereas UKIP leader Nigel Farage is pointing out that the recent surge in their support has prompted the government to hold a debate on immigration. However he notes that:
... the Ukip solution is clear: we just leave the EU - and therefore the ECHR - and take back control of these legal issues.
The European Convention on Human Rights has nothing to do with the European Union.
Thursday, 30 January 2014
Euro-troublemakers want us to increase benefits
The national press is reporting that the British government has been told by officials of the Council of Europe to increase the benefits it pays to unemployed people. There are a number of points to be made here.
First, the Council of Europe is not the same as the European Union. The two organisations are entirely distinct from one another.
Second, the call for higher benefits payments appears to pertain to a document called the European Social Charter. I have tried to find the text for this document on the Council of Europe's website, but the best I could find was that the treaty upholds the right to be protected against poverty and social exclusion.
It appears that the Council of Europe cannot force the British government to increase its benefits, but its decree can be referred to in any litigation claims brought against the government by British citizens.
It is perhaps unsurprising that at least one Tory MP is calling for the United Kingdom to withdraw from the Council of Europe, but frankly we should never have entered in the first place.
The Council of Europe aims to uphold the European Convention on Human Rights, which it describes as a treaty designed to protect human rights, democracy, and the rule of law. That is a sick joke. There is nothing democratic about a treaty that seeks to be binding on supposedly democratic member states in perpetuity.
Democracy is by its nature fluid. It allows governments to change their policies and procedures in response to changing circumstances, and the electoral process often provides a strong incentive for such changes to take effect.
Many working people in this country are struggling to subsist on meagre wages. If benefits are increased for those not in work, will benefits also be increased for those in work? How much money would such an increase cost? Are the totalitarians who run the Council of Europe able to suggest a way in which such higher expenditure could be met without plunging the economy into another recession?
I do not condone Britain's membership of the undemocratic Council of Europe any more than I condone Britain's membership of the undemocratic European Union.
First, the Council of Europe is not the same as the European Union. The two organisations are entirely distinct from one another.
Second, the call for higher benefits payments appears to pertain to a document called the European Social Charter. I have tried to find the text for this document on the Council of Europe's website, but the best I could find was that the treaty upholds the right to be protected against poverty and social exclusion.
It appears that the Council of Europe cannot force the British government to increase its benefits, but its decree can be referred to in any litigation claims brought against the government by British citizens.
It is perhaps unsurprising that at least one Tory MP is calling for the United Kingdom to withdraw from the Council of Europe, but frankly we should never have entered in the first place.
The Council of Europe aims to uphold the European Convention on Human Rights, which it describes as a treaty designed to protect human rights, democracy, and the rule of law. That is a sick joke. There is nothing democratic about a treaty that seeks to be binding on supposedly democratic member states in perpetuity.
Democracy is by its nature fluid. It allows governments to change their policies and procedures in response to changing circumstances, and the electoral process often provides a strong incentive for such changes to take effect.
Many working people in this country are struggling to subsist on meagre wages. If benefits are increased for those not in work, will benefits also be increased for those in work? How much money would such an increase cost? Are the totalitarians who run the Council of Europe able to suggest a way in which such higher expenditure could be met without plunging the economy into another recession?
I do not condone Britain's membership of the undemocratic Council of Europe any more than I condone Britain's membership of the undemocratic European Union.
Tuesday, 28 January 2014
Angry customers of HSBC
Readers of this blog may be aware that HSBC has recently introduced new rules about cash withdrawals. Basically it appears that customers wishing to make large cash withdrawals are being required to prove what the money is for. I am not a customer of HSBC, but if I were I doubt very much if the new rules would upset me.
Nevertheless a lot of people have been complaining, and tabloid columnist Richard Littlejohn shares their frustration. Regarding the case of a man who was obstructed from withdrawing £10,000 in cash, he comments that even if he’d wanted to blow the lot on cocaine and hookers, that’s entirely his own affair.
Pardon my impudence, but no it is not entirely his own affair. Littlejohn is condoning substance abuse and possibly also human trafficking, both of which are quite reasonably circumscribed by law.
Littlejohn's attitude is typical of the selfishness and hypocrisy of far too many people in this country.
Do you aspire to live in a crime-free country? I will assume that the answer is yes. Is it then too much to ask that you play your part?
Cash payments are one of the ways in which crime flourishes in this country, and any bank which obstructs people from making large cash transactions is arguably obstructing crime.
Of course you can argue that you are not a criminal, but anyone else can argue the same thing, and yet the fact remains that some people are criminals. How is your bank supposed to know for a fact that you are not a criminal? Even if you have been a customer of the bank for many years or decades, that does not prove that you are not involved in crime.
I have never in my life withdrawn more than £500 in cash from a bank or building society account in a single transaction, and I fail to see why anyone who is not a criminal should obsess about large cash transactions.
If anyone reading this blog can think of a good reason why anyone other than a criminal should want to make large cash transactions - as opposed to using documented means such as cheques or bank drafts - then please leave a comment.
As an aside, Littlejohn concludes his comment with these words:
Two ‘British jihadists’ who went off to wage holy war in Syria have been killed.
Good.
Britain does not as yet have a law prohibiting incitement to occupational hatred. If it did, then presumably Littlejohn would be facing a prison sentence.
Relevant previous post:
Money laundering: a cautionary tale
Nevertheless a lot of people have been complaining, and tabloid columnist Richard Littlejohn shares their frustration. Regarding the case of a man who was obstructed from withdrawing £10,000 in cash, he comments that even if he’d wanted to blow the lot on cocaine and hookers, that’s entirely his own affair.
Pardon my impudence, but no it is not entirely his own affair. Littlejohn is condoning substance abuse and possibly also human trafficking, both of which are quite reasonably circumscribed by law.
Littlejohn's attitude is typical of the selfishness and hypocrisy of far too many people in this country.
Do you aspire to live in a crime-free country? I will assume that the answer is yes. Is it then too much to ask that you play your part?
Cash payments are one of the ways in which crime flourishes in this country, and any bank which obstructs people from making large cash transactions is arguably obstructing crime.
Of course you can argue that you are not a criminal, but anyone else can argue the same thing, and yet the fact remains that some people are criminals. How is your bank supposed to know for a fact that you are not a criminal? Even if you have been a customer of the bank for many years or decades, that does not prove that you are not involved in crime.
I have never in my life withdrawn more than £500 in cash from a bank or building society account in a single transaction, and I fail to see why anyone who is not a criminal should obsess about large cash transactions.
If anyone reading this blog can think of a good reason why anyone other than a criminal should want to make large cash transactions - as opposed to using documented means such as cheques or bank drafts - then please leave a comment.
As an aside, Littlejohn concludes his comment with these words:
Two ‘British jihadists’ who went off to wage holy war in Syria have been killed.
Good.
One of them is reported to be a London estate agent, which counts double.
Britain does not as yet have a law prohibiting incitement to occupational hatred. If it did, then presumably Littlejohn would be facing a prison sentence.
Relevant previous post:
Money laundering: a cautionary tale
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)