Diary
Fred the Shred isn't the only villain in this economic catastrophe
28 February, 2009
This week has seen an outpouring of anger following the revelations over Fred the Shred’s pension pot. Quite right too. This reckless ‘master of the universe’ took a blue chip bank to the brink of collapse, racking up the biggest losses in UK corporate history. As a result of his greed and negligence, the British taxpayer has been landed with an enormous liability to cover his bank's toxic assets. To reward someone so handsomely for such abject failure is both perverse and immoral. It is just the kind of base corruption we associate with a banana republic.
But even more obscene is the pathetic posturing from Gordon Brown and his sidekick, Mr. Darling. Yesterday the Prime Minister was 'Mr. Outraged of Westminster', promising to claw back Goodwin’s pension, using the law courts if necessary. As the Telegraph reports today, he can scarcely do any such thing for the legal obstacles are enormous.
More to the point, his own minister, Lord Myners, signed off the pension arrangements in the first place last year. It is highly disingenuous for Myners to claim that he did not know about the discretionary nature of early retirement pensions; he is an expert in pensions after all! One has to presume that he was briefed about Goodwin’s package last October– and duly went along with it. In other words, the government was effectively complicit in the very arrangements that they now object to.
So why is the Prime Minister doing this? Brown knows that his government is in terminal crisis. Whenever he calls an election, he faces electoral wipe-out and a probable decade of political oblivion. The opinion polls all tell him that the British public are fed up with New Labour’s spin machine and its culture of endless excuses and the momentum is definitely with the Tories. So perhaps in a desperate attempt to shift the focus from new Labour’s own failures, including the vast sums required of the taxpayer to bail out RBS (a sizeable fraction of a trillion pounds), they have jumped on the populist ‘bash a banker’ bandwaggon. It is, after all, so much easier to focus on the evil Mr. Goodwin than on the Prime Minister himself.
But never forget that it was Mr. Brown who, in 1997, set up the regulatory system that was famously snoozing while Mr. Goodwin and co. behaved recklessly. It was Mr. Brown that wanted light touch regulation at the FSA and who continued to benefit from booming City tax receipts so he could fund his public sector state. This was the man who, as Chancellor, vastly increased the size of the ‘client state’ and burdened the British people with a vast public sector pension liability. This was also the man who recklessly sold our gold reserves at the bottom of the market. Gordon Brown can no more take the moral high ground than Fred Goodwin.
Gordon Brown can throw the book at every one of our reckless bankers. Lord knows, many of them deserve it. But when the PM engages in vacuous posturing purely to cover his own back, he engages in mischief making of the worst malodorous kind.
topIn tackling Islamists, government rhetoric doesn’t match reality
26 February, 2009
It is widely reported today that Dr Ibrahim El Moussaoui will lecture at SOAS next month on the subject of political Islam. Dr El Moussaoui has a vicious track record of supporting terrorism. He has been the editor of Hezbollah’s weekly newspaper and also worked for their television station, Al Manar which has produced, among other horrors, a series celebrating the Protocols of the Elders of Zion.
According to the New Yorker, in 2002 he described Jews as ‘a lesion on the forehead of history.’ As a chief propagandist for one of the world’s leading terror groups, he should not be allowed into this country. After all, the Home Secretary made it clear last October that she would deny entry to Britain to those 'engaged in fostering, encouraging or spreading extremism and hatred.' Yet Jacqui Smith has yet to issue the ban on Dr El Moussaoui.
If she refuses to issue a banning order, the stink of double standards will be malodorous. She refused entrance (wrongly I think) to Geert Wilders, the maverick Dutch politician who spoke out against Islam in rather crude terms. She banned (quite rightly) Reverend Fred Phelps, the leader of the homophobic Westboro church whose members relish picketing funerals with the obscene line 'God hates fags.' It is within the Home Secretary’s power to ban Dr El Moussaoui – and she should use this power.
But I fear we can expect little action from our ‘do nothing’ Home Secretary. Dr El Moussaoui has already been allowed to enter Britain twice before, both times on Jacqui Smith’s watch. Thus far, Smith has given no indication that she will prevent him making a third visit.
In general, New Labour has form in sounding tough but acting weakly in the face of Islamist intimidation. Despite pressure from the Tories, the government has failed to proscribe Hezb ut Tahrir, the extreme Muslim group which incites hatred against Jews and homosexuals. They also failed to ban Yusuf Al Qaradawi, the spiritual head of the Muslim brotherhood whose sermons are broadcast to tens of millions of his followers worldwide. Qaradawi openly call for jihad and supports suicide bombings against every Israeli citizen. And despite a decade of robust rhetoric, the fanatical Abu Qatada remains in the UK, venting his rage against the secular nation that nonetheless funds his livelihood.
Add to that the disgraceful situation regarding Benyam Mohamed. Mohamed, an extreme jihadi who, by his own admission, spent time in Al Qaeda’s training camps, has now arrived ‘home’ in Britain. Except that Britain is not his home. Mohamed is an Ethiopian national who left Britain of his own accord in 2001. Given his extreme past, this man ought to have no claim on this country yet an army of human rights lawyers will see to it that he is never deported. Why would they when he might not receive ‘fair’ treatment at the hands of a foreign court?
This means that soft touch Britain remains a European repository for subversive ideologues and their fanaticism. So much for changing ‘the rules of the game.’
topCondolences on a sad day
25 February, 2009
We often hear calls for an end to parliamentary sparring and for consensus politics at Westminster. These calls are usually misguided, not least because a consensual approach stifles debate on vital issues. However Gordon Brown's decision to suspend Prime Minister's questions today was absolutely right, following the terrible news that David Cameron’s son had died.
The death of six year old Ivan is a terrible tragedy for Mr. Cameron and his wife. Few can fail to have been touched by the devoted care they offered to their severely disabled son. And nobody better appreciates the Camerons’ loss than the Prime Minister who lost his infant daughter in 2002.
Normally Westminster is the scene of fierce debate between politicians of highly opposed views. But today's sombre and dignified atmosphere, and the warmth of the tributes paid to Ivan Cameron, remind us of the common bond that unites us all in difficult times, a bond which we should treasure.
topThe state British mosques are in
24 February, 2009
The Quilliam Foundation, a counter extremism think tank run by British Muslims, has just published the results of its lengthy research into the state of Britain’s mosques (http://www.quilliamfoundation.org). Their findings, based on polling over 500 mosques during Ramadan, are truly disturbing and ought to shatter to their foundations the assumptions of our do-gooding, politically correct establishment. In the press release (available from their website), the foundation reveals that ‘a staggering 97 per cent of imams (clerics) in mosques are from overseas, although the majority of Muslims in Britain were born in the UK’ with some 92% educated abroad.
For the most part, these foreign imams are ‘poorly paid and with limited proficiency in English’ and are thus ’ill-equipped to navigate Britain's complex, liberal and multi-faith society.’ As Ed Husein says today in The Times: 'By importing cheap imams from poor, intellectually deprived and theologically conservative places mosques put young Britons in the hands of men who do not have the linguistic or cultural backgrounds to deal with modern Britain.’
These men are consequently unable to ‘promote a British Islam informed by British values’ and their worshippers are therefore ‘looking elsewhere for religious guidance and will continue to be drawn in by young, articulate extremists who offer an alternative narrative, cause and social space.’ The report goes on:
‘Our first line of defence against terrorism is the ability, commitment, and confidence of mosques and Muslim communities to root out extremism. Currently, we are failing. With foreign imams who are physically in Britain, but psychologically in Pakistan or Bangladesh, mosques lack the requisite resilience to challenge Islamist extremists. We cannot continue to ignore the malaise in our mosques.’
This is a stunning indictment of Muslim leadership in Britain, yet it is hardly surprising. As the Times reported in September 2007, nearly half of Britain’s mosques are being run by Deobandis, a highly intolerant and austere Muslim sect which is the spiritual home of the Taleban. The Deobandis also control the vast majority of this country’s religious seminaries and, as Ed Husain points out here, these schools are busy churning out the next generation of prison chaplains, teachers and imams. Husain rightly comments: ‘So while British soldiers risk their lives in Afghanistan, in British Muslim seminaries we allow the teaching of intolerance, unequal treatment of women, religious rigidity, the banning of music and theatre, and an end to free mixing of the sexes.’
Various spy on the wall documentaries, such as Channel 4’s excellent Dispatches programme, reveal how mosques are inviting preachers from Saudi Arabia to spread virulent messages of hate against ‘non believers.’ These demagogues have been given carte blanche to disseminate their hatred, hardly surprising when you consider that the mosque leaders who invite them in are often ideological fellow travellers.
Rooting out terrorism is more than a matter of intelligent policing, security or financial crime management. This is because Islamist terrorists (sorry to state the bleeding obvious) are not just ordinary criminals. They are dangerous jihadis, members of a global campaign to overthrow civilized society and impose totalitarian Islam on the rest of us. Their behaviour stems from a terrifying level of cultural and religious indoctrination at the hands of warped fanatics.
Unless mosques can stem this religious indoctrination from within, they will breed a new generation of extremists who will menace us all.
topWith Obama, the caution was justified
22 February, 2009
So you remember that great hope of mankind, Barack Obama, the man who pledged to erase every vestige of corruption and cronyism from politics, the man who believed in 'the audacity of hope' and who harped on endlessly about the need for change. Well now we can see this for the hooey it was. According to a report here, Obama is embroiled in a major cronyism row over the possible appointment of Louis Susman as ambassador to London. Far from being an experienced career civil servant, Susman is a lawyer who has helped to raise enormous funds for the Obama campaign.
Now there is nothing new about making diplomatic appointments on the basis of financial largesse. Robert Tuttle, the previous ambassador at the Court of St James, raised $100,000 for Bush's election campaign of 2004 and this case could be multiplied. But this is supposed to be the dawn of a new era and Obama is supposed to have drawn a clear line underneath the Bush era. Indeed the President specifically campaigned for an end to 'pay and play' politics where appointments were made on the basis of previous financial contributions.
In so many respects Obama’s first month is turning out to be one grave disappointment. Obama’s much talked about fiscal stimulus package has been criticised for its pork barrel concessions and its deeply protectionist leanings. Not surprisingly, only 3 Republicans voted for this deeply partisan measure in the Senate with all Republicans voting against in the House of Representatives. So much for bringing political parties together! Then there are the resignations of some key figures, including Tom Daschle, for alleged tax evasion. No wonder the Associated Press declared that the Daschle episode had 'undercut Obama's promise to run a more ethical, responsible and special interest-free administration.’
Obama promised a tough dialogue with Iran if its leaders were prepared to unclench their fists. The President was swiftly rebuffed by Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. He declared that normal relations would follow only if the US prostrated itself by withdrawing its military forces from around the world, and abandoning support for Israel. So much for the unclenched fist!
The Obama administration has already announced that it will send a delegation to Geneva to help plan Durban II, the successor to the infamous anti Israeli hate fest held in 2001. By attending this event, America is inadvertently legitimising the demonization of Israel and other Western nations, both key planks of the original event. Just what other surprises does Obama have in store for the free world?
topThe Abu Qatada deportation scandal
19 February, 2009
Yesterday the Law Lords struck a victory for common sense after ruling that it was acceptable to deport Abu Qatada to Jordan. Guardian reading ‘progressives’ were left dumbfounded by this ‘travesty’ of justice. How could the Law Lords act with such supine indifference to the possibility of torture? For the Guardian’s Victoria Brittain here, the decision marked ‘a low moment in British justice.’ She added: ‘The British security services and the media have successfully demonised these men, and in particular mythologised Othman as posing a super-danger to our society.’
Of course for the rest of us, people like Brittain are living on a different planet. This was simply justice long overdue. For years the notorious Qatada, a man described as Bin Laden’s ambassador to Europe, was living in the UK at taxpayers’ expense while preaching his diabolical jihadist sermons. For years, the authorities remained silent while Qatada groomed people like the shoe bomber, Richard Reid and the leader of the 9/11 attacks, Mohammed Atta. Then after 9/11, the authorities found that they could not deport him because of the Convention on Human Rights which forbade the extradition of anyone who might be at risk of harm abroad. The harm that may have accrued to the rest of us from not deporting Qatada seems to have slipped under the radar.
You might think then that the ruling yesterday marks a significant victory against terror. But before you break open the champagne, remember that things are never that simple in the UK. In 2007, a British immigration court ruled that Qatada could be sent to Jordan after being assured that he would not face harm there. A year later his lawyers defeated that ruling, arguing that it was (you guessed it) a breach of his human rights. Qatada’s lawyers are likely to seek recourse to the European Court of Human Rights to challenge the Law Lords’ ruling. You would hardly want to bet your mortgage that they would find in favour of our government.
So for the next year or two, Qatada will be able to remain in this country, pending the ECHR’s ruling. He will live at taxpayers’ expense, hoovering up the benefits of the welfare state, including today’s obscene award of £2,500, while continuing to detest the country that has given him sanctuary. And because our politicians have signed away this nation’s right to deport unwelcome guests, we may have to wait a long time before we see the back of Abu Qatada. Truly obscene.
topDepression? Recession? All we know is that the sorry shower in Downing Street can’t help us.
17 February, 2009
Is this the worst economic crisis for the last century, or merely the last 60? Are we heading for a depression worse than the slump of the 1930s? It rather depends on who you ask these days. For Ed Balls and Gordon Brown, we seem to be heading for Depression territory. The Prime Minister recently used the dreaded D word while his former economic advisor warned that we were facing the worst financial crash in a century. Neither man is a slouch when it comes to the global economy, especially Mr. Balls who used to work at the Financial Times.
It also depends on what you mean by a depression. Technical definitions are not easy to come by but, judging from the last Depression, it would have to involve rapid deflation, surging unemployment, currency devaluations, massively reduced trade and (for some economists) negative GDP of 10%. It is a protracted and severe recession with potentially socially destabilising consequences. And the warning signs are all around us.
UK unemployment is indeed surging, with the figure expected to hit three million by the end of 2009. Our latest RPI figures are expected to show deflation in the UK economy for the first time in a half century. Figures from Japan are equally worrying. The Japanese economy has shrank by an annualized rate of 12.7% in the last quarter, its industrial exports (cars and electronics) badly hit by the credit crunch.
Every day brings new and startling revelations about the indebtedness of banks and their potential write downs, the Lloyds-HBOS losses being just one notable example. The American economist, Nouriel Roubini, has warned that the Obama administration may need to spend $2 trillion to take America’s failing banks full public ownership while the situation for European banks is even worse. The IMF has warned that a second wave of countries will come begging for emergency loans and that, if their money dries up, they may have to resort to printing money. Full scale bank nationalisation, both in the UK and around the world, could be just a matter of time.
And while this financial car crash unfolds around us, our own leaders act with their usual conspicuous incompetence. It is now becoming clear that Gordon Brown’s two recapitalisation plans failed to do their primary job – to get the banks to lend to business and customers. The massive injection of capital was largely an exercise in hope, underwritten by taxpayers for the government. Then there was the disastrous merger of HBOS and Lloyds, which even the FSA’s Lord Turner admitted was not necessary to save HBOS. Nor has the government clamped down on the disgraceful bonuses being paid to staff at state run banks.
One minute they tell us that Britain is best placed to deal with the crisis, next we learn that our recession will be the worst among the developed nations. One minister tells us there are ‘green shoots’ of recovery, before we are savaged by a thunderbolt from Mr Balls. Depending on the minister, this is the worst economic crisis for 30, 60 and 100 years. No one in no. 10 and 11 can quite make up their minds. And presiding over all of this is Mr. Brown, the man who claims to he foresaw the unravelling of the global economy ten years ago yet did nothing to stop it. He created a regulatory system that was asleep on the job, run by men like James Crosby, a former chief executive of HBOS, who ignored warnings about excessive risk taking at his bank.
Recession or depression – you make your own mind up. But don’t expect much from the sorry shower in Downing Street. Masters of the universe they are not.
topDouble standards over Sri Lanka
15 February, 2009
According to this report here, Sri Lanka’s current battle against the terrorist group, the Tamil Tigers, is taking a terrible toll among the country’s civilians. A report yesterday in the Telegraph makes the same point:
"There are substantial numbers of civilian casualties, huge numbers in a small area and fighting is continuing in civilian areas. The terror has been felt most keenly by civilians trapped behind Tamil lines in the north, where an estimated 40 civilians are being killed and 100 wounded every day by shelling between Sri Lankan army and Tamil Tiger troops, known as the LTTE. These civilians are caught between a desperate rebel force using them as "human shields" and government troops determined to defeat the Tigers once and for all.”
The Sir Lankan government wants to defeat the Tamil Tigers but the group, according to a Western diplomat quoted in the report, are “deliberately stationing themselves next to civilians and when the government attacks LTTE targets, civilians are being killed.”
There are stories of hospitals coming under fire from artillery and of civilians being trapped between the two sides. The Sri Lankan military has been accused of war crimes. The government claims it is fighting against a terrorist enemy that has taken control of civilian areas and is effectively using innocents as human shields. Any familiar echoes here? And then there is this report (www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/srilanka/4613039/Sri-Lanka-plans-to-hold-displaced-Tamils-in-concentration-camps.html) where Sri Lanka is accused of planning to hold displaced Tamils in ‘concentration camps’.
So where is the globally orchestrated outrage at this behaviour? Where are the demonstrations and mass rallies against ‘atrocity’? Where are the Annie Lenoxes and George Galloways demanding a boycott of Sri Lanka for their ‘war crimes’ and where are the student sit ins denouncing ‘genocide’ and ‘ethnic cleansing?’ Why is Ban Ki Moon not calling for an immediate and urgent investigation? Why is the UN Human Rights Commission silent? Don’t the words ‘double standards’ really stick in your throat?
topParliament is the mother of freedom, not censorship, Ms Smith.
11 February, 2009
Jacqui Smith really is having a field day. She is not content with claiming dodgy expenses, ignoring illegal workers and approving the arrest of an MP. She now wants to interfere even further with Parliament’s freedoms. I speak of her unjust decision to ban the controversial Dutch politician, Geert Wilders, from attending the House of Lords.
Mr, Wilders, for those who are not in the know, is a divisive political figure whose mini documentary, Fitna, sparked protests across Holland last year. In his 17 minute presentation, Wilders warns against the Islamisation of Holland and the growing terror threat to his country. It features disturbing footage of hate speeches from Muslim extremists and chilling evidence of radicalisation around the world. Wilders is at pains to stress the Koranic provenance of this hatred, citing verses from the Holy texts which give ammunition to today’s jihadist murderers.
Now I admit that Wilders draws some debatable conclusions in his documentary. He is wrong to treat Islam as a monolithic faith, capable of only a single interpretation and, as such, his documentary lacks nuance and balance. Wilders enjoys courting controversy and some of his statements have been injudicious to say the least. But for all of that, he deserves to be heard and challenged by his political peers.
Thus it is all the more alarming that he has been barred from entering Britain. In the words of the Home Secretary, his visit would have disrupted 'community harmony and therefore public security.' Yet when British mosques invited in Islamist preachers who called for the subversion of Western values and the execution of non Muslims and homosexuals, the Home Secretary was conspicuously silent.
Thus the real instigators of community disharmony act with impunity while their critics are barred from Britain. This is the Alice in Wonderland version of security.
It was just this topsy turvy thinking that afflicted the West Midlands Police last year when they censored Channel 4’s Dispatches programme. Instead of taking action against hate filled imams, the police attacked the channel that was trying to expose Islamist hatred. The reason why (you’ve already guessed it) was that Channel 4 would disrupt community cohesion! So obsessed were the police with their minority rights, victim centred agenda, that they forgot all about the rights of the majority – that is us law abiding ‘infidels’.
For all its flaws, our Parliament is seen around the world as a shining beacon of liberty and freedom, a bulwark to the forces of repression and tyranny. That is presumably why the Lords extended their invitation to Mr. Wilders, not because they agreed with him, but because they thought his views deserved an airing. With this one decision, Jacqui Smith has infringed their rights on the most spurious grounds. Let us hope that their Lordships make a suitable protest.
topWhy did a school sleepwalk to segregation?
10 February, 2009
Julia Robinson’s resignation should worry us all. Until very recently, Ms Robinson served as the headteacher of Meersbrook Bank primary school in Sheffield and was, from all accounts, a much esteemed school leader. But she was not flavour of the week with a large number of local Muslim parents and that has apparently contributed to her resignation.
So what exactly what was her crime? Ms Robinson wanted to scrap separate Islamic assemblies for the school’s Muslim pupils (some 20%) and assemble all pupils for an inclusive, once a week faith assembly. For this horrendous ‘thought crime’ she was brandished as a racist by the outraged Muslim parents who had, for a decade, forced the school to have separate Muslim assemblies.
Now to call her actions racist would be grotesque and unfair. Indeed the charge totally devalues the meaning of the word ‘racist’ which implies irrational discrimination against a race or people. Her desire for inclusive assemblies reflected quite the opposite: a desire to bring pupils together so they could enjoy the school’s (and country’s) shared culture.
In the state sector, no religious minority has the right to segregated assemblies. As a state school, Meersbrook Bank was duty bound to follow the requirement to “take part in an act of collective worship." This act of worship had to be "wholly or mainly of a broadly Christian character". So Ms. Robinson simply had the temerity to insist on the firm application of existing governmental guidelines.
There is one question we need to ask: Why did this school, with the agreement of its former head teacher and board of governors, ever sanction separate assemblies in the first place?
topBanking rot and a government too weak to stop it
9 February, 2009
Last week we learnt that the Royal Bank of Scotland intended to pay about £1billion of bonuses to its staff. They are not alone, with Barclays and Lloyds reportedly planning similar payouts in the coming months. And how does our government respond? Alistair Darling has taken the extraordinarily ‘tough’ decision to order an urgent review into Britain’s dodgy banking practices. So while responsible governments in the United States, France and Switzerland have taken action to curb the bonus culture in their own stricken institutions, our Chancellor merely orders a review, one that will report back in the autumn and have little impact on the imminent bonus scandal.
Now most people have little problem with incentives for success. But just what success have these investment bankers achieved? Can it count as success to bring banks to their knees by years of reckless lending? Are you successful when your profligate behaviour wrecks blue chip companies to such an extent that they need state aid to ensure their survival?
RBS is a case in point. It recently posted losses of £28 billion, the single largest corporate loss in British history. Its shares, which were once valued at £13, are now virtually worthless. Their executives claim that without hefty bonuses, they will lose the services of ‘good’ workers who are needed to repair the damage of recent years.
This is bogus, self serving claptrap. Those bankers who now salivate at the prospect of six figure payouts would be holding their P45 now had the government not stepped in with its rescue package last October. Unlike their co-workers in the City, they should count themselves lucky just to have a job at all. These bonuses represent the ultimate reward for business failure and are a slap in the face for the rest of us. In the long term, they will only fuel the reckless behaviour that helped get the banks into this mess in the first place.
So what are our far sighted duo at no. 10 and 11 doing about all this? The Chancellor declared yesterday: 'What is wrong is that whereas in the past a bonus was something special you got as a reward for hard work or putting in an extra effort, over the years a lot of bankers have come to expect very large bonuses, as a right. That just cannot go on.' This is true. But if so, it begs the question why he and his boss next door have done nothing to alter it.
The government (through us) is the majority shareholder in RBS and is therefore in a strong position to influence bonus payouts. And while some will argue that it would be too heavy handed to regulate bonuses or wages, can it really be more heavy handed than actually nationalizing a bank?
There is certainly no good political reason for refusing to tackle this rapacious behaviour. Ordinary voters are hardly going to punish Labour for clamping down on the very corporate greed that necessitated the bail out in the first place. It makes the government's timorous under reaction all the more bizarre.
After the 7th July bombings, Tony Blair declared that the rules of the game had changed. The same rule now applies to the banks and the sooner they realised this, the better.
topCarol Thatcher is the victim of political correctness
5 February, 2009
At first glance you might think that Carol Thatcher had been dealt her just rewards. Using the term ‘golliwog’ to describe a black tennis player seems so utterly offensive and inappropriate as to put her beyond the pale. It is the last thing we expect to hear from a representative of an organization committed to diversity, equality and tolerance.
Many people will view her dismissal as a victory for anti racism, with just a touch of Schadenfreude that she is a fallen member of the Thatcher clan. But you should always think twice when the bien pensant brigade has a settled opinion on anything. Carol Thatcher may be no martyr but she is undoubtedly a victim of political correctness and the zealous brigades who enforce it.
Of course she should not have made that comparison. Of course, whoever heard her remark had the right to be offended and to upbraid her immediately – though apparently no such complaint was made at the time. But an insensitive remark made in private is precisely that – private. It should have been dealt with and commented on by those present, not brought to the attention of the BBC. This is the behaviour we associate with 1984 and George Orwell. It is how authoritarian states behave when they possess a ubiquitous apparatus of espionage and an army of informers. But instead of Big Brother’s cameras reporting on private conversations, ordinary people have become unpaid snoopers, intent on enforcing the straightjacket of political correctness with a Puritanical zeal.
The fact that Thatcher spoke privately makes it all the harder for us to judge what she said. Did her tone imply racial malice or was it merely a throwaway remark – insensitive, thoughtless but with little harm intended? We can never be sure. And after all, how many of us say things in private that could easily be misconstrued in the public gaze? Of course, there are certain derogatory racial insults which leave little room for sympathy, and which make us certain the speaker is racially prejudiced.
What will strike many people as odd, even insulting, is the sense of selective outrage. It is apparently OK when the loud mouthed and overpaid Jonathan Ross parades his inane vulgarity on air, but an unforgivable outrage when a reporter uses the word ‘golliwog’ in private. Despite supporting the BBC’s axing of Thatcher, Tory MP Philip Davies summed up matters neatly yesterday: ‘Are the BBC saying that Carol's comments are more offensive than when Jonathan Ross called up a 78-year-old and shouted lewd messages detailing sexual acts with his granddaughter? Indeed they are and the decision reeks of double standards.
What we are witnessing here is another example of the way in which anti racism, in itself a noble quest, has been transformed into a thoroughly illiberal form of thought control. Patrick Mercer MP condemned the victim mentality of Black soldiers and was promptly fired by David Cameron. James Watson made controversial statements about African intelligence and was treated as a pariah. For years, the critics of multiculturalism, asylum and immigration have been subjected to a McCarthyite witch-hunt, classified as racists for their 'unacceptable' views. And even today, opponents of radical Islam are still called ‘Islamophobes.’
These pejorative labels have a toxic effect, helping to stifle public debate on sensitive issues. And while there certainly are xenophobes who seek political cover to vent their prejudices, this is not true of the majority who simply want to defend their nation state and its values.
In recent years, however, there has been a furious backlash from members of the public who are sick and tried of the hectoring tone of officialdom. They no longer want to be censored by the burgeoning army of diversity officers and council officials, all of whom get paid to convert us to their own dubious agenda. It is hardly surprising that of the hundreds of complaints over the Thatcher affair – many are from people supporting the axed reporter.
Thus by responding in such a heavy handed manner, BBC executives have once again shown their contempt for viewers, just as they did over the Jonathan Ross affair. Worse, in their illiberal rage over this trivial incident, they have shown little concern for common sense and justice.
topTowards a revolution in tax policy
04 February, 2009
I have often used this blog to advocate a policy of lower taxes on both moral and practical grounds. I have argued that people should be allowed to spend more of their own hard earned money instead of seeing it siphoned off to an increasingly wasteful Treasury. The state, on this view, has no right to be a partner in one’s business. A lower tax regime also provides a much needed stimulus to economic growth and inward investment, both of which encourage the values of initiative and enterprise on which a dynamic economy depends.
By contrast, in poorer societies, the state usually exercises a draconian control over the commanding heights of the economy, dictating the flow of capital and investment as its masters see fit. We see the appalling results in the tyrannical and impoverished societies of North Korea and Zimbabwe. So arguments for statism and higher taxes will rarely find a place on this blog.
But just as appealing is the case for a fundamental overhaul of the entire tax system. You can hear a fascinating case for this on the ‘youtube’ link here The speaker, who has authored some books on economic theory, makes a case for a fundamental alteration of the tax system, exchanging taxes on income for a single tax on land value. The advantage, he claims, is that we could stave off the recurrent cycle of recessionary boom and bust which has inflicted such grave harm on society.
Land taxes were most famously proposed in the nineteenth century by the American political economist, Henry George. George argued that poverty was caused by an unjust distribution of wealth which was inextricably linked to the ownership and monopolization of land. He argued that as a town’s population increased in size, so too did the value of land around that community. As the population expanded, new infrastructure (i.e. roads, railways, streets) was required, the cost of which was borne by the community, not the landowner. When the landowner came to sell his land, he could do so at enormous ‘unearned’ profit. George believed that the concentration of unearned wealth in the hands of land monopolists, which resulted in higher rents and thus reduced purchasing power for the working population, was the root cause of poverty.
To remedy this injustice, George sought a tax on the value of privately owned land, regardless on how it was being used. He wanted the economic rent of land, as he described it, to fall into the hands of society (through this tax) rather than the hands of private individuals. This was because land, like water and air, was a natural monopoly and he felt that it was the common property of a community. But George did not advocate that human improvements on that land had to be taxed too.
In effect then, landowners would be paying rent to the government, in effect returning some value to the community which was responsible for increasing the land value in the first place. In George’s words, ‘We would simply take for the community what belongs to the community.’ He argued that with this new system of taxation in place, a government could abolish taxes on income and productivity.
Though George’s ideas were subsequently taken up by the Liberal government in their budget of 1909, they were watered down rather badly and the impetus for radical change was lost. Various economists now advocate a policy of land taxation.
One of the best things about land taxes is that they do not have any distorting effect on economic activity. When income is taxed, some people are put off from working harder. When machinery is taxed, businesses suffer. When savings are taxed, thrift is discouraged. Land taxes, as Milton Friedman argued, are probably the most efficient taxes available to society. Do watch the clip and see for yourself.
topThe campaign mantra that will come back to haunt Brown
2 February, 2009
‘British jobs for British workers.’ How that soundbite has come back to haunt Gordon Brown! The dispute at the Total Lindsey oil refinery now threatens to spawn a wave of strike action right across the UK with the prospect of walkouts for weeks to come. The strikers at Lindsey claim that firms are bringing in only foreign subcontractors to do jobs, effectively discriminating against those from Britain. They, and many like them, see jobs being given to migrant workers that could be done by British nationals.
Yet there is precious little that our government can do about it. EU law prevents the government from prioritizing ‘British workers’ for British jobs. We are part of a European labour market and the free movement of labour remains a non negotiable part of EU membership.
The response from our ‘government in denial’ is that British workers can also go and compete for jobs in Europe. As Caroline Flint declared: 'It is important to remember that open European Labour markets also allow British firms and workers to take advantage of contracts and opportunities elsewhere in the EU.'
But that hollow claim exposes the real lie at the heart of this scandalous situation. While in the United States of America, it might be feasible for someone to relocate for the right job, it is not so easy in the United States of Europe with its formidable array of national, cultural and linguistic differences. It is no easy matter for Joe the plumber, based in York, to move to Bucharest on a one year contract, when there is also no guarantee he would get the job.
Nor is it fair to accuse the strikers at the Lindsey plant of being protectionist. Of course, we must heed the dire warnings about avoiding protectionism in the midst of the global downturn. After all, in the 1930s, international trade shrank by two thirds due to the imposition of harmful (US led) tariffs. It was one of the factors that turned a global slump into a protracted and severe Depression.
But there is a big difference between impeding the free flow of goods and impeding the movement of human labour. You don’t have to be a protectionist to argue that there should be annual limits to the number of migrant workers, subject to the changing fortunes of the economy. Given the social consequences of unfettered immigration, this matter should be decided by members of our sovereign Parliament.
The problem, as Mandelson and his cronies are only too happy to tell us, is that our Parliament no longer has the ability to control migration from Europe. We long ago signed away our right to decide on this vital matter of national importance. The European Union requires an unrestricted movement of labour - period.
If you needed proof of the catastrophic impotence of our government, this is it. Forget corruption scandals in the House of Lords, cash for peerages and obscene expenses claims (though these things matter), the real parliamentary scandal is how, over several decades, our elected elite emasculated their powers by granting them to an unaccountable European body.
Not that any of this will be of much comfort to the thousands at the Lindsey oil refinery. They should now turn their ire on Gordon Brown who, at the 2007 Labour party conference, nicked the BNP slogan of ‘British jobs for British workers’ for his own political convenience. He knew that it would be illegal to implement this kind of economic nationalism but it was an attractive soundbite which allowed Brown to outmanoeuvre the Tories. It was clothes stealing time again.
The oil workers, like the rest of the disillusioned electorate, should realise that, far from being a serious minded politician prepared to eradicate New Labour spin, Brown is simply the ‘son of Blair.’ In other words, he is a headline grabbing, cynical and power hungry political animal, just as his critics (myself included) predicted all along. So much for the moral compass!
top