Together with the White Paper on the planned referendum on Scottish independence, there is mooted a Scottish Speaker's Conference on what powers the Scottish parliament requires to be transferred from the Westminster parliament to broaden and deepen subsidiarity in the extant devolved parliament. The new European Union constitution embeds the subsidiarity principle - that power should invariably be devolved to the lowest competent authority and that the central authority should deal only with subsidiary matters that lower levels of organisation cannot effectively handle.
The Speaker of the Scottish parliament, presiding officer Alex Fergusson, has indicated his willingness to serve as chairman of the Scottish Speaker's Conference, which the ruling Scottish National Party see as necessary '..to make progress on additional powers for the parliament. The way forward, I believe, and other parties believe this as well, is to have a Scottish version of the Speakers' Conference. This will involve people from all walks of civic life to try and reach agreement on the additional powers..'. The proposal is supported by the Liberal Democrats and by the Conservative party.
In an implicit acknowledgment that while Scotland had been ruled by the Labour party the powers already held by the Scottish parliament had not been used, the Labour party rejected the proposal, and called for currently-held powers to be called into action. The contemptuous dismissal of Scotland's parliament as having no more powers than a parish council by the Labour leadership of the United Kingdom obviously applied when Labour subsumed Scottish governance within its own party structures. It is unable to do so now.
Membership of the European Union requires conformity with its governing principles, and this is the muscle that Scotland is flexing. If a Scottish Speaker's Conference is called into existence, how much more pressing is the need for the Speaker's Conference of the Westminster parliament to discuss and determine both the changing relations between England and Scotland within the United Kingdom, and the rapid implementation of the subsidiarity requirements of the European Union within England itself.
Tuesday, 31 July 2007
Monday, 30 July 2007
Sorry
Mrs Olive Beal, who is 108 years old has been told she must join an 18 month waiting list for a digital hearing aid. A spokes'person' for the quango that is Mrs Beal's local health provider said those with no hearing aids at all must come first, sorry.
Perhaps the spokesperson who mouthed this obscene apology might care to consider their way of earning a living.
Perhaps the spokesperson who mouthed this obscene apology might care to consider their way of earning a living.
Sunday, 29 July 2007
"Baroness" Scott Young of Old Scone
Baroness Scott Young of Old Scone is fat and fifty , with a salary of £160,000 plus a year, and another 15% of that on top, awarded this June for 'hitting most of the targets' in the Environment Agency which she heads.
She is Scottish, from Perth, and educated in Scotland, where she gained a degree in Classics at Edinburgh; ( she has a science diploma, whatever that might consist in, from the University of Strathclyde too). She has not been elected to any political office but was appointed to her post and to the House of Lords by the Labour regime.
A leading example of the Labour apparatchik nomenklatura, she has presided over a total failure to organise provision against flooding, or for provision of essential services, such as a clean water and a power supply, should flooding occur, or for the evacuation of areas subjected to flooding. This remarkably ugly character, (her photograph can be seen, stomach protruding, shoulders like a wrestler, sloping shelf of bosom on the National Portrait Gallery website ) has been Chief Executive since 2000 and for 7 disastrous years clearly she hasn't done a lot except trouser up to a million pounds of taxpayers money.
But then the floods are in England.
She is Scottish, from Perth, and educated in Scotland, where she gained a degree in Classics at Edinburgh; ( she has a science diploma, whatever that might consist in, from the University of Strathclyde too). She has not been elected to any political office but was appointed to her post and to the House of Lords by the Labour regime.
A leading example of the Labour apparatchik nomenklatura, she has presided over a total failure to organise provision against flooding, or for provision of essential services, such as a clean water and a power supply, should flooding occur, or for the evacuation of areas subjected to flooding. This remarkably ugly character, (her photograph can be seen, stomach protruding, shoulders like a wrestler, sloping shelf of bosom on the National Portrait Gallery website ) has been Chief Executive since 2000 and for 7 disastrous years clearly she hasn't done a lot except trouser up to a million pounds of taxpayers money.
But then the floods are in England.
Choosing the Ground
The European Union is the Labour party's future. Unless the European Constitution can be imposed, Labour is finished. Scotland will opt for a constitutional settlement where it remains on the best of terms with the rest of the United Kingdom, even settles for a commonwealth solution to who should be the head of state, but it will secede and apply for membership of the European Union in its own name.
If Labour can maintain this peculiarly unattractive half in , half out stance with the EU, that provides the imposed bureaucracies, the democratic deficit, the export of sovereignty, the massive immigration from poorer Europe towards the highest social wage on offer in the entire EU, but offers none of the benefits, the rule of law, the freedom of movement, the use of structural and other special funding, the upgrading and unification of transport connections, the economic integration benefits and, above all, the Euro, then it can survive.
The federal United Kingdom must be maintained while the federal United Europe is defeated.
As America's 'special friend' the UK cannot accept the new European Constitution. A European state with a European armed forces and a European foreign policy won't do at all; neither will the commercial, financial and monetary independence of Europe.
But as a federal state threatened with break-up into its constituent parts and the consequent consignment of an authoritarian, democratic centralist, permanent power holder -objective party to history's dustbin, Labour cannot accept withdrawing from the EU, encouraging a bid for independence and going it alone by Scotland.
Something has got to give, but why aren't the Conservatives calling for an English parliament, the reordering of our relations with Scotland, and a reordering of our relations with the European Union? Conservative survival depends on having a redefined relation with Scotland, more equal and more just for the English taxpayers and the English users of state-funded and state- delivered services , and a wholly commercial relationship with the European Union.
Actually, that's what most English people want. An advisory referendum is no where near enough, the Conservatives need to get onto the right battlefield.
If Labour can maintain this peculiarly unattractive half in , half out stance with the EU, that provides the imposed bureaucracies, the democratic deficit, the export of sovereignty, the massive immigration from poorer Europe towards the highest social wage on offer in the entire EU, but offers none of the benefits, the rule of law, the freedom of movement, the use of structural and other special funding, the upgrading and unification of transport connections, the economic integration benefits and, above all, the Euro, then it can survive.
The federal United Kingdom must be maintained while the federal United Europe is defeated.
As America's 'special friend' the UK cannot accept the new European Constitution. A European state with a European armed forces and a European foreign policy won't do at all; neither will the commercial, financial and monetary independence of Europe.
But as a federal state threatened with break-up into its constituent parts and the consequent consignment of an authoritarian, democratic centralist, permanent power holder -objective party to history's dustbin, Labour cannot accept withdrawing from the EU, encouraging a bid for independence and going it alone by Scotland.
Something has got to give, but why aren't the Conservatives calling for an English parliament, the reordering of our relations with Scotland, and a reordering of our relations with the European Union? Conservative survival depends on having a redefined relation with Scotland, more equal and more just for the English taxpayers and the English users of state-funded and state- delivered services , and a wholly commercial relationship with the European Union.
Actually, that's what most English people want. An advisory referendum is no where near enough, the Conservatives need to get onto the right battlefield.
A Bloomsbury Education
Between Marylebone and Gray's Inn, the river and the Euston Road, lies some very desirable London. In the west there are the squares of eighteenth century houses, with gardens at their centre, Bedford, Fitzroy, Queen's, Red Lion and, moving east Russell, Brunswick , Coram's Fields, to Gray's Inn. There is the Senate House, still headquarters of the University of London, University College and its hospital - the godless of Gower Street; from the river Bush House and the London School of Economics, Lincoln's Inn, the thriving Marchmont Street offering shops for everyday life , hardware stores, chemists, greengrocers, independent bakers, grocers, to the restored St Pancras standing like a mini houses of parliament, shoulder to surprisingly friendly shoulder with the new British Library. Lambs Conduit Street, Doughty Street, and the undamaged Mecklenburgh Square take to the Gray's Inn Road. There is every kind of housing from council estates to georgian grandeur, every kind of person living in this area - families settled for generations to the students there for their 3 years' at the London colleges, from every kind of background , and every level of income and type of occupation. There are lawyers, publishers, dons, writers, financiers, paupers, old money, new money, Quakers, Anglicans, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, as well as the godless, but all enjoy the very fine religious buildings and are welcome to the help offered by all these groups if they are in need.
This is the London that many think of when they think of London, and the power elites want it all. They want to centre a London University there integrating Imperial, UCL, LSE and King's, arguing that such an institution will be a power house of cutting edge research and attracting immense funding and resources; they want expansion from the financial districts to move there; they want Covent Garden's commercial and tourist development spreading in from the west; they want a bigger centre of London and that cannot go west because the palace and the parks are in the way.
So there will never be a secondary school in Holborn and St Pancras, (for shame Frank Dobson, MP for decades) and all the ordinary community services that are in the grasp of the local and national state will never be provided as they should be there. But the rich and powerful are faced by a settled community of ordinary people with coherence and many levels of skills to hand .
This is the London that many think of when they think of London, and the power elites want it all. They want to centre a London University there integrating Imperial, UCL, LSE and King's, arguing that such an institution will be a power house of cutting edge research and attracting immense funding and resources; they want expansion from the financial districts to move there; they want Covent Garden's commercial and tourist development spreading in from the west; they want a bigger centre of London and that cannot go west because the palace and the parks are in the way.
So there will never be a secondary school in Holborn and St Pancras, (for shame Frank Dobson, MP for decades) and all the ordinary community services that are in the grasp of the local and national state will never be provided as they should be there. But the rich and powerful are faced by a settled community of ordinary people with coherence and many levels of skills to hand .
Friday, 27 July 2007
The Promised Referendum
First Minister Salmond, Scotland's prime minister, said yesterday, "Our first 100 days' commitment ...includes the publishing of a white paper on independence, which will serve as the basis for a national conversation with the people of Scotland about their constitutional future,".
The White Paper on the form of the independence referendum will be published within the next 14 days. Of course, referendums in the United Kingdom are advisory, not binding; they cannot abrogate laws, or initiate, or set up popular-driven legislation.
Nevertheless, the political force of the Scottish referendum on their withdrawal from the United Kingdom will be immense; the case for a similar referendum being held in England on the break-up of the United Kingdom is powerful but has never been proposed at Westminster. But then England has no parliament and our First Minister, prime minister Brown, sits for a Scottish constituency.
Brown will get a vote on Scotland's secession; the English will not.
The White Paper on the form of the independence referendum will be published within the next 14 days. Of course, referendums in the United Kingdom are advisory, not binding; they cannot abrogate laws, or initiate, or set up popular-driven legislation.
Nevertheless, the political force of the Scottish referendum on their withdrawal from the United Kingdom will be immense; the case for a similar referendum being held in England on the break-up of the United Kingdom is powerful but has never been proposed at Westminster. But then England has no parliament and our First Minister, prime minister Brown, sits for a Scottish constituency.
Brown will get a vote on Scotland's secession; the English will not.
Thursday, 26 July 2007
Divorce Italian style
Church and State in Italy fought off the possibility of divorce with a unity of purpose, if not means, which underlined the levels of intrusion into personal lives practised there by the authorities.
When our everyday lives become the preoccupation of our moral, legal and political governance we need more than a general election every three or four years to get their noses out of our business.
Italians, like Americans, Germans, Frenchmen, Poles, Russians (I could go on) have highly codified relations between one another and between themselves and the state. In England we were blessed, until half way through the last century, with a very small state and so made do with a general election whenever compromise between parties could not be reached; referendums were outre foreign necessities, inappropriate in a civil, English political world.
We need to rethink this view. Just as Loris Fortuna and the Divorzisti took on the force of settled attitudes to inheritance, legitimacy, the exchange of women and wealth between social groups, personal notions of happiness and propriety, the vulgarity of affairs, the relations between Church and State, and relations between the generations - all of which are central to the cheap incompetent meddling of the Labour government (well, not relations between Church and State, as Church has been wholly vanquished in England), we too need the powers of enforceable popular referendums.
Across party lines and viciously enforced party discipline, across religious edict and thunderous denunciations and threats of excommunication from the pulpit, Italian men and women voted to annul the social, political, religious and legal repression of no divorce.
But they had the means of redress, if they were brave enough to use it - and it took bravery in the villages of the south, the red strongholds of the north, to get the church and state out of their hair.
We do not. We have no means whatsoever even to express our opposition to, let alone alter, what our 'democratic' governance imposes. For a state as enormous, over-arching, intrusive in every detail of our lives as the Labour state, a single vote, when the Executive unrestrained by any kind of constitutional system, cares to call it, is a totalitarian nightmare.
When our everyday lives become the preoccupation of our moral, legal and political governance we need more than a general election every three or four years to get their noses out of our business.
Italians, like Americans, Germans, Frenchmen, Poles, Russians (I could go on) have highly codified relations between one another and between themselves and the state. In England we were blessed, until half way through the last century, with a very small state and so made do with a general election whenever compromise between parties could not be reached; referendums were outre foreign necessities, inappropriate in a civil, English political world.
We need to rethink this view. Just as Loris Fortuna and the Divorzisti took on the force of settled attitudes to inheritance, legitimacy, the exchange of women and wealth between social groups, personal notions of happiness and propriety, the vulgarity of affairs, the relations between Church and State, and relations between the generations - all of which are central to the cheap incompetent meddling of the Labour government (well, not relations between Church and State, as Church has been wholly vanquished in England), we too need the powers of enforceable popular referendums.
Across party lines and viciously enforced party discipline, across religious edict and thunderous denunciations and threats of excommunication from the pulpit, Italian men and women voted to annul the social, political, religious and legal repression of no divorce.
But they had the means of redress, if they were brave enough to use it - and it took bravery in the villages of the south, the red strongholds of the north, to get the church and state out of their hair.
We do not. We have no means whatsoever even to express our opposition to, let alone alter, what our 'democratic' governance imposes. For a state as enormous, over-arching, intrusive in every detail of our lives as the Labour state, a single vote, when the Executive unrestrained by any kind of constitutional system, cares to call it, is a totalitarian nightmare.
Wednesday, 25 July 2007
Rot
One of the largest parts of desirable England is under water. What does that do to house prices?
Another problem is the rot. Wet rot is nasty but dry rot is the black death. Dry rot is caused by a very narrow band of humidity maintained at a fairly narrow band of temperature in buildings that have been soaked. It is prevalent in the central and western parts of England.
The soaking can be due to poor maintenance (usual cause) or flooding. The spores of dry rot are floating about in the air all the time, looking for just that balance between damp and warmth in which to thrive. It grows in wood, but extends itself through mortar, under plaster, across brickwork, and causes structural collapse . It is high on the surveyor's list for any building in the central and western English regions.
It is going to have a field day. To deal with it requires specialised firms who cost the earth and rip out anything within 3 metres, in any direction, of rot evidence - floor boards, plaster, pannelling, windowframes, sashes, ornate plasterwork, structural features....and if there is to be a guarantee against recurrence, then the treatments of what is left require vacating the building for days.
So even when the ruined buildings are dryed out, who would touch them with a bargepole?
Unless great care is taken it gets into the raspberry canes as well.
Another problem is the rot. Wet rot is nasty but dry rot is the black death. Dry rot is caused by a very narrow band of humidity maintained at a fairly narrow band of temperature in buildings that have been soaked. It is prevalent in the central and western parts of England.
The soaking can be due to poor maintenance (usual cause) or flooding. The spores of dry rot are floating about in the air all the time, looking for just that balance between damp and warmth in which to thrive. It grows in wood, but extends itself through mortar, under plaster, across brickwork, and causes structural collapse . It is high on the surveyor's list for any building in the central and western English regions.
It is going to have a field day. To deal with it requires specialised firms who cost the earth and rip out anything within 3 metres, in any direction, of rot evidence - floor boards, plaster, pannelling, windowframes, sashes, ornate plasterwork, structural features....and if there is to be a guarantee against recurrence, then the treatments of what is left require vacating the building for days.
So even when the ruined buildings are dryed out, who would touch them with a bargepole?
Unless great care is taken it gets into the raspberry canes as well.
Tuesday, 24 July 2007
State Pensions Due For a Short Back and Sides
The Labour party has bought its votes with money garnered in taxes. It has swathes of people on benefits, almost 6 million of them; it has even larger numbers in 'employment' wholly funded from the tax take. All of these Labour voters have secured themselves pensions many of which are available from the age of 60, and sometimes even earlier. The pensions of those in the non-state sectors of the economy have been ravaged by Gordon Brown.
Do the state-sector workers really believe that the ravaging of the private sector (whose sustainers, whether employees or employers, would not normally vote Labour) is not going to happen in the state sector too? Many have sold their votes for a promise; a promise given by the current, and last 10 years', government regime.
The days when what a government guaranteed, what an emploment contract agreed, could be enforced have long gone; as, indeed, has the rule of law in many areas of UK governance. And when these state-employees' mess of pottage is rescinded what are they going to do about it? Go on strike? That's a riskier undertaking in modern, Labour, England than it was a decade ago.
The threat to strike by the swollen state work-force of the Post Office must be so welcome to Brown and his regime; once those 'workers' have taken themselves off home, they need never report for 'work' again.
When did anyone last use the Post Office (except for the payment of benefits)?
Do the state-sector workers really believe that the ravaging of the private sector (whose sustainers, whether employees or employers, would not normally vote Labour) is not going to happen in the state sector too? Many have sold their votes for a promise; a promise given by the current, and last 10 years', government regime.
The days when what a government guaranteed, what an emploment contract agreed, could be enforced have long gone; as, indeed, has the rule of law in many areas of UK governance. And when these state-employees' mess of pottage is rescinded what are they going to do about it? Go on strike? That's a riskier undertaking in modern, Labour, England than it was a decade ago.
The threat to strike by the swollen state work-force of the Post Office must be so welcome to Brown and his regime; once those 'workers' have taken themselves off home, they need never report for 'work' again.
When did anyone last use the Post Office (except for the payment of benefits)?
We Shall Fight and We Shall Win
"I'm going to be making a statement on security issues on Wednesday and one of the issues in that statement will be winning hearts and minds. This is a big issue and the question for us is how we can separate those extremists from the moderate mainstream majority,' announced the member of parliament for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath, Labour party leader and prime minister of England yesterday, as the country turned into a giant rice paddy.
Hearts and Minds, now there's a phrase to to conjure up images . No doubt we will soon be hearing of the setting up of Civil Affairs Units, the better to protect this 'moderate mainstream majority' from contamination by ' looters' and 'insurgents'.
No slouch, our imposed Labour leader, he has moved on from that dated, Fascist language usage of New Dawns and Third Ways; we have entered the 1960s of American touchy-feely authoritarianism and, doubtless, dominoes will be threatening to collapse in lines under the pressure of just one ideologically improper thought infecting the mass conciousness.
Herded into our secured settlements, identified, surveilled, inducted into correct thinking by our education and media systems, the overflight of our flooded landscapes by our government's helicopters is just so modish.
Hearts and Minds, now there's a phrase to to conjure up images . No doubt we will soon be hearing of the setting up of Civil Affairs Units, the better to protect this 'moderate mainstream majority' from contamination by ' looters' and 'insurgents'.
No slouch, our imposed Labour leader, he has moved on from that dated, Fascist language usage of New Dawns and Third Ways; we have entered the 1960s of American touchy-feely authoritarianism and, doubtless, dominoes will be threatening to collapse in lines under the pressure of just one ideologically improper thought infecting the mass conciousness.
Herded into our secured settlements, identified, surveilled, inducted into correct thinking by our education and media systems, the overflight of our flooded landscapes by our government's helicopters is just so modish.
Monday, 23 July 2007
If Labour Believed in Global Warming Why are Croydonians Under Water?
Years they have gone on, years and boring years about climate change and leading the way in responding and pointing at global warmers as baddies (like China and India busy overtaking every measure of economic efficiency and growth we could think of).
Tony Blair prides himself on being the pathfinder for responsible and green behaviour; spine chilling warnings issued from his Labour lips for a decade. His mad chancellor issued scottish -accented reproofs about us driving Land Rover Defenders.
Nick Drew says it all - where was their money when they were mouthing-off? Putting in place flood defences? Ensuring a properly funded catastrophe service? Appointing professionals in the Fire Service, rivers authorities, water supply firms, electrical power generation and delivery companies, committing reserve funds to highways and rail links for extreme conditions? Too costly for poor England? Then surely Labour and its nomenklatura-staffed agencies was cleaning out the drains, repairing river banks, providing alternative water courses for flood waters?
After all, this is seventeenth century technology - ask the Dutch, ask Cambridge historians: The Draining of the Fens provides an excellent account of how to cope with flood plains and marshland in rainy weather.
The English don't even have wellington boots.
Tony Blair prides himself on being the pathfinder for responsible and green behaviour; spine chilling warnings issued from his Labour lips for a decade. His mad chancellor issued scottish -accented reproofs about us driving Land Rover Defenders.
Nick Drew says it all - where was their money when they were mouthing-off? Putting in place flood defences? Ensuring a properly funded catastrophe service? Appointing professionals in the Fire Service, rivers authorities, water supply firms, electrical power generation and delivery companies, committing reserve funds to highways and rail links for extreme conditions? Too costly for poor England? Then surely Labour and its nomenklatura-staffed agencies was cleaning out the drains, repairing river banks, providing alternative water courses for flood waters?
After all, this is seventeenth century technology - ask the Dutch, ask Cambridge historians: The Draining of the Fens provides an excellent account of how to cope with flood plains and marshland in rainy weather.
The English don't even have wellington boots.
The Watery End of English Democracy
In Berlin, and Brandenburg generally it's been raining fiercely for most of July. There are news pictures of water pouring along rivers, various other large waterways, culverts, ditches, drains, water being powerfully pumped to drainage areas and away from settlements and off roads, of railway lines being cleared and checked; houses that have flooded basements are pumped dry at once and flood protected. Indeed, flood protection is everywhere, swinging into place with practiced swiftness. Huge tracked vehicles rescue any unfortunates caught in flash floods in spite of all this. People move about in waders and wellies, raincoats and waterproofs. But it's just a wet July.
The news readers and reporters speaking over the extraordinary scenes broadcast from England are simply incredulous; do they intend to just do nothing in the hope the water will go away? they ask. Cameras linger horrified on people barefoot, wading through sewage and oil contaminated flood water, rather as if they are going for a paddle. Whole towns completely cut off are surveyed from the air without a sign of any kind of intervention; occasional, histrionic helicopter lifts are filmed. In solemn voices it is recounted that this town, or village has no fresh water, no power, and no means of getting in or out. The attitude of the flood victims is a source of wonder and put down to the famous English stiff upper lip. Almost no civil disaster operations have been put in place, worse weather is forecast for this weekend. Where will it all end? They may well ask. It has all already ended in a pool of tears.
The news readers and reporters speaking over the extraordinary scenes broadcast from England are simply incredulous; do they intend to just do nothing in the hope the water will go away? they ask. Cameras linger horrified on people barefoot, wading through sewage and oil contaminated flood water, rather as if they are going for a paddle. Whole towns completely cut off are surveyed from the air without a sign of any kind of intervention; occasional, histrionic helicopter lifts are filmed. In solemn voices it is recounted that this town, or village has no fresh water, no power, and no means of getting in or out. The attitude of the flood victims is a source of wonder and put down to the famous English stiff upper lip. Almost no civil disaster operations have been put in place, worse weather is forecast for this weekend. Where will it all end? They may well ask. It has all already ended in a pool of tears.
Wednesday, 18 July 2007
Plato to NATO and back
Global governance is out of date. Much of its remnant institutional form is delaying or preventing the development of modern systems of international relations. Most of its personnel suffer from deformation professionnelle and work for the maintenance of their positions and salaries rather than the aims these institutions once embraced.
The lofty and emotional language in which those purposes are often cast does not sit well with modern economic, financial and strategic goals, it belongs with the 20th century - in its glories, pities, struggles, horrors, achievements and despairs. Which is not to say that the requirement for institutions for global governance is not even more pressing now than ever.
The United Nations, (and all its offspring), the World Trade Organisation, the Bretton Woods institutions of the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund, the outworn 'defence' pacts, the whole shebang of people on international benefits could end now.
The UN, bankrupt (in every aspect of the word), unable to command funds internationally and with the great powers refusing to bankroll unwelcome initiatives however they may fit the ostensible aims of the UN , with a Security Council refighting the last world War, and an Assembly where China and Botswana have one vote each.
The IMF, designed to sustain world demand yet now leading to concerted deflation through the imposition of theoretically unsupported, one size fits all, hyper-liberal policies.
The World Bank, lending an insignificant fraction of emerging countries investment, and lending primarily to countries that have perfectly good access to international financial markets which, on the whole, do not repay their loans; neglecting the environmental implications of investment it finances , not to speak of the internal corruption in an institution that denies finance to what it defines as 'corrupt' governments. All this applies to its sister regional development banks for Latin America, Africa, and for Asia.
The WTO, no more than a debating club; supposed to promote free trade but which sanctions protectionist reprisals against states practising protectionism; and rather than promoting the diffusion of ideas and technology, prevents this through the protection of intellectual property to extremes unrequired by the promotion of research and invention.
The International Labour Office, well meaning but toothless, has failed even to end slavery, never mind child labour, indeed has presided over their expansion; slavery is far more widespread since the end of British imperial administration.
NATO, obsolete since December 2001 .
As the world gets closer to a global economy through international trade, migration, and delocalisation of production activities, global governance lags behind; there are more commercial blocs (200) than there are members of the WTO (150); the only country that does not belong to a commercial bloc is Mongolia.
These blocs are countries' attempts to govern their economic integration which cannot be done yet on a world scale, not least because of the Gilbert and Sullivan operetta of so-called international institutions.
Power is being brokered directly, bloc to bloc, state to state, face to face decisions being taken by government leaders. Increasingly global governance is conducted by summits of these government leaders, from the G24 to the G 8, (marginally a progress from the United States dream of a G 1.) We are back to the form of international relations in the ancient world.
The lofty and emotional language in which those purposes are often cast does not sit well with modern economic, financial and strategic goals, it belongs with the 20th century - in its glories, pities, struggles, horrors, achievements and despairs. Which is not to say that the requirement for institutions for global governance is not even more pressing now than ever.
The United Nations, (and all its offspring), the World Trade Organisation, the Bretton Woods institutions of the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund, the outworn 'defence' pacts, the whole shebang of people on international benefits could end now.
The UN, bankrupt (in every aspect of the word), unable to command funds internationally and with the great powers refusing to bankroll unwelcome initiatives however they may fit the ostensible aims of the UN , with a Security Council refighting the last world War, and an Assembly where China and Botswana have one vote each.
The IMF, designed to sustain world demand yet now leading to concerted deflation through the imposition of theoretically unsupported, one size fits all, hyper-liberal policies.
The World Bank, lending an insignificant fraction of emerging countries investment, and lending primarily to countries that have perfectly good access to international financial markets which, on the whole, do not repay their loans; neglecting the environmental implications of investment it finances , not to speak of the internal corruption in an institution that denies finance to what it defines as 'corrupt' governments. All this applies to its sister regional development banks for Latin America, Africa, and for Asia.
The WTO, no more than a debating club; supposed to promote free trade but which sanctions protectionist reprisals against states practising protectionism; and rather than promoting the diffusion of ideas and technology, prevents this through the protection of intellectual property to extremes unrequired by the promotion of research and invention.
The International Labour Office, well meaning but toothless, has failed even to end slavery, never mind child labour, indeed has presided over their expansion; slavery is far more widespread since the end of British imperial administration.
NATO, obsolete since December 2001 .
As the world gets closer to a global economy through international trade, migration, and delocalisation of production activities, global governance lags behind; there are more commercial blocs (200) than there are members of the WTO (150); the only country that does not belong to a commercial bloc is Mongolia.
These blocs are countries' attempts to govern their economic integration which cannot be done yet on a world scale, not least because of the Gilbert and Sullivan operetta of so-called international institutions.
Power is being brokered directly, bloc to bloc, state to state, face to face decisions being taken by government leaders. Increasingly global governance is conducted by summits of these government leaders, from the G24 to the G 8, (marginally a progress from the United States dream of a G 1.) We are back to the form of international relations in the ancient world.
Tuesday, 17 July 2007
Dux
Political leaders run the risk of being killed. This is as true today as it has been always.
There are deaths in battle (that is rather rare these days), executions after due process, executions after false and very doubtful process, executions after ad hoc process, executions, and assassination.
Assassination attracts the most attention, and the most intricate and longest-lived of cause -of- death and hinterland scenarios; death in battle the least.
The death of Benito Mussolini has it all, in every category. Who shot him? Only the partigiano wartime aliases of those in the vicinity are known; why was he shot after some days when he was supposed to be in transfer to Allied forces (in that sector, the Americans), the theories fill books; why was Clara Petacci shot too - she was hardly Elena Ceauşescu and shooting non combatants might be frequent in civil wars but there was no heat of the moment in these killings.
On 28 April 1945 they were put to death; and later scenes that humiliated more those who carried them out than the corpses they despoiled contine to horrify. Guido Mussolini, the Duce's grandson, is asking a higher court to overturn a ruling that there can be no revelation of the true identities of the executioners, and no process against them; it was thought to be too long ago. The 1946 Togliatti Amnesty is ruled to have expunged any crime (or at least any punishment).
In their dreams it is too long ago.
Guido Mussolini has appealed on the simple ground that the truth knows no limit of time; and the circumstances surrounding those deaths are known in their entirety. He wishes to know the real names of those who killed his grandfather. If such time has passed that all of those events are history, then why not? And if it is still important, then why not?
There are deaths in battle (that is rather rare these days), executions after due process, executions after false and very doubtful process, executions after ad hoc process, executions, and assassination.
Assassination attracts the most attention, and the most intricate and longest-lived of cause -of- death and hinterland scenarios; death in battle the least.
The death of Benito Mussolini has it all, in every category. Who shot him? Only the partigiano wartime aliases of those in the vicinity are known; why was he shot after some days when he was supposed to be in transfer to Allied forces (in that sector, the Americans), the theories fill books; why was Clara Petacci shot too - she was hardly Elena Ceauşescu and shooting non combatants might be frequent in civil wars but there was no heat of the moment in these killings.
On 28 April 1945 they were put to death; and later scenes that humiliated more those who carried them out than the corpses they despoiled contine to horrify. Guido Mussolini, the Duce's grandson, is asking a higher court to overturn a ruling that there can be no revelation of the true identities of the executioners, and no process against them; it was thought to be too long ago. The 1946 Togliatti Amnesty is ruled to have expunged any crime (or at least any punishment).
In their dreams it is too long ago.
Guido Mussolini has appealed on the simple ground that the truth knows no limit of time; and the circumstances surrounding those deaths are known in their entirety. He wishes to know the real names of those who killed his grandfather. If such time has passed that all of those events are history, then why not? And if it is still important, then why not?
Monday, 16 July 2007
The Disgraceful Nomination of Livingstone by Labour for Mayor of London
Livingstone was chosen to stand as Labour candidate for mayor of London last May. His nomination was said to have been decided after the Party had consulted Labour party members across London. What form this consultation took is not reported.
That there should have been an enormous residual resentment at the closing down of the GLC, and even the selling off of its iconic building opposite Parliament, is not unreasonable or even surprising. Skylon should never have been pulled down either, that too was an act of petty political spite not delivered to the intended target but to an electorate who saw both these things as symbols of aspiration not party politics.
Livingstone's first victory, against established Labour and Conservative candidates, was a victory rooted in popular outcry against corruption on the right, and betrayal on the left. The campaign team was so small that when the Observer turned up to interview all six of them in their three tiny rooms, the journalists sneered.
To nominate Livingstone now, as the official Labour candidate, is an extraordinarily revealing disgrace. The Labour party will do anything to retain power wherever and whenever it takes it.
In London they have chosen to nominate a man who accused a reporter, interviewing him outside of the Mayor's office about who had been present at the party just held, of being equivalent to a concentration camp guard, and this after repeatedly abusing the reporter who on informing Livingstone that he is Jewish in the face of the first unacceptable onslaught, was the target of the millenial insult.
Whoever, Labour voter, Labour party member, Labour activist, campaigns for , or even votes for this man, is as disgraced as their candidate.
Whatever form of 'consultation' took place, it failed to reach, or listen to, the decent Labour voters and Party members ; they should be doing something about this nomination. Are they ?
That there should have been an enormous residual resentment at the closing down of the GLC, and even the selling off of its iconic building opposite Parliament, is not unreasonable or even surprising. Skylon should never have been pulled down either, that too was an act of petty political spite not delivered to the intended target but to an electorate who saw both these things as symbols of aspiration not party politics.
Livingstone's first victory, against established Labour and Conservative candidates, was a victory rooted in popular outcry against corruption on the right, and betrayal on the left. The campaign team was so small that when the Observer turned up to interview all six of them in their three tiny rooms, the journalists sneered.
To nominate Livingstone now, as the official Labour candidate, is an extraordinarily revealing disgrace. The Labour party will do anything to retain power wherever and whenever it takes it.
In London they have chosen to nominate a man who accused a reporter, interviewing him outside of the Mayor's office about who had been present at the party just held, of being equivalent to a concentration camp guard, and this after repeatedly abusing the reporter who on informing Livingstone that he is Jewish in the face of the first unacceptable onslaught, was the target of the millenial insult.
Whoever, Labour voter, Labour party member, Labour activist, campaigns for , or even votes for this man, is as disgraced as their candidate.
Whatever form of 'consultation' took place, it failed to reach, or listen to, the decent Labour voters and Party members ; they should be doing something about this nomination. Are they ?
Sunday, 15 July 2007
You May Turn Over Your Paper and Begin
Why are there no balance of payment problems between England and Wales?
(Extra marks will be available to candidates noting the implications of their answer for the case in favour of the United Kingdom joining the Euro.)
Economics Tripos old chestnut (suddenly wholly relevant).
Update. Those candidates wishing to discuss additionally balance of payments problems between England and Scotland may do so.
(Extra marks will be available to candidates noting the implications of their answer for the case in favour of the United Kingdom joining the Euro.)
Economics Tripos old chestnut (suddenly wholly relevant).
Update. Those candidates wishing to discuss additionally balance of payments problems between England and Scotland may do so.
Saturday, 14 July 2007
Suffrage For Little Children
Ageing populations are skewing democratic options towards providing pensions and other welfare services for the old. As there are limits on what can be provided the young, with much less democratic voice, are being squeezed.
There has been a proposal that universal suffrage should be extended (yes, it's not universal but it has gone from men with a certain level of property, to men without, to men, and women above a certain age, to men and women over 21, to men and women over 18 and it's always called universal suffrage) to all citizens, regardless of age.
Those citizens under the age of 18 (or 16) would have their votes exercised by a parent or guardian acting on their behalf. This would correct the inappropriate democratic weighting in favour of the old; who, in all fairness, have had their whole lives to get ahead, and provide for their retirement anyway.
Otherwise, to correct this old age weighting, their could be suffrage death at, say, 70. But that seems rather hard and loses all the good sense that older and wiser heads can bring.
What is there against having votes really for all, and the young represented by their parents?
Parents already vote taking their children's interests into account most carefully, so why not give them the vote?
There has been a proposal that universal suffrage should be extended (yes, it's not universal but it has gone from men with a certain level of property, to men without, to men, and women above a certain age, to men and women over 21, to men and women over 18 and it's always called universal suffrage) to all citizens, regardless of age.
Those citizens under the age of 18 (or 16) would have their votes exercised by a parent or guardian acting on their behalf. This would correct the inappropriate democratic weighting in favour of the old; who, in all fairness, have had their whole lives to get ahead, and provide for their retirement anyway.
Otherwise, to correct this old age weighting, their could be suffrage death at, say, 70. But that seems rather hard and loses all the good sense that older and wiser heads can bring.
What is there against having votes really for all, and the young represented by their parents?
Parents already vote taking their children's interests into account most carefully, so why not give them the vote?
Sleeping Dogs
No-one who, as a Catholic child, learned their catechism could be surprised by Benedict XVI's straightforward restatement of the Catholic belief on the status of the Catholic church.
Then why has he spoken? First to end any hesitations in Catholic minds on the extent of inter-faith advance engendered since Vatican II. Second, so that other Catholic stances that have been eroded by inter-faith dialogue should be clear cut once again. Third to rally the Faithful.
The assertion that the personal is political has sown the wind, and reaped some of the least attractive intrusions into our lives by the state; equally, the state is now vulnerable to an individual moral digging in of heels, and a reassertion of religious leadership that threatens the secular state.
Harold MacMillan's advice that morality should be left to the bishops went unheeded . The Bishop of Rome is gathering his forces to reclaim the ground lost to the state on morality in social and individual relations.
Then why has he spoken? First to end any hesitations in Catholic minds on the extent of inter-faith advance engendered since Vatican II. Second, so that other Catholic stances that have been eroded by inter-faith dialogue should be clear cut once again. Third to rally the Faithful.
The assertion that the personal is political has sown the wind, and reaped some of the least attractive intrusions into our lives by the state; equally, the state is now vulnerable to an individual moral digging in of heels, and a reassertion of religious leadership that threatens the secular state.
Harold MacMillan's advice that morality should be left to the bishops went unheeded . The Bishop of Rome is gathering his forces to reclaim the ground lost to the state on morality in social and individual relations.
Plum Brandy
The apricots are finished, they have all been drunk. The peach trees have got curl - and no, I don't know why or how, or even what it is except the leaves roll up and the fruit fails. I've had to take Tuscan T's advice on the onions and get those from Lidl. Local farming standards have gone soft with all these agricultural subsidies.
The plums are looking good, though I brought those trees from the garden in England. Ha!
(Gardens are another reason why leaving is not a solution; it takes years of dithering while plants are dug up, roots wrapped in wet cotton wool and silver paper, and then driven across Europe. The final great escape, complete with a botanical gardens in the back of the Saab, drugged cats snoozing under the plants, and a Lizzy Eustace moment, still makes the co-driver go vacant-eyed).
The plums are looking good, though I brought those trees from the garden in England. Ha!
(Gardens are another reason why leaving is not a solution; it takes years of dithering while plants are dug up, roots wrapped in wet cotton wool and silver paper, and then driven across Europe. The final great escape, complete with a botanical gardens in the back of the Saab, drugged cats snoozing under the plants, and a Lizzy Eustace moment, still makes the co-driver go vacant-eyed).
Friday, 13 July 2007
Fishy
The European Union negotiating round on fish and allocations of fishing grounds exemplifies Labour's problems with the botched devolution and general debauchery wreaked on the constitution of the United Kingdom in the last ten years of misrule. Previously such extensive undermining and incompetence, expressing itself from the 'war on terror' to the white fish industry could be found only in novels.
While unable to match Toodles, "whose erudition on the subject of the fishing industry was fresh and, in comparison with his ignorance of all other industrial matters, immense.", a commenter in today's Herald, who can, sums up:
'1. Scottish waters are the biggest waters in Europe. 11% of Europe's waters are Scottish the biggest of any member country.
2. The Scots don't want the right to speak FOR the UK in the EU, the Scots want to LEAD the talks on BEHALF of the UK including the other delegates from the other countries that make up the UK (we wont make them sit outside, well hopefully they will just once to see how they like it)
3. As 70% of the whole UK catch is Scottish we have the most to gain or lose from successful or unsuccessful bartering and negotiation and so are the logical choice to stand more firm than those whose economies are not as greatly affected.
4. The UK fishing industry as a whole and especially Scotland's industry has been consistently sold down the river by Westminster led negotiations, I am sure that all fisherman from all 4 countries would prefer a Scots delegate who would not give up fishing rights in order to have a better parking space in Brussels*, or to be able to expand army bases, etc . '
*(unconfirmed but probably true)
Labour in Westminster and Labour in Scotland is united in condemning and disdaining this wholly reasonable viewpoint for it deals two devastating blows to Labour and its unelected Leader.
First, it conforms wholly to the European Union of the nations and the regions ideology - Flanders leads negotiations for Belgium in the same round of talks, for instance; second, Scotland will place the interests of the fishing industry a great deal higher and more appropriately on the agenda of the United Kingdom's concerns (Cornwall's fishermen would be better served by Scotland, as would the fishermen of the eastern coasts of England and those off the Irish coast).
When Scotland brings back a decent deal for the United Kingdom's fishing industry, should Scotland's prime minister, First Minister Salmond prevail in Scotland's bid to represent their and the other nations and regions of Britain's interests, Labour at Westminster will be displayed publically, yet again, in all their Party -before -country decade of disingenuousness and disgrace .
While unable to match Toodles, "whose erudition on the subject of the fishing industry was fresh and, in comparison with his ignorance of all other industrial matters, immense.", a commenter in today's Herald, who can, sums up:
'1. Scottish waters are the biggest waters in Europe. 11% of Europe's waters are Scottish the biggest of any member country.
2. The Scots don't want the right to speak FOR the UK in the EU, the Scots want to LEAD the talks on BEHALF of the UK including the other delegates from the other countries that make up the UK (we wont make them sit outside, well hopefully they will just once to see how they like it)
3. As 70% of the whole UK catch is Scottish we have the most to gain or lose from successful or unsuccessful bartering and negotiation and so are the logical choice to stand more firm than those whose economies are not as greatly affected.
4. The UK fishing industry as a whole and especially Scotland's industry has been consistently sold down the river by Westminster led negotiations, I am sure that all fisherman from all 4 countries would prefer a Scots delegate who would not give up fishing rights in order to have a better parking space in Brussels*, or to be able to expand army bases, etc . '
*(unconfirmed but probably true)
Labour in Westminster and Labour in Scotland is united in condemning and disdaining this wholly reasonable viewpoint for it deals two devastating blows to Labour and its unelected Leader.
First, it conforms wholly to the European Union of the nations and the regions ideology - Flanders leads negotiations for Belgium in the same round of talks, for instance; second, Scotland will place the interests of the fishing industry a great deal higher and more appropriately on the agenda of the United Kingdom's concerns (Cornwall's fishermen would be better served by Scotland, as would the fishermen of the eastern coasts of England and those off the Irish coast).
When Scotland brings back a decent deal for the United Kingdom's fishing industry, should Scotland's prime minister, First Minister Salmond prevail in Scotland's bid to represent their and the other nations and regions of Britain's interests, Labour at Westminster will be displayed publically, yet again, in all their Party -before -country decade of disingenuousness and disgrace .
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
