politics
You say Tobin they say Robin
So after the G20 decided that a Tobin tax was a bad idea it has risen zombie like at the behest of varies lovies lefties and media pundits under the new name of The Robin hood tax. Which is far more fun sounding, though one has to ignore that Robin Hood was if the legends can be believed mainly against taxation, and has it’s own FaceBook page. Of course all of the problems pointed out last time about the Tobin tax still apply, it requires global enforcement else all of the transactions to be taxed will just change jurisdiction, it needs to be worded such that a minor change in the transactions won’t make them exempt and of course as observed by the Salted Slug if adding o.o5% was so painless the traders would already be charging 0.05% more. And all of that aside the banks will pass on these charges to theier customers in one form or another even if it’s just lower interest rates, and it will need to be administered and Governments don’t have a terribly good track record of move money from taxes to the “poor” very effectively. Oh and of course the banking crisis wasn’t caused by ForEx traders that a tobin tax is aimed at, but by poor credit and risk management. So the “Robin Hood” tax isn’t even going to affect the right group of “evil” bankers.
If people are so concerned about helping the poor why not ask the main parties the same question as Norman Tebbit is asking? Namely why are people that are considered to be so badly off they qualify for benefits at the same time expected to pay taxes? What sense can it make to pay one bunch of beauracrats to give them money whilst at the same time paying another lot to take it back off them? Could just not taking some taxes be a much simpler and better solution to helping the poor than trying to construct a globally agreed bureaucracy to take taxes from one group of people to give to another group of people that are also being taxed?
For those that say it would be used for the truly needy nations and not for the poor in the west, how well do you think that will work? Who’s going to decide which nations get to partake of this global bounty? Would it again not be simpler to just let these poorer nations off the debt they owe to other governments, or at least the interest? Or if that’s going to far how about removing the various trade barriers that help to stop the third world competing on a more even footing?
Of course if your goal isn’t to actually help the poor but rather to establish global control over banking and financial trading… do carry on.
Oh I should mention there is also a FaceBook page for people who think the Tobin tax is a stupid idea.
A worrying sort of sense
Just read a rather disturbing article by Mr Hitchens of the Mail on Sunday (hat tip to The Salted Slug). Disturbing because it makes an awful lot of sense in suggesting that if we want rid of Labour and a real change in politics then the best thing could be if the Tory’s lose and Labour get in. As many others comment I’m not sure I could face voting Labour but Mr Hitchens reasoning is sound. Here’s a taster but go read the whole thing.
I give myself a great deal of trouble by attacking the Tories, the party most of my readers want to support. Why do I do this, condemning myself to many angry and often personally rude messages from affronted people? I could easily make everyone happy by quietly dropping this campaign. It would save me hours spent writing letters and e-mails to Tory loyalists who absurdly accuse me, of all people, of wanting to keep Labour in power.
But I cannot, because I think we now have a unique opportunity to remake British politics and recapture Britain from the people who have messed it up and trashed it for so long. The next election cannot change the government. But it can change the opposition – from an ineffectual, useless, compromised one, into an effective one genuinely opposed to what New Labour is doing.
And such an opposition, no longer weighed down by the awful record of the Tories and their miserable reputation, could throw New Labour into the sea, perhaps within five years of coming into being.
The destruction of the Tory Party, which is now both possible and desirable, is the essential first step to this. In our two-party system, new parties arise out of the collapse and splitting of those they seek to replace. They cannot be created until that collapse, and that split, have begun. A serious, undoubted and decisive defeat for the Tory Party at the next election would make this possible and likely. Such a defeat is possible, despite the events of the past few weeks, and can be aided by voters simply refusing to waste their votes on a party that is both likely to lose, and certain to betray them if it wins.
UKIP a correction
I really must apologise, my previous article UKIP losing the plot I’d rather presumed that UKIP wanted a blanket ban on the burqa. However as Dick Puddlecote points out over at Old Holborns this isn’t actually the case. They just want to ban it in public buildings and allow for it to be banned in private buildings as well and they actually want to ban “anything which conceals a woman’s face“. Which is marginally more reasonable, except why just women’s faces? Surely experience tells us that men with covered faces are far more likely to be a problem? And what does it matter if you’ve got your face covered in a library say? Or if they word it really well in a council run community centre attending a group for Islamic women? Also surgical masks? I’m very sure that you can’t over estimate how badly a law can be worded, and how stupidly it will subsequently be enforced.
So given that they single out both women and Islamic garb, I’m going to stick by my previous conclusions even though I did misread the report and think they were after a blanket ban on just one type of garment.
If they proposed that it all face coverings could be requested to be removed when security concerns or the establishment of identity required it, that’d be far more reasonable – but one would hope that was the law already? And as for private buildings given that hoodies, crash helmets and even hats are banned from all sorts of places wouldn’t it just make more sense to allow private venues to ban whatever clothing they like? what with them being private property and all?
So my final question stands failing a LPUK candidate, as UKIP seem to be trying to join the rest of the authoritarian part who’s left to vote for?
UKIP losing the plot
The news is currently full of reports that Lord Pearson head of UKIP has announced that they’d like to ban the burqa. Oddly there’s nothing about this on the UKIP site, which makes me wonder how well thought out it is. Equally puzzling is why UKIP feel the need to announce such a policy, I don’t believe that “white working” class votes actually care that much about women dressing as daleks, and as Archbishop Cranmer expounds so well this policy really has nothing to do with UKIPs stated aim of getting us out of the EU. It’s got the Furries worried as well.
Unfortunately what it does do is add one more party to the list of authoritarian shits that want to restrict our freedoms and to control us by banning things. So no point in voting Lib/Lab/Con, the greens and BNP are no better so had been thinking I could vote UKIP to get out of Europe. But no. now it looks like the getting out of Europe comes with the same authoritarian, dog whistle package as all the rest. Best hope that LPUK and independents/jury team make a good showing as we’re running out of options for people actually in favour of freedom.
Does anyone have any idea what UKIP were thinking other than to grab some cheap headlines by shooting themselves in the foot?
update Leg Iron wonders if they’re not all trying to lose, there’s also a rather interesting take on the whole “ban the burqa” fashion over at Feminazery observing that banning it is as restrictive as enforcing it, and that given that fantasies of sex or revealing clothing can be seen as an excuse for rape that perhaps wearing a niquib or burqa might not actually be a very rational choice.
Another must read post
The leader of the UK Libertarian party has posted a rather good polemic over at The Devils Kitchen however don’t read it there, go and read the copy up at Captain Ranty as his introduction is rather fantastic.
In summary though as has been observed in many places and times before, soon we get to vote and we can either vote for more of the same be they wearing blue, red or yellow rosettes or we can vote for something different. Given how bad things are and how much worse they’re likely to get now is not the time to vote for more of the same.
Update A rather good article by Peter Hitchens on why the Tory’s will be more of the same
More on Carter fuck
As there’s a few more commentaries around on the Guardian gagging order i thought it only right to help improve it’s ineffectiveness to link t a few of them. The general consensus seems to be that the question cart-fuck don’t want us to know about is:
Questions for Oral or Written Answer beginning on Tuesday 13 October 2009
61. Paul Farrelly (Newcastle-under-Lyme): To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what assessment he has made of the effectiveness of legislation to protect (a) whistleblowers and (b) press freedom following the injunctions obtained in the High Court by (i) Barclays and Freshfields solicitors on 19 March 2009 on the publication of internal Barclays reports documenting alleged tax avoidance schemes and (ii) Trafigura and Carter-Ruck solicitors on 11 September 2009 on the publication of the Minton report on the alleged dumping of toxic waste in the Ivory Coast, commissioned by Trafigura. (293006).
Though spy Blog high lights some other possibly interesting questions also being tabled.
According to Guido the report they’d really rather we didn’t here about is this one.
Other commentaries that are probably far more useful to read than this one can be found at:
Ministry of Truth, Dizzy Thinks and Iain Dale
Update A lot more on the Carter-fuck/Trafigura business on the Guardian. There’s also a Petition on number10 to request that press freedom to report Parliamentary business should be enshrined in law. Probably won’t do much good, but never hurts.
Update 2 Guido is reporting that Carter-fuck have thrown in the towel. Having managed to achieve precisely the opposite of what was intended. As explained rather well by Samizdata.
Update 3 Really can’t neglect the excellent article by Mr Eugenides
Plugging again
Came across this chap in the comments on Charlotte Gore.
Now I don’t live in Dagenham and Rainham, I looked at places there once when I was moving out of Southend, and I doubt if anyone that could vote for him reads this. But you never know, so if you are from that area or know someone who is go have a read of Gordon Kennedy’s site. He’s planning on standing as an independent in Dagenham and Rainham and from what he’s written seems like a someone who might well be worth a bit of support (could anyone be much worse than the current incumbents?).
According to his website:
“I am doing this because I am tired of shouting at my TV, and listening to the lies of politicians. All I have is a chance, a tiny chance that somewhere in Dagenham and Rainham the voters will not stay at home, but try to make a change.”
Which seems like a damn good motive to me, so go have a look at what he has to say and spread the word and maybe someone who can vote for him will hear about it.
P.S. I really like his suggestion about how the CPS should work:
“Justice should be blind, prepared cases should be considered in the first instance by the Crown Prosecution Service only by a reference number. I would like the judges free of political manipulation, and if the minimum penalties are too soft, then we should change the Law.“
Turn out for the election
Tomorrow is the European election, which is really to all intents and purposes a sham designed to con us into thinking that the EU is in someway democratic as Archbishop Cranmer so eloquently explains. From my local experience it seems that Labour and several other parties standing don’t care much as they’ve not seen fit to send me anything to explain why I should vote for them.
I’m not sure that actually voting tomorrow is that important, but what I am sure is that going to the polling station and putting something on the ballot paper is hugely important. Old Holborn isn’t going to put anything on his paper see in commments, which I think is a mistake if you reject the whole scam write that on the paper. Spoiled papers do get looked at sometimes and a huge turn out of spoilt papers would be significant. Spoiling your paper doesn’t lend your support to the enterprise but does let them know that you’re not disinterested. Read Richard LittleJohns article for an excellent explanation of this, though he suggests writing a specific message.
There are a lot of people out there convinced that if the BNP get a seat or two it’ll surely mean the end of democracy. But given that the elected part of the EU is just so much window dressing I don’t care, and neither I believe do the main parties. Despite all the talk of the impact of the minor and independent parties getting seats I’m not convinced, there will be some articles written and much hand wringing and then things will carry on as normal as no one pays any attention to the EU anyway – at least not in the mainstream media in this country. No what I believe would actually frighten our politicians and media is a high turn out as Anna Raccoon reports turn out is usually pitifully low. Such low turn out tells the politicians that we don’t care and we’re not watching, the idea that we are involved and do care enough to spend 5 minutes scrawling on a bit of paper that I believe would worry them, and far more than any number of minor parties getting seats (which will be written off as backlash and just the electorate being upset – as long as the turn out remains low).
I am still torn as to the best option, is it voting for a party you agree with in the hope of making a difference and thus legitimizing this sham of an election, or spoiling the appear in the hope that enough other people will and that the message of a rejection of the system as it stands gets across. I am however certain that the worst possible thing to do would be to not make any mark on the ballot paper and thus remain uncounted. So tomorrow please find the time to go to your polling station and write something on your ballot paper, I don’t care (and don’t believe it matters) who you vote for, nor even if you just spoil your paper as long as you do something as the idea of an active and involved electorate is what they really don’t like.
Update Rather good post from Old Holborn about just how little difference voting will make, so maybe ballot spoiling is the sane course of action.
And the award for not getting it…
Goes to Nadine Dorries supported by Iain Dale, though it was closely contested by Anthony Steen. I shall leave commentary on Ms Dorries amazing car crash of an outburst to others, as quite frankly I’m past caring about MPs not getting it. I’ve seen a couple that have understood what the problem is (but unfortunately only on TV at work whilst getting coffee so can’t name names) they’re news, the more common not getting it has had pretty much everything said. Though Ms Dorries claims about the Barclay brothers do take it to a whole new level (links to the interviews via Plato says and commentary by Behind blue eyes and of course the indomitable Leg Iron).
However it’s Iain’s fantastic supporting role that I’d like to consider, as it really is quite impressive. Apparently “the public” , amongst which from the phrasing I must assume Iain doesn’t count himself, aren’t in the mood to listen to the “very valid indeed” . Well as a member of the public I’ve been listening , listening quite lot in fact and I’ve heard very few valid points being made. Unlike Iain I do have to differ with the view expressed by the archbishop of Canterbury in that obviously the point hasn’t been made for if it had we’d not have the likes of Ms Dorries complaining about how beastly it all is, nor Mr Steen claiming we’re all just jealous. Sadly Iain doesn’t enlighten us as to what these very valid points are that we’re all ignoring, so I’ve no idea how valid they are or if they’re ones I myself have been ignoring or just haven’t heard. Perhaps he means some of Ms Dorries points such as how their tax free allowances have always been counted as part of the salary (which must suck for London MPs who don’t get the ACA), who knows it will have to remain a mystery.
To return to Iain he feels that we the public are somehow wrong to blame all MPs, as some of them are “totally blameless” and here he comes so close to understanding why we’re angy at all MPs but manages to swerve away from understanding at the last moment. For he goes on to say “the public regards them all as condoning a system which has been used to line their pockets.” , which according to Iain is down to the whips and the fees office encouraging them to view it as a top up salary (yep it’s that nasty mean system forcing MPs to fraudulently claim money again). So according to Iain the nasty mean system encouraged MPs to trough at our expense and Ms Dorries tells us that it has “always been known and has always been counted as part of an MP’s salary“, yet we are wrong to blame all of the MPs for condoning this system they all knew about yet somehow never managed to speak out against until the Telegraph had the audacity to point out that perhaps it stunk rather a bit. See it was that nasty system and everyone knew about it, it’s just us poor deluded public that think that claims were really only meant to be for expenses incurred by MPs in the course of their duties, tsk silly us. But dear dear Iain he’s prepared to give us some time to reconsider how we really feel about MPs either enriching themselves at our expense or keeping silent about their mates doing it, I mean how dare we expect our representatives to look after our interests and properly hold the system to account? Still as Iain puts it: “The public view it as wrong, so there’s little point in banging on about it at the moment.” so once we come to our sense I assume we’ll realise that it wasn’t actually wrong charging us for plasma TV’s, duck islands, false mortgages or anything else that could be slipped past the fees office.
Iain feels that it would be best all round if the politicians stayed quiet for a bit, presumably to let us the public calm down and remember how to tug our forelocks and doff our caps. Iain has gauged the public mood and determined that: “No one wants to hear from them. The public don’t want a running commentary. They don’t want to hear any politician defending the past, defending the status quo or feeling sorry for themselves.” This would make me, and statistically at least a few other people, No one – as I do want to hear from them. I want to hear from those that haven’t abused the system to know why they didn’t speak out before, I want to hear from the likes of Mr Steen so I know how little our representatives think of us and most of all I want to hear from the party leaders and the “blameless” MPs what they’re going to do to repair the damage they’ve allowed to occur after all everyone knew about it. He’s even wrong to say that I don’t want to hear them defending the past for if I as a member of the public only “view it as wrong” then I want to know why my view is incorrect. I want to hear them defend the status quo so that perhaps they can explain why we should ever trust them again and why bloody revolution isn’t our best choice. I even want to hear them feeling sorry for themselves, but that’s just because I’ve got a sick sense of humour, and it’s a long weekend and I’ve got some beer in.
I utterly fail to understand why at this time when we are more engaged with politics than we have been for years, Iain things it would be better if everyone just stopped talking about it. Is he hoping some exciting twist in celebrity apprentice get me out of here will distract us? Would the front pages talking about Baby P and missing Maddie do for that? Orperhaps we should be talking about the economy instead and the down grading of our national debt rating? After all we have a parliament that gets confused over simple expense claims, forgets when it’s paid off mortgages, so why on earth would we worry about our credit rating falling?
Just for the record I do think that MPs should have somewhere in London they can stay and that it should be reasonably furnished. But every item must be accounted for and when they leave politics it can all be sold at auction to recoup our money, the same goes for any property they buy with our money. They do have expenses that should be met and some of these are being lumped in with the actual abuses of the system as Dizzy observes. Though I would observe that for the rest of us if we used that sat nav for something other than work it would cease to be an expense and become a benefit in kind and taxable. I even think that they probably are somewhat underpaid, taking 4 years off work can really put a dent in your career and we want useful people in parliament, not just people who can afford 4 years out due to wealth or general uselessness. But none of that excuses the profligate abuse of the system by individual MPs that we’ve seen, nor the silence on the issue beforehand by “blameless” and decent MPs.
Which is why despite Iain wishing otherwise this blogger at least, and I expect many others, won’t be zipping it.
Here comes the new system same as the old system
I read about this in one of the free rags on my way home but don’t tend to trust those, but having now read it in the Telegraph it does in fact seem that the great answer to the problem of this terrible system which caused all of the trouble is…. a quango! of unelected unaccountable “independent regulators”! Independent regulators having worked so well in so many other fields, and wasn’t the fees office supposed to be independent? How can a government appointed regulator be any more independent than some nameless civil servants?
The speaker is to be made purely ceremonial destroying yet more of our history and tradition. Giving up more of parliament’s sovereignty and handing over more power to unelected unaccountable placemen. Who after all is going to hold this new body to account, the MPs who depend on it to have their expenses approved? And who’s going to appoint these regulators, the MPs who they’re meant to be regulating? How can this in anyway be an improvement? Burning our Money sums it up rather well, as this body can’t report to the government as then it’s not independent and the government was put in place to resolve issues with every other alternative. Unless of course we just get rid of parliament and perhaps hand our legislature over to Brussels?
What on earth is wrong with MPs accepting responsibility for their own actions, reporting their full expenses to the electorate they represent to audit as they see fit? The expenses system absolutely needs reform but hiving it off to another quango isn’t the answer. Transparency, accountability to the electorate and acceptance of individual responsibility for their actions by our representatives is. After all no-one (as far as we know) held a gun to any of their heads and forced them to make bogus claims. Let them be subject to the law as are the rest of us and let legal proceedings deal with those that have broken the law, and let the threat of that and full public audit of their accounts in future serve to keep them honest. Reduce and simplify what expenses are still needed (and I do accept that as in all jobs some expenses are required), but beyond that parliament should accept its responsibilities both individually and collectively.
The one thing that has been worse for the reputation and dignity of parliament than the fraud and the troughing has been the almost unending buck-passing and claiming of incompetence (or as they’d put it “honest mistakes”). If they can’t manage to submit receipts properly then how can they possibly oversee public spending, and if they won’t accept responsibility for their own actions how can we trust them to hold anyone else to account?
Reading Daniel Hannan’s piece on the matter the thing that really gets me is this from Gordon Brown:
“Other public bodies, he asserted, were now subject to external regulation.”
Does he not get that Parliament is meant to be the external regulator, the only other forces that should ever be supreme above Parliament are the law of the land, the electorate and the monarch in whose government he serves, Meanwhile I await the imminent announcement of “off-gov” with an increasing sense of rage and despair.
Update commentary along similar lines from Dizzy Thinks and Guido
Update the 2nd and more of the same from Iain Dale and LPUK
UK terror threat status
- Severe 2010/01/25