Posts Tagged ‘democracy

03
Feb
10

Britain declines while her elite connives

Britain in decline

Who do we call?

Military spending has emerged in the media with Gordon Brown TALKING BOLLOCKS claiming he didn’t withhold funds from the military in the run up to the war in Afghanistan. With a massive budget deficit and the widely acknowledged need for drastic cuts both parties are tip toeing around the defence budget trying to pretend it will not be touched. The government have already delayed two aircraft carriers; will they now decommission Trident?

I sometimes wonder if we are witnessing the final demise of Great Britain as a “World Power”. Theoretically the UK won the second world war, coming through with it’s empire intact. On paper Britain was still a Great Power. In reality we were up to our necks in debt to the U.S. and the people of the Empire were understandably in no mood to tolerate a continuation of British rule. The empire dissolved.

In the 1960s North Sea oil was discovered and helped support our inefficient industry for a while. But consider this: While Britain took economic advantage of North Sea oil and it’s economy prospered Germany and France did not do so bad either yet they did not have oil. North Sea Oil is due to run out in the next few years and where will that leave the British economy? In 2008 around 46% of British tax came from finance. The finance industry has now collapsed so where does that leave the British economy? I stress again that Germany has maintained a broadly comparable economy without North Sea oil, without a bloated finance sector and without hyper-commercialisation.

I suggest that with a massive budget deficit, with an un-winable war in Afghanistan to pay for, with very little industrial capability to offer the wold, Great Britain is about to have the rug pulled out from beneath it. We’ve had out chips!

Labour supporters used to say that increasing levels of global competition was merely a race to the bottom. The Tories scoffed that, on the contrary, competition would bring the standards enjoyed by the West to the rest of the world. Tell me, how is your pension doing? Has your company closed it’s non-contributory pension yet? If not, when was the last time the subject was raised. And how’s your job? Do you still have a permanent 9 to 5 job? Do you still get double time on Sundays? I suggest that you don’t. I suggest that many readers will now be part time and even be required to work at weekends at standard rate.

The one thing that the UK does have that developing nations do not have to the same extent is an established and solid democracy and the rule of law. Yet even this is under attack with new laws preventing photography of the police and a ruling party made of visionless power hungary “managers”.

Just this week Gordon Brown defended the link between MPs and their constituencies when debating the electoral system yet the New Labour cabinet is packed full of professional politicians who merely used work for the constituency as a convenient path to power. These men without vision, these people who believe in nothing, these arch manipulators have merely studied politics and the media, worked as assistants to incumbents cabinet members and then been parachuted into Labour safe seats. Check out the wikipedia entries for David Milliband and Douglas Alexander to name just two. The British elite have fined tuned a way of bypassing democracy and they should hang their heads in shame.

So, to summarise:

  • Britain grew great by having an empire.
  • Britain nearly lost it’s shirt in WW2 but was saved from the Russians by the U.S. (but at a price)
  • Britain lost it’s empire
  • Britain lived off it’s oil wealth while letting it’s industry atrophy
  • Britain became obsessed with market forces and privatised it’s public industry
  • Britain developed a bloated finance industry which collapsed.
  • Johnny foreigner started buying up all the privatised industry
  • Britain’s oil ran out.
  • Complacent British citizens and back benchers allowed a scurrilous and deceitful elite to undermine it’s democracy
  • The  elite used the threat of terrorism to introduce draconian laws and erode democracy.

And finally, it’s raining again!

Oh, maybe it isn’t that bad. The British people aren’t badly educated and the “lump of labour fallacy” means that a growing Chinese middle class will want all the commercialised palaver that we possess. The British do understand democracy and we can work hard when we have to. Arguably, we are best when we’re up against it. Hopefully, in a couple of months, we will throw out this groups of bastards who have taken control of Downing Street and we can make a fresh start.

Ask me again when the weather warms up.

30
Dec
09

Kmal Shaikh dies so that Wen Jinbao can save face – the fruits of engagement

How many need to die to save the face of Wen Jinbao

How many need to die to save the face of Wen Jinbao?

The British media is reporting that China has gone ahead with the execution of Kmal Shaikh, a 53 year old father-of-three from London who was convicted of drug smuggling in China. His family have claimed that he was mentally ill and requested a medical examination. The examination was refused by the Chinese and Mr. Shaikh was executed by lethal injection.

The British government had made representation to the Chinese but I suspect that there was some fall out from the recent Copenhagen summit where the authoritarian Chinese leadership “lost face”. The Chinese regime has a reputation for throwing tantrums whenever anyone tries to interfere in it’s “internal affairs” and this time was no exception. As far as the Chinese were concerned Mr. Shaikh had to die for China to save face.

So, the British government is now angry, but one has to ask why? Why did anyone believe that a regime that maintains it’s grip on power at the point of a gun would worry about killing one man? Why does the West kowtow to China?

The answer we are given, by our supposedly informed elite, is that we need to “engage” with China and this will bring reform. Engagement usually boils down to allowing western companies to employ Chinese workers in order to  lower costs.

This engagement is taken as an article of faith but I wonder if anyone can site an example where it has worked. I know of no instance where an authoritarian regime has liberalised because outside influences have traded with it and thereby increased that regime’s power. In fact, if assisting a regime to grow richer and more powerful is a recipe for improved human rights, liberalisation and greater democracy then surely this tactic should be tried with Iran.

Our elite are of course TALKING BOLLOCKS! Supporting authoritarian regimes makes them stronger and entrenches their totalitarian instincts. The key to this is that our elites are not interested in greater democracy, they are interested in greater profits.

Our leaders frequently use the terms democracy and capitalism interchangeably but they are not the same. Since the second world war western countries have, in general, been both capitalist and democratic but prior to the war democracy was not so prevalent.

In the UK, prior to 1832 only male landowners could vote. This gradually changed until it included most males by 1918 but women did not get complete voting rights until 1928. So the UK’s claims to be an ancient democracy is complete poppy cock! The UK was, and remains, a capitalist country while democracy is a recent add-on brought about by two world wars and the rise of an alternative to capitalism in the Soviet Union.

During the Cold War, with the threat (and implied alternative), of the Soviet Union, western countries became more liberal. Pensions, health care and workers rights blossomed. However, since the collapse of the Soviet Union, and the inferred failure of socialism, these hard won gains are being eroded. In the UK, one hears constantly of companies closing pension schemes along with exhortations that we must “compete” with China. By “compete” our elite mean that we must accept lower standards in the work place and lower wages.

Our leaders claim that “engagement” with an authoritarian regime will raise their standard of democracy and human rights but the truth is that the Chinese regime has no interest or need to improve human rights and rather than their standards rising we are being forced to lower ours.

We are told that we must compete or we will lose out, but hold on, the implication of this is that if China did not exist we would suffer some terrible fate as we would not be able to take advantage of their cheap labour. This is bollocks! The west went from strength to strength when the Soviet Union and China were both outside the World Trade Organisation. We may choose to trade with China but we do not “need” China.

It is true that the west has benefitted from all sorts of cheap goods from China. One only has to go onto ebay to wonder that it’s possible to buy a USB flash memory radio transmitter for £ 4.61 (yes , I did this!!). This is amazing value but do I need it? No. Would I sacrifice democracy, human rights and our children’s future for the ability to treat all goods as throw away items? NO! Do I want a world where goods are cheap but freedom is limited to an elite? NO!

The truth is that elites are always greedy – socialist or capitalist. Our leaders want engagement to increase profits but at the cost of democracy, civil rights and human rights. The protection from powerful elites is democracy. China is not a democracy and has shown no interest in democratizing.

We should be extremely cautious about becoming reliant on China for any key product or service. We should also be more robust when dealing with the Chinese. As a start there should be major repercussions from the Chinese leaders reckless behaviour at Copenhagen and execution of  Kmal Shaikh.

Which do we value more, democracy and human rights or a Chinese USB stick?

Related posts:
china loses face by sabotaging climate change talks
china in who’s hands?

20
Dec
09

China in Who’s hands?

Where is his mandate?

President Hu - Who made him leader?

There is an interesting article in todays’s Independent blaming China for the failure of the Copenhagen climate summit. The article quotes a source who was supposedly in the room when the heads of state were drafting the document who says:

“If China had not been in that room you would have had a deal which would have had everyone popping champagne corks…..”

“The Chinese were happy as they’d win either way. If the process collapsed they’d win because they don’t have to do anything and they know the rich countries will get the blame.

“If the deal doesn’t collapse because everyone is so desperate to accommodate them that they water it down to something completely meaningless, they get their way again. Either way they win. I think all the other world leaders knew that by that stage and were just furious that they couldn’t do anything about it.”

Why am I not surprised?

Climate Change pah!

Protestors? - pah!

China was admitted to the World Trade Organisation (WTO) in December 2001 after the United States dropped it’s veto. Since that time trade with China has grown very quickly and the Chinese economy has grown massively. The generally accepted view is that China is now OK as it has accepted capitalism. This is wrong. The regime in power in China today is not substantially different from the regime which drove tanks over unarmed protesters in Tiananmen Square just two years before being admitted to the WTO.

The West too often confuses democracy with capitalism, they are not the same. It is possible to have a democratic government that is socialist. It is certainly possible to have a capitalist government which is non-democratic and China is the proof of this.

Both China and the West have gained from the flow of trade but we should consider that, having now allowed so much industry to move to China, we have become reliant on an authoritarian regime which cares for nothing but perpetuating it’s own existence. We should also keep this in mind when businessmen and political leaders talk of the necessity of allowing the free flow of trade to countries where there is “competitive advantage”. This competitive advantage is, very often, the absence of political rights,  civil rights and the rule of law.

China may have legitimate reasons for not being able to commit to the climate change targets discussed in Copenhagen but it’s impossible to tell. The Chinese regime is not elected and therefore illegitimate and cannot be said to represent the views of the Chinese people. When one deals with regimes such as China one must accept that their word is worth nothing.

During the negotiations between the United States and the Soviet Union to limit Nuclear Forces Ronald Regan frequently used the phrase “Trust, but verify”. United States president, Barack Obama, seemed to understand this when, during a speech at Copenhagen he appeared to upset the Chinese by implying that verification was key to any agreement. The fact that this was mentioned caused the Chinese representatives to throw a hissy fit and refuse to attend various meetings.

Send in the tanks!

Send in the tanks!

And that’s another thing, China too often uses tantrums as a negotiating tactic. We are told by Chinese watchers that this anger is related to the difference in culture. Perhaps it is. Perhaps the Chinese fly off the handle so often because they are not used to having to justify themselves.

I wonder how the Chinese regime would have responded to the demonstrators in Copenhagen? Rather than  explaining their position perhaps they would simply have sent in the tanks.

This should give us pause for thought.

30
Oct
09

Blair for president? – Don’t look at his reputation says Brown

Don't look at his past says Brown

Don't look at his past says Brown

Gordon bloody Brown was on TV again last night banging on about having Tony Blair for president of the EU. When asked why we should have Blair considering his history Brown remarked that we should not be looking backward but forward.

What sort of nonsense is this?

When deciding on which individual should be trusted with the presidency of such as large and powerful organisation we necessarily need to understand if that person is fit for the job. How are we to do this if we cannot look at his past performance? Mr. Brown suggests that we should consider the future but, lacking precognitive powers and a crystal ball, I know nothing of Blair’s future.

We have too look at Blair history. We have to consider his reputation for spin, conniving and lies along with his appalling lack of judgement. Are these the attributes which we want in a president? I think not.

Another infuriating thing about this talk of Blair for president is that it all seems to be arranged behind closed doors. Nobody is arguing about whether he can gain a two third majority of the votes in North Rhine-Westphalia or whether he can rely on support from the Italian Constitutional Democratic Party because the presidency will not be decided democratically.

I don’t understand why is Blair’s name is even on the agenda. Who put it there? Is there even a list of nominees? I have not heard of one. There appears to be no formal process by which a president is appointed; a situation which would not be tolerated for a county cricket club, let alone a supra national organisation with tax raising powers and a budget running into the billions of Euros!

All this serves only to underline the inadequacy of EU institutions and the complacency of the national governments. Let us not forget this is not some ancient institution in need of updating. This is the presidency created in the latest fiasco of rule making now known as the Lisbon Treaty.

The political elite would have us believe that we can have the EU or we can have democracy but we can’t have both. They are talking bollocks. We can have both, we can have a democratic Europe. The obstacle for this is entrenched vested interests and until these are overcome and the EU is democratised we should keep it at arm’s length and definitely not put a power hungry incompetent in charge.

26
Oct
09

Visions of the future

At least it doesnt tell me what to do

At least it doesn't tell me what to do

I was listening to a program on Radio 4 today at around 5pm. The program was discussing building robots that learn and had a boffin from The University of Ulster. They discussed a lot of scientific mumbo jumbo and the boffin was asked what the potential benefits of all this nonsense was.
He replied that in the future we could have shopping trolleys which lead us directly to the shelf where we can find our desired items. He went on to say that we would be able to get our own personal genome information downloaded to our phones and the phones would then advise us on the health aspects of the food items we choose. Information on the food we chose would then affect our health insurance premiums.

I have regularly ranted against modern society and particularly against the submissiveness of western governments to corporate capital. In my view this has reduced too much human interaction to that of corporation vs consumer.

I turned 50 this year and of course it is possible that my dissatisfaction is merely the ravings of an old git but Jesus Christ! When I was a teenager the vision of the future was of colonising the galaxy, space craft and artificial intelligence. Now we have some cutting edge scientist expounding his vision of the future and it turns out to be nothing more than a talking shopping trolley and men in suits penalising us for eating donuts!

If this is progress then I ask: progress toward what?

Since the collapse of socialism in the Soviet Union and the rise of free market capitalism throughout the world humanity appears to have given up on envisioning a positive future. Instead of promulgating a collective vision that we can all work toward our leaders emphasise that we are all competing with each other and that the only choice we have is between Coke and Pepsi.

The vision of the future which emerges from such hopeless thinking is that all political power will move from elected governments to corporate capital. Corporations will become so powerful that democratically elected national governments will be powerless and our leaders appear to have no wish to avoid this this future presumably because they all have large stakes in the corporations.

22
Oct
09

Show courage, trust our ideals, people and democracy – Let Nick Griffin speak

He doesn't smoke the same cigarettes as me

He doesn't smoke the same cigarettes as me

Tonight the leader of the racist British National Party is to appear on the BBC TV program Question Time. This is a program which has run for many years and involves a group of the great and the good sitting on a panel, currently chaired by David Dimbleby and answering questions from a studio audience.

Having followed Question Time for many years I can attest that the subject to get the British people most riled was not Iraq or the credit crunch but fox hunting.

The news media have been full of controversy regarding whether the leader of the BNP, Nick Griffin, should appear on Question time and the response from the majority of political pundits is that he should not.

From what I can gather The British National Party believe in stopping immigration to the UK and “encouraging” (my emphasis) people of non-Celtic or Anglo-Saxon origin to emigrate to where their ancestors came from immediately before they came to the UK. I hear that their manifesto specifically prohibits people not of these “races” from joining the party.

I’ll state my position clearly up front. I believe that there is only one race of people, the human race. Individuals should not be picked off because of their supposed membership of some fictional race or indeed because of their religion or sexual orientation. I’m a bog standard ant-racist.

Having said that I am against further immigration to The United Kingdom for a couple of reasons: Firstly it’s too bloody crowded here already – Just look up the population density stats for the UK and compare them against other countries.

Secondly I believe that Tory and New Labour politicians in collusion with the controllers of large capitalist corporations are using immigration for cheap labour which, while it may make Gordon Brown’s spreadsheet glow with tax from profits, degrades the living environment of each individual in The United Kingdom. Bigger airports, more buildings, greater living density; all this contributes to making The UK a worse place to live.

By now, any of the people who regularly boast about their anti-racism will be condemning me as a closet racist.

But to the subject in hand. Should Nick Griffin be allowed to speak on Question Time?

I’m a liberal and I believe that free speech is fundamental to a free society and therefore I believe that anyone should be allowed to speak on Question Time. Over the past few days I have watched and listen as Mr. Griffin has appeared on many news programs alongside “regular” politicians to try to make his point. From memory, without exception, the regular politicians and interviewers have shouted him down and shouted abuse at him. These are the people who are supposed to represent the main stream of our free society.

It is easy to believe in freedom of speech when everyone is saying things that your either agree with or do not see as threatening but then we need no laws to allow this. The point of freedom of speech in a democracy is that you allow people to speak who hold opinions with which you strongly disagree and so Mr. Griffin is the test of our tradition of free speech. If we shut him down merely because we hate what he says then we are no better than the racists dictatorial regimes from the past.

Ken Livingstone was on BBC Radio 4 this morning arguing that Mr. Griffin should not be allowed on Question Time firstly because there is a court case which may find against the BNP and secondly because Mr. Livingstone claims that each time Mr. Griffin appears on TV there is a rise in racist violence.

Firstly nobody, including Mr. Griffin, is guilty until they are found guilty and secondly if we prevented all speech (other than incitement to violence) which might lead random individuals to commit violence then we would do better starting with football matches and New Labour Prime Ministers.

The interviewer asked Mr. Livingstone to explain how his view accorded with his views on Jerry Adams being allowed to speak when the last Conservative government had a ban on him appearing on TV. Without a qualm, Mr. Livingstone then amended his rule about banning anyone who may cause an increase in violence and instated a clause allowing them to speak if this would assist in helping the Northern Ireland peace process.

This off the cuff invention of rules was most instructive as it revealed the unprincipled and fascistic tendency of many Labour politicians. They like to draw up rules which people must adhere to even though the rules have not been passed into law but when they want to contravene their own rules they will change them in a moment.

Having said that freedom of speech should be available top everyone this is not the same as saying that every lunatic should be given space on Question Time. The BBC claim that they give space to all UK political parties who have elected representatives and site the Greens and Plaid Cymru. This seems like a reasonable policy.

The British National Party have two European MPs and therefore the support of a small percentage of the UK population. In a democracy their voice should be heard and I think the question time audience are educated enough to see through Mr. Griffin’s fallacious views on race and dismiss them as they deserve.

Did you see what I did there?

I used the standard attack the messenger tactic beloved of the Tories. I refrained from speaking against the idea while denigrating the messenger. I encouraged everyone to feel very pompously that we are all much more intelligent than Mr. Griffin and need not stop him from talking because of that. I was TALKING BOLLOCKS. I have seen no evidence that Mr. Griffin is any stupider than the bunch of incompetents who currently control number 10. His intelligence is not the point, his policies are.

To be fair there is an argument for why we should deny certain individuals from promulgating their views even when they have broken no laws and are not inciting violence. BBC Radio 4 carried a report this morning with a university boffin who had tracked the rise of the French right wing. He claimed that this gained considerable support after it’s leader, Jean-Marie Le Pen, appeared on television.

And here we come to the nub of the matter. How strongly do we believe in freedom of speech and democracy? It could be argued that M. Le Pen appearing on television and the consequent rise in support was a natural part of the democratic process. However unedifying the conclusion is that a proportion of the electorate are racists – and they are, we know this.

So the question is: do we argue against racism; do we allow freedom of speech and democracy to work, or do we shut down the BNP and betray our principles?

I tend to feel that the majority of supporters of parties like the BNP are not all out fascists or even racists. They are people who have the shitty end of the stick and whose concerns have not been addressed by the main parties. I believe that the mistake of most supposed anti-racists is to release their own pent up venom on these people rather than trying to understand their perspective. By ignoring their issues and condemning them all as fascists we merely alienate them from conventional politics. You don’t have to be a fascist to be a racist. The soviets were institutionally ant-Semitic yet are rarely condemned as fascists.

There is a subtext in banning Mr. Griffin which is the idea that other people are not quite as sharp as us and might actually believe him and this subtext is condescending to the general population.

We should show courage and trust our ideals and people. We should trust freedom and trust democracy. Let Nick Griffin speak. The case against racism is obvious and his arguments are not difficult to refute.

If Mr. Griffin has any legitimate concerns then let him air them and keep the regular politicians on their toes.

Sadly, though I have faith in people I have very little faith in politicians of all hues and I doubt that many “regular” politicians will contain their hypocritical self riotousness long enough to espouse many coherent arguments. But that’s nothing new.

Tonight I fully expect all the regular politicians to talk absolute bollocks in a desperate effort to distance themselves from the BNP and I expect that a lone member of the audience will get out of hand and need to be removed by officials.

I shall be watching because I expect a bloody good bun fight that, if we’re lucky, will be more fun than the fox hunting debate.

 

Read Review of the program in The Independent

16
Jun
09

Lord Rogers complaints over Prince Charles are hypocritical

 This morning I heard Lord Rogers on BBC Radio 4, Today program complaining that Prince Charles had overstepped his remit. Lord Rogers was tipped to build a new luxury apartment block on the site of the old Chelsea Barracks overlooking Hyde Park and Prince Charles has written to the sites owners complaining that the plan was unsympathetic.

On the Today program Lord Rogers was puffed with self riotous indignation (PUWSRI) and said that Prince Charles has broken the “constitutional understanding” governing the role of the monarchy. He also said that there could be “a dangerous political clash” unless the power of the royals is re-examined.

Home of the Future by Lord Rogers

Home of the Future by Lord Rogers

Lord Rogers is famous for controversial structures such as The Lloyds Building and The Millennium Dome and accuses Prince Charles of preferring classical designs. Lord Rogers said in the interview: “I think there’s a dangerous precedent that the Prince has entered into, which is very much about how he sees style,” and Lord Rogers said a committee of constitutional experts should be set up to examine “the powers of the Prince and his ability to change the political direction” and complains that Prince Charles is not an expert in the field of architecture. Lord Rogers makes mention of The Prince’s Trust which helps  disadvantaged young people. Presumably this also is unconstitutional and dangerous?

It seems to me (ISTM) that the construction of any public building is a matter for public debate and that one need not be an expert to express an opinion because large architectural projects affect thousands, if not millions, of people.

It’s interesting that Lord Rogers is so interested in democracy now that he is having problems getting one of his designs built. I don’t recall him arranging any referendum on The Lloyds Building or any of his previous buildings. Come to think of it, I don’t recall Lord Rogers expressing any interest in democracy when he was created Baron Rogers of Riverside in 1996.

In actuality Lord Rogers is part of an unelected establishment which feels free to, not only comment on, but make laws in The United Kingdom. The same unelected establishment which has the British monarchy at it’s head.
Lord Rogers does not care a fig for the British constitution or democracy but only about his own balance sheet. I wonder if Lord Rogers would quietly accept defeat if the criticism had come from Gordon Brown. Ah, but of course he wasn’t elected either.

05
Jun
09

Gordon Draws a Line….

I find so much that is going on in British politics so reprehensible that it is difficult to keep up.

Tony Blair came to power promising reform of The House of Lords. We thought this meant the introduction of democracy but Blair rigged the system so that the incumbent party could pack the Lords out with their mates.

It’s worth considering here that, though hereditary peers are not democratically elected, they are, at least,  independent of the executive. The abolition of hereditary peers and the expansion of Life Peers meant that this independence was removed without any compensating democratic accountability. So the promised reform of The House of Lords was merely New Labour spin.

Now that New Labour have run into trouble, democratically elected MPs are deserting Gordon Brown. He has reacted to this by rushing through membership of The House of Lords for his mates and making them Life Peers. He does this so that they can become members of his cabinet because no elected MPs worth their salt are interested.

By doing this Brown shows that he can rival Blair in his brazen contempt for democracy and cynical manipulation of the system.

On a lighter note, many in the media are saying that Gordon Brown has attempted to draw a line under the current spate of resignations. It seems to me that Gordon spends most of his time drawing lines under disasters.

Quotes

On the appointment of Sir Alan Sugar as ‘enterprise tsar’):

Words almost fail me. One can only imagine that Gordon hopes this will distract attention from all the other things…..Sir Alan Sugar is a television personality with a mixed business record. Other than that he has a weak relationship with business. This appears to be a straightforward publicity stunt.

- Jon Moulton, founder of Alchemy Partners

On being asked whether he had been offered a government job:

It’s none of your business.

- Sir Alan Sugar, Television personality and one time businessman

Gordon draws a line..

Gordon draws a line..




谈胡说

Images

chairs

the meeting place

trees & sky

runner

worthing beach

east croydon station

jen colin & devon in chip shop

jump

legs

cows

More Photos
Watch videos at Vodpod and other videos from this collection.

 

March 2010
M T W T F S S
« Feb    
1234567
891011121314
15161718192021
22232425262728
293031  

Enter your email address to subscribe toTalking Bollocks and receive notifications of new posts by email.